89 Comments

1. Beto Ochoa:

I’m a Democrat whose mother headed the Democratic Women’s Club in Austin, Texas for nearly a decade and whose father worked for LBJ for many years. They were hard line conservatives until the seventies and there was a decided swing left. I believe Viet Nam left such a bad taste in our mouths that it fueled the swing left. Hell, I was leading the charge. We became socialists no doubt about it. We tried to tear down every value system existing. It was going to be the Utopia it was supposed to be. We didn’t realize it was our children’s money we were spending until we got older. Then I began to see how rabid the hard liners were. It wasn’t the Conservatives who were so hate filled, it was us. People like Rush Limbaugh are the result of people getting fed up with being force fed the “News”, the assault on the courts , deconstruction of the Constitution and increasingly shrill rhetoric and ad homonyms. The real power in the party now belongs to the Clinton Machine. It has divided the USA more than any other modern dynamic. It splits the public into smaller factions with race baiting, class envy, fear, Multiple crazy ass fringe groups etc. The MSM belongs to it and is its mouthpiece. It is THAT machine, with its criminal socialist agenda, that has undermined our rights and created a fascist state inside the Democrat Party. I voted for Bill Clinton believing he would bring change. He did, now moderate voices are shouted down within the party and the ridiculous shenanigans our Democrat representatives pull. Like leaving the state to try and keep the districts gerrymandered like they had been for the last fifty years and ESPECIALLY the Florida vote tragedy. Yes, tragedy. It was a tragedy that the DNC tried an attack with the courts. That episode probably hurt the nation as much as 9/11. Maybe more. Then the whining over “What the eeeevil Republicans have done to our rights bulls**t. Clinton signed a slew of “Executive Orders” that undermined the bill of rights. Just to test one out, the justice department sent federal officers to execute an illegal warrant that resulted in nearly 90 people dead in Waco. The majority were children, burned to death in a suspect fire. Janet Reno was responsible for more murdered children than McVeigh and he got the needle. Ann Richards was governor at the time and not a peep of recrimination came from her office. What was worse, my fellow Democrats did NOTHING. I was told to shut up by my fellow party members, don’t make a fuss over a few loonies. When the Feds started kicking in our doors and killing women and children my opinion of Clinton changed. He never did enough about people blowing up our embassies or blowing up our sailors but he certainly put the screws to any right leaning, Christian domestic dissenters.

The Jury’s still out on this President for a rational and truthful person with any integrity. I think he’s a good President but he spends too much money.

The only power the people still have is the vote; but what are the Democrat choices? Pathetic and worse. I swear they’d sell our mothers to pirates to win elections and gain power. So here I am with my eyes open and without the representation I felt I once had. The DNC is a danger to us all. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Bills way or the highway. No dissent permitted

Sep 28, 2004 - 3:18 am 2. Veeshir:

You said

We’ve reached an impasse in our society where political victory is more important to some than civilization victory.

Sounds a lot like the fall of Byzantium or Rome. I don’t know if I would be that alarmist, but the parallels are there.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:41 am 3. jerry:

Not since 1864 have the Democrats engaged in such a malicious and treasonous campaign to defeat the incumbant in the White House. I think it would be a good ad campaign to compare John Kerry to Gen George McClellan. The RNC could call it the “Return of the Copperheads” campaign.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:43 am 4. Jonathan:

I got the sense a long time ago that there are many out there who bask and relish every bit of bad news out of Iraq. MSM seems to lead or at least stoke that fire.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:52 am 5. Knucklehead:

Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. They are on the other side and have been there for a long time.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:04 am 6. oceanguy:

The money quote for me:

What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around?

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:05 am 7. superhawk:

Hitch has hit the nail on the head. When Lockhart made the comment about Allawi being an American puppet with the MSM STILL looking for Allawi’s speechwriter the Kerry campaign should have fired Lockhart THAT AFTERNOON. Couple that with Sister Kerry’s outrageous statements to the Aussie press and you’ve got to ask the question just WHO John Kerry would have in this “expanded” coalition?

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:09 am 8. Mark Poling:

I’ve said in a couple of places that my ideal outcome for this election would be for the Democrats to retake contol of at least one house of Congress (to moderate Bush’s fiscal and social policies) and Bush win convincingly (to keep the Democrats’ idiots from foreign policy).

But maybe the Dems need a thorough asterisk kicking to make them wake up and smell the coffee, to wit: Running on a platform of America the Evil will get your clock cleaned, your beer bogarted, and your cuties voting Republican.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:22 am 9. Wenda:

My brother–who protested Vietnam, adopted two Vietnamese orphans, has never voted Republican, shook money trees for Denise Majet (sp?)–has decided not to vote for Kerry. His reason? The comments re Allawi, which occurred at the same time as the SwiftBoat Ads on Kerry’s talks in Paris. My brother links the judgment shown in the two.

“There are limits to dissent,” said my brother. “There is a point at which they represent a fissure in judgment, from which you can’t recover.”

I now see something hopeful resulting from Kerry’s candidacy. I have despised him for reopening old wounds–which he has–but the result seems to be unexpected, at least to me. Old alliances are breaking; but new ones are rising. We are discovering, or reminding ourselves, that people behaved with honor, and dishonor on both sides of the issue. People with honor are coming together, and people with dishonor . . . are flocking to John Kerry, and making dispicable “puppet” comments about Allawi, and becoming marginalized.

Those will be the new political divisions, whatever name they take.

The Elizabethans had a dramatic form–the Scourge of God play. The idea, as I remember it, is that one character took on all the evil in the world, and when he died at the end, the evil died with him. Richard III is an example–the play, not the historical man.

I wonder if John Kerry isn’t doing that with VietNam. He will be defeated, and take the toxins with him.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:23 am 10. Mark Poling:

Roger, I don’t know if many people are still having trouble posting (my guess is they are) but what fixed it for me was going to the TypeKey Account Preferences page and making sure the following option was checked:

“When you comment on a weblog, send the weblog owner your email address

Please note that some weblog owners will not accept comments unless you send them your email address. Weblog owners often want to receive a commenter’s email address so that they can continue conversations privately.”

Once I turned that option on, I could then post.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:26 am 11. jerry:

Mark:

If you think Bush has been spending too much money how would the Democrats holding one house reduce those expenditures. The Democrats accuse Bush of spending too little not too much. Their argument for higher taxes may be couched in terms of “balancing the budget” but the truth is that they want to have even more money to spend. They opposed Bush’s education and medicare drug plans because they weren’t generous enought, not that they were too expensive. If Bush has to work with a Democratic controlled house or Senate the bill goes up not down.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:27 am 12. Mark Poling:

Jerry, I’d be counting on knee-jerk oppositionalism from the Democrats. Maybe that’s not the way to bet, but at least debate on fiscal policy would be louder.

Of course, worst-case scenario would be a race to see who could propose the biggest budget. I don’t discount that possibility at all, but at least each side would spend more energy trying to explain what they think the money would be buying.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:31 am 13. jerry:

Mark:

What usually happens is a bidding war forcing expenditures up. It’s like the free agent market in sports. When you have two groups vying for the same constituency, the price goes up not down.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:44 am 14. Mark Poling:

Jerry, I understand your fiscal concerns about a split government; something like your “race to see who could spend more” happened under Nixon, if I remember correctly.

I guess what I’d like to see is more real debate, and more willingness to compromise, in fiscal matters. Call me a dreamer.

On the other hand, the fruitbats in Congress really do bother me. Rick Santorum is a great example of why I can’t call myself a Republican. It should hurt to be that much of a jerk.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:05 am 15. David Thomson:

Christopher Hitchens needs to take his argument one step further: John Kerryís campaign really doesnít believe that we are in a war against Islamic nihilists who hate us for being ourselves. Iím convinced that at least subconsciously the elitist leadership of the Democratic Party are convinced that America has done something to enrage the terrorists. Changing our policies particularly on Israel should quickly dampen their anger. Ultimately, the Muslim extremists are victims of Western imperialism. We are merely experiencing the blowback that our nation so richly deserves.

I long ago came to the conclusion that the attitudes concerning the war on terror could be broken down into two camps. Folks like myself agree with Bernard Lewisí view that Islamic rage is primarily due to their inferiority complex. The Islamic world is now a second class player on the worldís stage. The late Edward Said instead contended that we filthed on the sons of Mohammed. Why shouldn’t they hate us? We supposedly acted despicably towards them.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:28 am 16. Syl:

Hitch is furious but he’s not alone. I think once individuals decide on Bush they simply can’t stand to listen to Kerry and his apologists and enablers anymore. If I didn’t walk away from the TV everytime I heard that godawful drone of Kerry’s or see his snake-charming hand movements (thanks Terrye…I can’t get that out of my head now) I’d be banging the table in anger and disgust.

The pessimistic defeatist attitude and scare-mongering tactics is really p*ssing me off. And the MSM is playing right along. Iraq as tragedy, disaster, guagmire, catastrophe, diversion, mistake, waste, hopeless is the bright tomorrow Kerry will GIVE us if the past is truly prologue.

The *only* thing Kerry has been consistent on is his belief in his magical powers to bring ‘our allies’ (other than the ones we already have, of course) on board to share the human and monetary cost. That’s *all* he has.

He’s no diplomat and hasn’t a chance in hell of accomplishing this *one* and only goal because in order to do that he must sell out Israel…unless, perhaps, that is his secret plan.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:58 am 17. gb_in_ga:

Just another couple of thoughts:

Why is the Democrat party considered to be so NECESSARY as a counter to the Republicans?

It would suit me just fine if the ‘Pubs completely drove the ‘Crats out of business entirely. Extinct. Gone Forever. Bye-Bye. This to be done by erecting such a large “tent” that all rational people should desire to be in it. The result would be a broad coalition of rational people from across the political spectrum in political power.

After this victory is attained and the ‘Crats finally removed from the political landscape, I envision an inevitable right-left schism within the ‘Pubs. The result of that split would bring about a “New” Democratic party, of whatever name, which would consist of RATIONAL denizens of the left end of the political spectrum, and would fill the void left by the then defunct current Democrites.

IIRC, this sort of thing has happened before in our nation’s history, early on. We survived it then. I’d be willing to wager that we would survive it now. Hey, it couldn’t be any worse than what we currently have, ya know.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:06 am 18. David Thomson:

ì…only goal because in order to do that he must sell out Israel…unless, perhaps, that is his secret plan.î

Thatís what Iíve been saying for ages. The liberal Democratic Party is anti-Israel. But arenít a lot of its membership Jewish? Yes, but their commitment to utopian liberalism is much stronger than their concern for Israel. On top of that, they have often been guilt tripped into believing Israel victimizes the Palestinians.

Never, never, never, allow someone to flippantly tell you that they donít have anything against Israel—itís merely their anger towards the Sharon government. Such an utterance deserves a few follow up questions. And yes, the answers will likely stun you.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:08 am 19. TmjUtah:

Mark Polling -

I respectfully disagree with your post and align with Jerry.

The Democrats have done a good job complaining about budget deficits. Hooray for them. As Jerry pointed out, wherever benefits programs or education have been concerned they’ve been even more outspoken that what passed was no more than “a starting place” (a good start?).

Personally, it would take a long hit on a a crack pipe the size of an ashcan for me to entertain the possibility that Democrats would bring fiscal restraint to the congress. It’s just not in their nature. Over the course of my life I have watched the Democrats condemn every defense expenditure, tax cut, or attempt to restrain entitlement spending, and usually by presenting their position as one of defending victims in a zero-sum game. Republicans don’t want grandma to starve, don’t want school kids to eat sawdust sausages for lunch, and certainly don’t want to steal from the poor to help the rich.

I believe that Republicans do attempt to aim fiscal policy more at the good of the country than at any desirable constituency. Yes, there’s pork on both sides – but from the Left the intent to buy entire demographics has been SOP for so long that by now it’s almost pitiful to watch.

The best outcome of this election would be a staggering landslide for Bush. The Democrats must select new leadership and take a good long honest look at why their philosophy and agenda are no longer effective. A landslide will not flip a switch and turn the MSM into allies in the war, but it may at least change the level of rhetoric to something closer to neutral. The same goes for the kool-aid contingent of Bushitler types.

We are not certain of winning this war. We are not even at the end of the beginning of it, yet.

Imagine the mullahs in Iran or the wahhabis in Saudi or Zarqawi in Iraq opening up their express copy of the New York Times and seeing an Albright or Carter or Kennedy editorial column calling for the immediate defeat of the purveyors of terror so that we Americans can concentrate on working out our domestic politics. That would have more impact than any number of troops we can field.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:17 am 20. jerry:

Dave and Syl:

Kerry’s plan for Israel is hardly a secret. All of his ME advisors have made it clear that he intends to “re-balance” US policy in the ME to favor not just the generic “Palestinian” people but specifically to re-legitimize the PLO and bring in Hamas as well. Early on Kerry made noises about being pro-Israel but once he saw that most Jews rejected Joe Lieberman because he was “rightwing” he saw that he would no longer have to cater to the Jewish vote. They were his anyway.

People on the left who self-identify as “Jews” began to reject Israel when Israel voted for Begin and Likud in the late 1970’s. It has nothing to do with guilt about the Palestinians and everything with the repeated rejection of Socialism by the Israeli electorate. To this self-identified “Jewsî Judaism is about socialism and not about the relationship with God. Even though Israel is more secular and less observant than America, the “Jewish” left associates the rejection of socialism with the acceptance of “rightwing fundamentalism”. That is the bete noire of “Jewish” socialists.

While I am on this topic I want to add a comment to David’s original post. People who are in Said’s camp see Islamic radicalism as more then just reaction to western imperialism. They see them as the vanguard of the new Proletariat fighting for socialist ideals. The OBL’s of this world are this generationís Che Guevaras and Viet Congs. That’s fully consistent with Kerry’s world view. The actual reason that he rejects the GWOT is that at his core he believes Islamic radicals are fighting for global socialism.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:25 am 21. Mark Poling:

TMJ, I’m starting to come around to your thinking re: what would be best for the nation and the Democratic Party. A complete trouncing may have to happen for the Dems to disown the Michael Moore mindset.

It took the Republican meltdown of the 70s for the Reagan Revolution to take root.

Syl:

The *only* thing Kerry has been consistent on is his belief in his magical powers to bring ‘our allies’ (other than the ones we already have, of course) on board to share the human and monetary cost. That’s *all* he has.

Go read Michael Totten’s post for today. Kerry’s bad September just got worse.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:39 am 22. Samuel:

Wenda

…but the result seems to be unexpected, at least to me. Old alliances are breaking; but new ones are rising. We are discovering, or reminding ourselves, that people behaved with honor, and dishonor on both sides of the issue. People with honor are coming together

Let me tell you, when Samuel changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican I really don’t think people here, despite all I have said, can truly appreciate or have a true idea the significance of what that change means. In truth the significance is not my supporting Bush as that would be a mere aberration and I’ll let Roger, Terrye and others determine whether they are mere political aberrations. I am not. The true significance was my premonition or rather expectation that the Democrats were losing its wit and would soon reach the point of no return, I got it right. I was late to recognize the significance of 9/11, but early to post 9/11 recognition of the true state of the Democratic Party.

Let me tell you, any group willing to make comparisons of Bush to Hitler is bad enough and should be offensive to anyone let alone a Jew like me. Unfortunately that is not the real problem, when a group looks at Bush and actually sees Hitler, then I am long gone! Why? I asked and made the following statement just yesterday when addressing the gratuitous feeding of prejudices…

“This may sound dire and intemperate but what will it take, feeding rage and bias to the point of an assassination attempt on our President? I do think we greatly underestimate the effects the poison being inflicted on our society have.” http://www.rogerlsimon.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?__mode=red;id=17999

I could go on, I just don’t have the time. But I am telling you poison is being unleashed that most of us underestimate. David Horowitz is correct, the political right is tame and not countering hard enough, however I yield to our President, I have a feeling he knows what he is up against and confronting it in ways he sees fit.

Mark Poling

You gave me the nicest defense I have ever received on Michael J. Totten’s blog the other day which I greatly appreciated, but also nice was the very accurate description you gave to my style and approach in posting, in fact I copied it for future reference, again thanks. That being said, I find your reasoning and focus on fiscal matters to be shallow and lacking in profound reasoning. The deficits are small when weighed against historical perspective, one large upturn in the economy and they will be erased.

If you had ever been a true Democrat or understood the true underpinnings of the Democratic Party you would not want a Democratic Congress for the sake of fiscal matters, if you have been I am shocked, you have drunk the Clinton kool-aid. Mark, the Republicans aren’t on a damn suicide mission, well at least not this President. They do have to balance politics with reality. I have a question. Does parity in Congress cause this President to find himself in need of bridging political gaps that lead to fiscal responsibility? NO WAY! Please, Mark, this isn’t even a close call!

You have every right to be a member of any Party for any reason but I find your reasoning on this to be a 2 dimensional answer to a 3 dimensional equation, hell, you probably agree with Republicans on more issues then I do. Political affiliation isn’t just about agreement on certain issues. As former Libertarian Larry Elder said when deciding to become a Republican last summer, “The Republican Party is willing to defend this nation and the Libertarians are not, weighing the importance is simple and I know what Party I’ll support.” He understands that inside affiliation is stronger then tepid support, he can fight them on fiscal mmatters from he inside. No offense, I obviously find his reasoning superior.

Roger

Typekey IS KILLING ME!

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:42 am 23. Scott W. Somerville:

I grew up in yellow-dog country, and cast my first two presidential votes for Jimmy Carter (once in ‘76, once in ‘80). It took the abortion issue to wedge me out of my party, and I still feel like a Democrat after years of voting Republican (mostly). But Zell Miller put it best, for me: “my family is more important than my party!”

It will be interesting to see how Hillary, the presumptive Democratic nominee for ‘08, will begin reshaping what is left of the Democratic Party after Kerry pays his final homage to his old boss, Michael Dukakis. If he winds up with Dukakis-like results, Hillary will have a fairly free hand to recreate the party in her own image. That should be great news for the Green Party, which will pick up millions of moonbats.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:44 am 24. gb_in_ga:

Jerry:

About your comment on the perception of Said’s camp: While they may view Islamic Radicalism as such, they fail to note the REAL reason for Islamic Radicalism. And that is the forceful imposition of Global Radical Islam (be it of the Sunni or Shiite varieties, as applicable). From what I understand, the particular underlying governmental form isn’t all that important to them, as long as they are allowed to implement strict Sharia law on top of it. What that means is that they will count out any form of Democratic or constitutional Republican form of governments that lay the foundation of government in secular law at the behest of the population as a whole. Now, whether that form of government they enact is a military dictatorship or monarchy or socialism or fascism or whatever isn’t all that important as long as it is sufficiently authoritarian as to disallow dissent, giving all force of government to themselves, in order to forcefully enact strict Sharia, “Islamizing” the entire world.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:47 am 25. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

On Larry Elder: That’s my sentiment exactly. Like him, I’m not coming here from the Democratic side, I’m coming from the Libertarian side, for the exact reason that he cites.

Personally, I feel that any society that refuses to act in it’s own defense when attacked does not deserve to survive. The Loony Left end of the Democrats as well as the current Libertarians fail to see this, and refuse to act to defend ourselves. That’s suicidal and insane, and I’m not suicidal or insane. We can work out the ideological differences once we get past this mortal danger, but let’s take care of the danger first.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:57 am 26. mrp:

An in-depth account of Christopher Hitchens’ philosophical evolution can be found in this Hari-Hitchens interview (link via Allahpundit.com via somebody else )

Hari, an unabashed Lefty, pens a column for the Independent.

Excerpt:

He [Hitchens] continues, “I just reject the whole mentality that says, we need to consider this phenomenon in light of current grievances. It’s an insult to the people who care about the real grievances of the Palestinians and the Chechens and all the others. It’s not just the wrong interpretation of those causes; it’s their negation.” And this goes for the grievances of the Palestinians, who he has dedicated a great deal of energy to documenting and supporting. “Does anybody really think that if every Jew was driven from Palestine, these guys would go back to their caves? Nobody is blowing themselves up for a two-state solution. They openly say, ?We want a Jew-free Palestine, and a Christian-free Palestine.’ And that would very quickly become, ?Don’t be a Shia Muslim around here, baby.’” He supports a two-state solution – but he doesn’t think it will solve the jihadist problem at all.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:19 am 27. Mark Poling:

Samuel, I hate ad hom attacks, and found the one sliming you over at Totten’s particularly egregious. Glad to hear you found my words appropriate.

I know, the fiscal side of my reasoning was weak, but I really feel the decline of the Democratic Party is bad for the country. Right now they seem perfectly content to be the party of cheap shots and evasive policy statements. Even though I like Bush and agree with his approach to foreign policy, I would have voted for Lieberman or Sam Nunn in a second, because the Deomcrats need practice at being responsible. Unlike the Republicans of the 70s, sitting in the bleachers doesn’t seem to be doing the current Democrats any good.

As to my own politics, I was Neocon before Neocon was cool… or even existed, for that matter. I’m 90% on-board with Libertarian domestic policies. (I do believe in traffic lights and public highways, which is why I can’t put myself down for 100%.)

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:21 am 28. Samuel:

gb_in_ga

I read Larry Elders column while I was grappling with change. I have never been a Libertarian, not even close. I found his reasoning for change to make sense. I have read Larry Elder ever since. I guess “lesser of two evils” in the end is more often then not the true choice.

I will say though, I feel even more justified the further from my decision I travel. The Democrats are at least a decade away from coming close to the fulfilling the changes they need to make and I’m not Zell Miller, I’m not hanging around. Trust me, Hillary is not the answer either, she is a female Democratic version of Nixon waiting to happen. Human Rights has always been my #1 mantra, I was right, changing Parties put my money where my mouth was. Democrats at this point who feel they are championing true Human Rights are deluded beyond hope, they are in reality just living off the fancies of well fed prejudices.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:22 am 29. Knucklehead:

Jerry,

Interesting comments re: the current Dems and McClellan. A couple years back I had some contact with two or three people who, while the most virulently ABB foamers I have yet met (absolutely insane!), were at least familiar with history. I found it interesting that each, seperately since they had no contact with one another that I was aware of, seemed to have some desire to “rehabilitate” McClellan and kept pointing to him as a great and misunderstood patriot who was trying to save the US from the horror of the Civil War.

Jsut thought I’d mention that. I haven’t noticed and sort of widespread effort to rehab McClellan, so it probably never caught on. I hadn’t made the connection, so thanks for pointing it out. Seditious bastards, the whole lot of ‘em.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:28 am 30. Samuel:

Mark Poling

The Republicans reached a low of 20% Party affiliation at a time when Democratic affiliation exceeded 50%, more then 2 to 1 advantage by Democrats! Democrats reached 70 seats in the Senate. When was that? In the 1970’s right before Reagan, the Democrats will be back. They need to, like the Republicans before, learn how to be a “loyal opposition” and not act like a “spoiled opposition” before that can happen so yes, they must be smashed into submission. The health and not size of the opposition is what is important. Also as I said the other day at MJT’s site, for every Samuel that hops on the GOP’s wagon, another Pat Buchanan jumps off… HOORAY!

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:34 am 31. gb_in_ga:

Scott:

On Zell Miller: And that is really the one thing that I have against Zell Miller. If he claims that his family is more important to him than his party, then WHY DOESN’T HE ACT ON THAT? Why does he continue to associated himself with a party that increasingly acts contrary to the well being of the safety of his family? Doesn’t he realize that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party holds practically NOTHING in common with the values and views that he holds so dear?

Isn’t he being intellectually dishonest about this?

Shouldn’t he be following the lead of other prominent former Conservative Democrats and leave what is now the party of the Left? Just because he is he is a Democrat and sitting on that side of the aisle, he is empowering other leftists in the Senate in such matters as committee chairs, even though he and they share nothing in common ideologically.

Of course, I understand his argument against doing that: He was appointed by a Democratic Governor (since voted out) to fill a vacant seat held by a Democrat, and as such he feels honor bound to continue that way for the duration of the term. But that doesn’t mean that I agree with it. He was appointed to represent the state. There has been an ideological shift in the state towards the Republicans, as the last gubernatorial and senatorial elections have shown. He is the senator, and his judgment and ideology were put in that seat. If, in his judgment, he feels that a party change is in order, that is his perrogative and his only. It only takes intellectual honesty and a little bit of gonads.

That aside, I have nothing against him. If he changed party and ran for Senate again, I’d vote for him. I’m in Ga, after all, so I can!

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:37 am 32. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

We may not be as far apart as you might think. Human Rights is not at all a foriegn concept to the libertarian. The promotion of Human Rights necessarily entails the promotion of Liberty, right? And, what is the primary mantra of the libertarian? LIBERTY! It is just another way of saying it. We may be looking at the same problem from different perspectives, and perhaps with different methodologies of solving, but I do think that we have similar objectives.

Like I said before: Let’s not let comparitively minor ideological differences distract us from the important stuff, like survival. In some cases the differences turn out to be not all that much.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:49 am 33. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

That’s why I think it isn’t such a bad thing for the current Democratic party to just roll over an die, taking all of the foaming at the mouth ones with it. And then have it replaced by a leftist (call them the RINO’s) splitoff of the current Republicans. That faction already exists there, you know. You’d get a return to parity with a “Loyal Opposition” replacing a “Lunatic Opposition”. Ok, there is a chance of undesireable things getting passed in the transition, but I’ll live with that if it purges the Loonies in the process.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:59 am 34. slarrow:

Roger, the sad thing is that September 11 was supposed to change everything. But it didn’t, and one of the things it didn’t change was the national leadership of the Democratic party.

That’s because it didn’t change the Left, and the Left holds the purse strings and the voting blocs that constitute the Democratic party’s hold on power. It will take a monumental political defeat before the Democrats will shake off that influence. Until then, I don’t know what you’re going to do in terms of identifying with a party.

As for me, I’m proudly a Republican. My conflict will come after a monumental victory when my party becomes more interested in consolidating power than promoting ideas I believe in. It’s already started, but my time of choosing is not yet.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:02 am 35. jerry:

gb:

If by Libertarian you mean von Hayek, I agree with you. However, if by Libertarian you mean Neo-Libertarianism of the today’s Libertarian third party then I have a bone to pick.

Today’s Libertarians do not come from von Hayek. They are a spin-off from the 60’s counterculture and have made the discovery that markets perform better then collective economic decision-making. Today’s Libertarians are the modern equivalent of the split in the socialist movement of the early 2oth century when Sorel and Mussolini rejected Marxist economic determinism and accepted the superiority of capitalism over socialism. Many, if not most people who identify themselves as Libertarian have figured out that the market is the best way to gurantee both personal and economic freedom. I prefer to call this strand of Libertarianism as “anarcho-capitalismî because they generally accept the state of nature as a benign place of liberty. Von Hayek was firmly in the Hobsian camp when it came to an understanding of the state nature. Today, Libertarianism is more about license, which is the ultimate enemy of liberty.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:08 am 36. gb_in_ga:

slarrow:

Actually, 9-11 did change some things in the political landscape. It served to more severely radicalize the Democrats. It did this when the more moderate Democrats became put off by the rabidness and sheer lunacy of the Democratic leadership that came about in the wake of 9-11 and they then jumped ship. The same thing happened at a much smaller scale to the Libertarians, hence here I am. The Libertarian leadership just didn’t wait as long to head off to the asylum as the Democrats did. They didn’t even wait until the smoke cleared before they started howling at the moon. The net effect all this is that the Republicans have become larger and more moderate, and the Democrats and the Libertarians have become smaller and more radicalized. Hmm, Shriller? Nuttier? Both!

SO, yes, they have become louder. Yes, they have become even more imballanced. But that comes at the cost of most of their centrists, which is surely going to hurt them badly come election time. Even if all that happens is that those moderates just stay home, or cast a vote for Mickey Mouse.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:17 am 37. WichitaBoy:

The eternal burden of the Jew is to be the “other”, the outsider, the one who is not part of the mainstream. This particularly comes to the fore when confronted by universalist religions and ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, Communism, Fascism, or Socialism. Jews stand in the way of these religions actually becoming universal, so Jews are a problem for them.

On the other side, being the outsider is problematic for Jews. As Catherine says, we’re programmed to like and get along with the people around us. For many Jews the solution to this unbearable tension is to join a palatable version of a universalist religion. This explains the appeal of both the secular Christianities, Communism and Socialism, to many Jews.

The current Democratic party is run by Socialists by another name. Their mission is apocalyptic, not merely political. For those Jews who seek escape from the burden of being the eternal other the current Democratic party offers solace. For everyone else there remains the old Yiddish saying: “God gives burdens, but he also gives shoulders.”

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:38 am 38. gb_in_ga:

Jerry:

And you are astute. You do understand what is going on over there. It is the difference between the Classical Liberal who is concerned with Liberty and Responsibility as opposed to the BoBo who is more concerned with license to hedonism. It is like they have conveniently forgotten about the Responsibility part of it all. And they have forgotten about the inherent value of Western Liberal Culture. The BoBo’s took over and drove the Classical Liberals out. That’s why I was never a Big “L” Libertarian but was a little “l” libertarian. I agree with them on the letter of principle, but not in the direction they are wanting to take it. And certainly not with their suicidal standpoint in the WOT.

There is a real difference between Liberty and License that is lost on a whole lot of people, including, IMHO, on the current crop of Big “L” Libertarians. License is the absence of constraints. Liberty is License constrained by Responsibility. Classical Liberalism (to which I adhere) is Liberty constrained by collective defense against violent offenders (internal and external) and the need to have an orderly society.

While I don’t care if the BoBo’s become BoBo’s and have all kinds of license, I’m no Anarchist. And I’m not for allowing them to violate those principles that the Classical Liberal adheres. Hence, I don’t fit with them. The current bunch over there lean way too far towards anarchy for my tastes. It Just Doesn’t Work. There really does need to be some checks in place in order to assure an orderly society, and they’ll just about deny that.

No, I was always an outsider looking in on them. I realized that while they may have been the most compatible party on the political landscape — ON PAPER — they were just too far out there for me to actively support them. Hence, I was a Libertarian Leaning Independent. Or, as is commonly referenced: a little “l” libertarian.

The really odd bird in all of this is “Dr. No”, Rep Ron Paul from Texas. He was an LP presidential candidate several years back, but is currently sitting in the House as a Republican. And yet he still votes as a Big “L” Libertarian, the only one in Congress. IMHO, he’s flying false colors. Oh, well, that’s the “Big Tent” thing for you…

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:47 am 39. Samuel:

gb_in_ga

Zell Miller gets more attention staying a Democratic, but even more satisfying is he gets to stick a thumb in the eyes of Democrats in the process. I changed parties so obviously you know what I think. For me however Zell gets a pass, he is maintaining a position that gives him the best opportunity to make his point. I went to the position that I felt was the most principled, I switched parties.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:51 am 40. gb_in_ga:

WichitaBoy:

A> Christianity equated with Socialism, Communism and Fascism? Uh, No. We, the minority of REAL Christians, aren’t like that at all.

B> While Christianity is a Universal Religion in that it does specify itself as being the “One True Religion” in so many words, there is not any commandment to eliminate all other religions BY FORCE, as is the case with Islam. At least not when one comes from the point of view of the “Paleo-Christian” like I am. Granted, much of Greater Christianity over the centuries since the Roman Catholics hijacked the paleo church back in the 3rd Century has not held to this, but that isn’t what the original directives were. The directives were to bring the word of the Gospel everywhere seeking voluntary converts, and to live peaceable with your neighbors as good, law abiding citizens of the Pagan or Jewish governments, setting good examples of what fine, upstanding people Christians were. No Forcible Coercion Allowed. The great catastrophy was when that one Roman Emperor (I forget his name right off hand) converted to Christianity and then declared Christianity (of the Roman Catholic variety) to be the Official State Religion, and everybody was to convert or else. Bad Move.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:12 am 41. lisa huang fleischman:

Wichita Boy

Communism and Socialism are not “secular Christianities” (whatever that means), any more than they are secular forms of Judaism. They are in fact essentially the opposite of Christianity, and avowedly atheistic. I understand, I think, what you are trying to say: that Jews, in order to relieve the tension of being “the other,” have adopted socialism and communism as their substitute “religion,” because these “religions” are more acceptable to the elites. But that’s an attempt to transcend religion entirely, not to become more like Christians.

Personally, I don’t think Jews have to become more religious — I like secular Jews. (It’s almost a culture of its own.) What I don’t understand is their lack of understanding as to who their enemies are “racially,” for lack of a better word. (Yes, yes, not a race, but I don’t have a better term. “Tribally?” “Ethnically?”) The majority of Israelis are secular, but they have a perfectly sound idea of who their friends and enemies are –American Jews don’t seem to, and are intent on lavishing praise on their enemies (the UN and the left elites) and deriding their friends (Christian evangelicals). It’s a wonder. Maybe Samuel can explain the big giant blind spot.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:13 am 42. The Fop:

I’ve written several times on this site about the fact that the Dems support for Israel is nothing but a phony, hollow attempt to hold onto the Jewish vote for dear life.

The main premise of this belief is that the Republicans support Israel, despite the fact that most Jews vote Democrat, because it is CONSISTENT with their world view. On the other hand, the Dems support for Israel is an anomoly that is INCONSISTENT with their worldview.

Here’s two examples to prove my point…..

1. Israel is the most hated country in the world. They are constantly being demonized by the international community. Yet all these Democrats are willing to buck international criticism and stick up for Israel. However, when the international community criticizes the U.S, these same Democrats quake in their boots and treat it like a national crisis. One is lead to believe that they have more resolve when it comes to supporting Israel than they do when it comes to supporting America. This smells very fishy.

2. On every major issue I can think of, the Democrats and the hardcore left wingers are, if not on the same page, at least on the same chapter, except for Israel. Go down the list…..abortion, affirmative action, healthcare, taxes, education, etc. Sure, the Dems never live up to the standards of the hardcore left, but at least they’re fighting on the same side. Yet when it comes to Israel, there is a huge gulf between the wildly anti-Israel stance of the hardcore left, and the general support for Israel of the Dems.

Okay, maybe the Dems are scared to come out in favor of gay marriage, but they haven’t come out against it either. You’ve also got some local issues where a Democratic Senator or Congressman from a particular state has to go against the party line in order to stay in office (like someone who serves in a state where logging is one of the main industries). But on the national level, I can’t think of another issue besides Israel where the Dems and the hardcore lefties are completely butting heads. Again, it smells very fishy.

The minute the Jews abandon the Democratic party, the Dems will abandon Israel and can join in on the Sharon=Hitler parades.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:14 am 43. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

Zell: Well, you do have a point there. But with the Senate as evenly balanced as it is, his seat would throw the balance of power to the other aisle, and that, IMHO, takes precedence over any publicity. The very fact he would do such a thing would also poke a nice, big thumb in their eye as well. And just think of the good it would do with such things as the Judicial Confirmation process, helping break the unprecedented Democratic stonewall on that front.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:17 am 44. lisa huang fleischman:

gb_n_ga

Ugh. You are being weirdly ahistorical. The Roman Catholics “hijacked” the church back in the 3rd Century? Hijacked it from who? Protestants who did not yet exist? There was only one Christian Church until the Protestant Reformation, so it really is inaccurate to speak of RC’s “hijacking” anything before that. You are of course free to believe that the Church took the wrong course in the 3rd century (the Roman Emperor whose name you forget must be Constantine — and the Christian Church continued to compete peacefully with other religions in the Roman Empire long after Constantine), and there may or may not be arguments in support of that, but “hijacking” doesn’t come into it, and smacks of anti-Catholicism as well as being inapposite.

In any case, even among those dreadful Roman Catholics, there’s never been a commandment to force people to convert. If Catholics in the past have killed in the name of religion, so have Protestants. It’s not a reflection on the religion itself, but on the people who do it.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:20 am 45. slarrow:

gb_in_ga:

About Zell Miller: I think he means it when he talks about how important it is to him that he’s been a Democrat all his life. Here’s why I think he’s staying a Democrat. Right now he’s already led the way for the folks you cited in your reply to me. He’s made it respectable to be a Democrat and vote for George W. Bush, and he’s made it clear that he was driven to do so by the national liberal interests in the party.

But if Zell changes his party affiliation, he’s now signaling to those voters that it’s acceptable to leave the party and become Republicans. I don’t think he wants this; he wants a resurgent, respectable Democratic party that doesn’t drive people like him into NYC for a Republican convention. But if he gets folks to switch parties and vote Republican up and down the ticket, it reduces the chances that sensible Democrats will be elected and have any kind of power within the party. I think he believes that changing parties, if it has any impact, will only serve to further radicalize the party he’s belonged to all this time.

If that is his motivation, it’s a noble gesture, and Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by attacking him personally.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:24 am 46. Lola:

Ugh. You are being weirdly ahistorical. The Roman Catholics “hijacked” the church back in the 3rd Century? Hijacked it from who? Protestants who did not yet exist? There was only one Christian Church until the Protestant Reformation, so it really is inaccurate to speak of RC’s “hijacking” anything before that.

Ahem . . . err, clearing throat, but both of you are a bit off the mark here. Constantine was the one who declared Christianity to be the official religion. Yet he never formally converted until he was on his deathbed. And there were still paganism lingering for several years after that event.

What you now understand as Roman Catholic church did not develop its identity as such until after the 1054 Schism (when the Papal diplomat marched into Hagia Sophia where the Patriarch of Constantinople was serving at the altar, slapped the bull down, and marched out in front of the astonished worshippers), when it split from what we now know as the Orthodox Church (which continues as such in Russia, Serbia, and so forth, and which is now to be found in the United States). A very good book that covers some of this development is The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos).

(gaaah – now I’m getting kicked off Typekey prematurely!)

–

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:43 am 47. Michael B:

Via Pejmanesque, an article entitled Revisiting Foucault and the Iranian Revolution that represents a telling study in contrasts with Hitchens’ positions on Islamofascism. Obviously, Foucault is more of a theoretical and philosophical analyst, but that is precisely the point since it is that type of intellectual bedrock of the ossified, sclerotic Left that continues to provide some of their most critical inspirations, social/political initiatives and self-induced blind spots.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:51 am 48. lisa huang fleischman:

Lola — I think we are in substantially in agreement, except that you date the emergence of the RC church as such to the split with the orthodox church(es), prior to the emergence of Protestantism), and I think you are correct. (But to refer to a “Roman Catholic” variety of Christianity from the time of Constantine is still inaccurate.)

As for Christianity becoming the “official religion” — that didn’t mean that all Romans were converted to it. (In fact, I think saying that it was made “the official religion” isn’t quite accurate, but I’m not sure of that at this point in history.) It only meant that Christians (who, along with the Druids, were the only religions ever persecuted as such by the Roman Empire, which was very lenient and assimilationist about such things) ceased to be persecuted. As late in the Roman Empire as the time of St Patrick (early 400’s), Christians were still a minority among Roman citizens, including non-Italian Romans such as the British — albeit a minority with the same privileges as other religions, such as tax exemption for clergy. Mithras was still the god worshipped by most soldiers, even as the Empire was falling to Vandals, etc. Paganism didn’t just continue for several years after Constantine — it continued to be the majority religion (if you can use that word to describe innumerable sects, many of them syncretic) in the Empire for close to a couple of centuries.

Sep 28, 2004 - 10:55 am 49. shelley at six apart:

This is another test comment from Six Apart, using Internet Explorer this time. Please delete me.

Sep 28, 2004 - 11:57 am 50. gb_in_ga:

Lisa:

Ahistorical? Ah, No. Just free from erroneous teachings on the subject.

Contrary to popular knowledge, the Roman Catholic Church did not spring into existence AD 33 on the day of Pentecost on the grounds of the great Temple of Jerusalem. It came about as an apostatic movement of supra congregational bishops that started forming in the existing loosely knit association of independent autonomous congregations in the mid 2nd century and culminated in the formation and appointment (by the other bishops) of one, patriarchial, super-bishop in the 3rd century in Rome. None of this was ordained or authorized by scripture. A similar arangement was simultaneously happening in the East, centered around Constantinople, forming what is now the Orthodox church. Both of these churches predate the Protestant movement by many centuries, of course. THERE WERE NO PROTESTANTS AT THAT TIME. Between the establishment of the Christian Churches in AD 33 and the gradual takeover of those independent congregations by the “Super Bishops”, which is the hijacking I speak of, there existed a “Paleo-Church”. It was neither Catholic nor Protestant, but JUST CHRISTIAN. Protestantism and Catholicism did not even exist at that time. These Christians knew only what they had been told early on, and conducted themselves as I have said. Flavius Josephus writes about them briefly in his histories, I have a link to the histories but unfortunetly I don’t know how to embed it. If you Google Josephus, you’ll get references to his works. Anyway, the Christian references he gives all PREDATE Catholicism, and bear little resemblance to what the world now knows as Catholocism.

IIRC, the Emperor Constantine was not the first one to convert, IIRC he was the second. The first one wasn’t on the throne that long, but he actually did mandate conversion. Then he died, and was replaced by a pagan, who obviously rescinded that decree. But the precedent was set, the Roman Catholics had imprinted the doctrine of conversion by whatever means necessary, and that was that. As they were still being persecuted by the Pagans, it was impossible to implement during the intervening years, but I digress. One side effect of the “Forced Conversion” doctrine of that time was the inclusion of certain pagan and idolotrous practices into the Catholic traditon, disguised as “Christian”. You can’t forcibly bring in the unrepentent pagan without getting influences like that. We actually don’t spend that much time on these things. The Catholics’ actions over history are well documented and speak for themselves, we just point out all of the things that they are doing wrong. Actually, we are MUCH more interested in what happened BEFORE they came on the scene, when we know things were done RIGHT.

In Short, it becomes historically evident that Catholics, over the centuries, have been vigorous about forcing conversion. This is established in multiple histories. Great Atrocities were committed in that name, and were well known by the time of the establishment of Islam.

Later, in that period that we now know as the Rennaisance, actual printed copies of the scripture became more available to clerics and in some cases to the public. With the increased availability of the relevant texts, it started becoming clear that the practices of the existing religious establishment — in the worst case, the Roman Catholics, bore very little in the way of resemblance to what was described in those texts. So, a Reformation movement began, Protesting the errors of the existing religious establishment. From this came what we now know as the Protestants, first in just a few regionally divided variations, but under the continuing effect of repeated Reforms, the variety of Protestant sects grew.

Then, at the very end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century there came another movement, this time on the U.S. western frontier, in what is now middle Appalachia in the vicinity of North Carolina and Tennessee and regions just west of there. The conditions were that the great migration west had begun. And the settlers were moving west faster than “Civilization” could move to catch up, including the building of appropriate Churches for the adherents of the various sects of “Christianity”. But the people who were doing the moving were bringing their Bibles along with them, and reading them themselves — not with the help of the clergy. And what little clergy that went along with them was cut off from their own “Support Networks” of overseeing bishops, senior pastors, synods, councils and whatever. For the most part, these were Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians. And what they found on reading the book for themselves without supraorganizational oversight was that even the Multiply Reformed Protestant sects of the day were not what was found in the book. And whatever else these people were, they were convinced that what was in the book was right. So, there was a decision — independently made almost simultaneously in several removed locations, they didn’t even know of the existence of the others making similar decisions — that what was at fault was the entire concept of religious establishment, and that they should just ditch the whole thing and start from scratch, taking the book as the one and only pattern and guide to restart the ancient church, since the one thing that was obvious is that the ancient church of the book was Right In The Sight Of The LORD. Any other church organization is debatable. This is now known as the Restoration movement. It’s goal, eventually realized over a few decades, was to recreate the ancient church that was in existence prior to the multi-congregational overseeing bishop apostasy that lead to the formation of the Catholics so many centuries before.

The thought is that the word — what is in the book and that only — was the seed that gave forth “Christians Only” back in the first and second centuries, and that same seed now gives forth the same thing — “Christians Only”, if you reject all of the other baggage that has been added over the centuries, as we do. Likewise, if the Church is patterened solely on what is found in the book, it also becomes that same church. Since it is the same church formed of Christians of the same mold, we identify ourselves as being exactly the same as them. Pre-Catholic.

This is what I refer to as the “Paleo-Church”, and the adherents I refer to as “Paleo-Christians”, REAL Christians, or just plain Christians, of the Christian ONLY variety. I am one of them.

This group is NEITHER CATHOLIC NOR PROTESTANT NOR ORTHODOX NOR COPT NOR ANYTHING ELSE BUT JUST CHRISTIAN. And that’s it. We don’t hold to any of that other stuff, it is just baggage and gets in the way of what we are really supposed to be.

Sadly, this group has split a few times in the 2 centuries that have past. The 2 major groups that are now in existence are the Disciples of Christ and the Church(es) of Christ, and there’s actually a lot of variety within even those. I adhere to the most stringintly Paleo of the bunch, what I refer to as the non-institutional wing of the Church of Christ. We are strict, by the book, no nonsense, no funny stuff. The differences among the various flavors of Paleo are largely lost on the outsider, however.

It is not even a denomination, per se. It just IS. The name itself is that what was used at the beginning. It is the Church (meaning “collection of adherents to”, or “those called according to”) of Christ. Just a collection of Christians. It just IS. It is more of a definition than a denomination. As it should be. As it should have been all along.

There is no official organizational hierarchy that oversees the individual congregations, the congregations are completely autonomous. There is no office of “Bishop” other than what is authorized in the scripture as being synomous with “Elder”, and their authority exists only within their own home congregation. Scripture does not authorize them.

There are no church holidays or seasons. Scripture expressly forbids this.

Worship is expressly kept simple, as it was meant to be. No gaudy robes or processions or idols here, those are carnal and are as such prohibited.

No false doctrine like the worship of individual humans, which is expressly forbidden in scripture.

We hold to the original, classical definition of what Saint means — any believing adherent to Christ. There are no cannonizations. No “Super Christians” approved by the clergy. Peter is Peter. Paul is Paul. John is John. Timothy is Timothy. They were all faithful Christians, and are therefore are Saints, but nobody had to bestow any title on them. They just ARE. And aren’t to be worshipped themselves, just heeded.

Real miracles ended at the end of the 1st century, but Providence is still with us. We don’t hold with any of that modern day miracle malarkey. I hold that anyone who claims to be a miraculous faith healer come right on down to the local hospital’s ICU ward and get after it — lay on some hands and do some REAL healing. If not, then sit down and shut up, charlatan. BTW — real healing of the miraculous type is instantaneous.

But praying for divine, providential healing by way of the physician’s hand is another matter entirely.

Purgatory is a Catholic fabrication — a myth that was created to extort money from grieving survivors of the less than faithful deceased.

In short, it bears very little resemblance to the usurper organizations that claims it’s place. Instead it is the embodiment of that which the scriptures describe.

Restoration has been completed.

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings and misconceptions. It is the real, honest to goodness truth.

Sep 28, 2004 - 12:51 pm 51. thibaud:

The Dems’ problem isn’t just internal to them. They’re faced as we all are with a radically changed world for which no one has a good road map.

The asymmetrical threat we face is unprecedented, in its nature, goals, tactics, m.o., and scope. Our relations with European democracies likewise are unprecedented. France is neither enemy nor ally; other EU nations are beginning to tilt toward jihadist or pan-arabists in the middle east. Russia is coming to resemble a northern version of Pakistan, a failing state with WMD and an embattled, authoritarian president surrounded by treacherous security forces. Our relations with China are increasingly complex, difficult, and critical. One world order– the stable bipolar cold war order– has died, and the other is still taking shape.

No one has figured out the best path forward in this brave new anarchic world, but Bush’s neoconservatives have at least made a serious effort to make sense of the disorder and have fashioned a reasonably coherent strategy for it.

Pre-emption is of course controversial, but it’s a serious attempt to deal intelligently and honestly with the prospect of nuclearized rogue states that cooperate with or support jihadist fascists who would gladly kill us by the hundreds of thousands. The neocons are carrying the day because their opponents have no theory to oppose them with. Something will always beat nothing.

And what is the Democrats’ grand strategy? “Saddam is not the enemy; Bush is.” “Bush has insulted our allies” [incredibly, this refers not to the Australians but to the French]. The DNC chairman says he believes that the Afghan war was all about an oil pipeline.

And as to Russia, China, India? Complete silence.

Such extreme incoherence is fatal for a major political party. We desperately need a national debate on Iraq, Iran, China etc and this debate requires a serious and decent opposition party. A party that is divided between Lieberman and Mikey Boy is not a credible opposition party. One or the other must go if the Democratic option is to signify anything to the voters.

Sep 28, 2004 - 1:00 pm 52. Jamie Irons:

Somehow we started with Democrats (and whatever happened to them?) and ended up in a rather arcane discussion of ecclesiatical history and theology…

Go figure.

It may be a natural progression, come to think of it.

Jamie Irons

Sep 28, 2004 - 1:01 pm 53. Terrye:

Samuel, I think the reason Dick Cheney is VP is to act as life insurance for Bush. If some crazy ABB’er goes after Bush what has he got to gain? Cheney? Is this an improvement in the minds [for lack of a better word] of the more rabid elelment of the no blood for oil fan club? I think not.

What dismays me the most is the calcualted nature of the decision to attack not only Bush but Allawi on the war.

The Democrats have an election to win and apparently when they mean to do that by hook or crook. Their job as representatives of the people is not to gain and hold power by any and all means necessary, is to represent their constituents and party members. And if they win the election they are expected to protect and defend the Constitution. At least that is what I thought.

It seems that these are merely cosmetic considerations and the real issue is to win and if that can best be accomplished by demonizing the president and leaving our troops in the field in a quandry as to why they are risking their lives then so be it.

I have left the Democratic party because that is not what I signed up for. I listened to leaders of the Democratic party talk about Saddam and his weapons for years, to hear the same people calling Bush a liar for saying the same thing has destroyed my faith in them.

And I think Zell Miller is staying in the party because he won’t be run off by the likes of John Kerry.

I hope the Democrats lose, they deserve to lose and what hope there is for them to tell Jimmy Carter to shut up and to send Michael Moore packing will only come about if they are forced to pull their heads out of their backsides.

Sep 28, 2004 - 1:12 pm 54. thibaud:

The best analogy I can think of is the Republican party in 1940-48, when the isolationistic (if not outright anti-British) Taftite wing and a nascent internationalist wing of the Republican party floundered in the face of Roosevelt and Truman’s liberal internationalism.

By 1952 this internal Republican split was resolved in favor of Eisenhower and the internationalists, allowing for two decades of bipartisan support for a Cold War containment policy.

The Dems today are echoing Father Coughlin and the other scurrilous know-nothings who sneered at Roosevelt’s alliance with the “limeys” and the “reds” (for which substitute the saudis and Musharraf). Mikey Boy is essentially an isolationist, with a veneer of phony pacifism (he’s happy to proclaim admiration for ba’athist “minutemen” who slaughter kids, professors, construction workers, police applicants etc).

The split will be between a kind of soggy isolationism with lots of protectionist economic rhetoric, on the one hand, and a more multilateralist version of the neo-cons’ democracy promotion. The Atlanticist foreign policy hierarchy will favor the latter, but the Dems’ core is pretty clearly moving toward a kind of surly, leftish isolationism that will probably try to capitalize on growing battle fatigue with a “bring the boys home/butter, not guns” message.

Sep 28, 2004 - 1:13 pm 55. Samuel:

Terrye

First, people that would do such a thing as seek this Presidents life are not living a life where rationale is anything like yours or mine. And while Cheney is perhaps more of a hawk, in truth the hate of this President is not really based on this War, it is based upon his success, it is based upon him personally campaigning and historically thrashing them in the mid-terms when he was unworthy to hold office to begin with. The fact that he is changing the political landscape in ways that greatly threatens their political world is what they hate, he does this in ways Cheney never could.

Bush is having a “Kennedy” affect on the youth in ways Clinton never did. He is closing the gender gap. In recent polls, in Wisconsin 40% of blacks plan to support President Bush! Sure the numbers in other parts of the country our more like they were in 2000, and there is only a 3% population of blacks in Wisconsin, but then again most in this nation have yet to experienced school choice like Milwaukee has. Democrats understand this and know it could be representative and worse that credit is going to got to the Republicans, so they stupidly try to kill it rather then embrace it. That tells you where the Democratic Party is. They a scared, they know four more years of Bush carries only potential disaster for them, they fear Bush way more than Cheney. And I will tell you in truth, they have reason to fear.

Here is what they are staring at. If Bush gets a mandate then their will follow a bandwagon effect, especially if Republicans end up with 55 or more seats in the Senate. If that is the case then they (Democrats) are in great trouble indeed. If in four years Iraq is settled down (foreign policy victory), if they lose their ability to block Judges then they are staring at a solidified Supreme Court with moderate and liberal judges replaced by more conservative ones, their ability to rely on the courts to do what they cannot do legislatively, will be gone. Now their ability to obstruct the Presidents agenda is gone and they are toast. They know Bush is a risk taker and will push on top of all these things, Social Security Reform, Health Insurance Reform, Legislation supporting School Choice and Faith Based Initiatives, and he will endeavor to start the ball rolling on Tax Reform, in other words the Agenda will be set for the next generation and they will be in a position to only say “me too” like Clinton or go nowhere, that is what they are looking at and that is why they are so desperate and frantic. They will be staring at the second straight generation where they had to sit and watch the Republicans set the agenda. First Reagan now Bush II. The last time such a thing happened was when Republicans sat on the sidelines for FDR and Kennedy/LBJ. Maybe like Republicans they will learn? For me it doesn’t matter, you know how I feel, the Democratic Party as it exists needs to die anyway, good riddance. In short, until the inevitable happens, we have a very frantic part of our population in desperate straights, I find it unsettling.

Sep 28, 2004 - 2:48 pm 56. gb_in_ga:

Jamie:

Well, it actually was a progression.

First, there was the assertion that christianity was somehow like some rather unsavory secular ideals, which I endeavored to refute. Remember, I didn’t make the original assertion. But as a Christian, I am quite literally required to refute it.

Second, in that refutation, I was accused of being less than historically accurate. I found it necessary to refute that, too. But doing that requires both a brief history of the church and christianity as well as a quick primer on why what is claimed to be the historical church actually isn’t. There’s actually a WHOLE lot more that I could have said, that was actually the “Cliff Notes” version!

Sep 28, 2004 - 3:37 pm 57. Jamie Irons:

gb_in_ga

I hope you saw that I was kidding; I actually enjoyed the postings and was educated by them!

The idea behind my “progression” was that the discussion of the (I hope imminent!)death of a pseudo-religion (the current Democratic party)was progessing to the discussion of a real religion…

Jamie Irons

Sep 28, 2004 - 3:58 pm 58. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

While what you are saying about why they hate Bush is all good and true, that doesn’t explain why they so hated him even before the mid-term elections. Remember the mud they slung prior to the presidental election: Accusing him of being complicit in that dragging murder in East Texas? What about all of the “Bush is an Idiot” things that went around at the same time, and are still going around? What about all of the slime that came about post election, about the Florida recounts and the Chads? Why did they so rabidly oppose him on the Judicial Confirmations, as they are still doing? What about the threat to take down his brother for the mid-terms? It didn’t happen, but it was all part of the Hate-Bush meme that has actually been going around since before the elelction.

A more accurate assesment was that they never did like him at all since he first came on the national scene. The Dems in Texas were miffed at him for beating Ol’ Ann “Big Hair” Richards, who crammed the state lottery down our throats, and then he loosened the reigns on the TDC and the TDCJ, allowing the backlog of executions to proceed at what amounts to a normal pace, what should have been happening all along — that got the anti-Death Penalty wing of the fruitcakes hopping mad — they started referring to Texas as being a Death Factory. Sorry, but if you want to do the crime, don’t come to Texas, that is my take on that. Oh, and he was such a non-nuanced COWBOY. All of this was BEFORE he was elected Pres. And then they started digging dirt. And then along came the election, and he STOLE, Just STOLE it from their Heir Apparent, AlGore. Oh, the howls. Oh, the wailing. Oh, the lawyers. I just knew they were all going to melt down or blow a gasket over that one. But no such luck.

So No, the hatred didn’t start at mid-terms. It was there all along.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:01 pm 59. jerry:

This is going to be one of my slightly annoying technical posts so hang in there for a bit…

(1) There have been many references to the Roman Catholic Church existing in Constantine’s day. There was not such entity as the Roman Catholic Church until the Great Schism in the 10th Century. There was only one church, catholic as in universal. After the schism the church split along language lines between the Greek (Byzantine) and Latin (Roman) Catholic Church. The Roman Church has always claimed direct descent from Constantine. However, the Byzantine Church is the direct theological and liturgical descendent of the Church circa 300 AD. Until the Reformation, the Roman Church used claim supremcy based on a letter from Constantine. Early in the Reformation a 15th Century Charles Johnson showed that Constantine’s letter had all the authenticity of a Buckett CYA memo. The Protestant Reformation was about returning the Church to its early roots. Protestants are theologically aligned with the Byzantine Church.

(2) The anti-Zionist position of the secular/socialist Jew is actually quite logical. If you do not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph [or at least want to believe it to be true] then there is no such thing as the Jewish people as presently constituted. If you are a European “Jew” then you are nothing more then a Pole, Russian, German, French or whatever your European roots are. Actually Russian and other Eastern European “Jews” are actually Germans. Yiddish developed from Old High German because Jews remained in Russian Ghettos after the Christian Germanic Ghettos had been opened up. During the brief occupation of Eastern Europe in 1917-18 the German occupying authorities treated Jews as Germans.

(3) Finally, the behavior of secular left wing Jews is almost identical to the German Jews in the early days of the Nazi regime. They believed that the Nazis would discard anti-Semitism when its use was no longer valuable. That is why the Jewish left continues to ignore the anti-Semitism in modern socialist parties. These Jews think that once the Democratic party achieves its objectives then they will discard their anti-Semitism and look after [secular] Jewish interests. In the mean time Jews must demonstrate to their superior socialist credentials to remind the Democrats that they are a socialistís socialist.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:05 pm 60. Samuel:

gb_in_ga

Don’t be silly, I never said is started at mid-terms, that is just where the realization of what they were up against and the full battle they are in became obvious. In other words they that is when they realized he wasn’t as stupid as they thought, was not some electoral accident they could beat into submission, but actually downright dangerous. It is when they became desperate, they lost the Senate, majorities in the State Houses etc. I know what I am talking about I was a Democrat then and campaigning for them. The pre-2000 hate you talk about is just a normal universal hate they have for all Republicans, what we are talking about now is much more deepened and worse. The fact you can’t see the difference is actually what worries me, it is far worse I have ever seen.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:18 pm 61. gb_in_ga:

Jamie:

Well, what you said could have been construed 2 ways. I took one, you obviously meant the other.

And, sorry about straying off topic. It just sorta became an unrelated sub-thread. It’s a subject that’s near and dear to me, but I guess that you figured that out!

That said, I do agree with your assesment on it. Much of what the Dems are doing is explained by their holding on to what they believe based purely on faith and hate. It is just a hatefull faith that has no basis in reason. Like the issue of the church, however, I see no real way of ever convincing any of them the error of their ways — at least not the most rabid of them. My guess is that if they don’t come to the realization on their own, they never will. And the most rabid never will, but they may, hopefully, fade away into bitter obscurity. How that comes about I could really care less. Whether the Democratic party literally dies and is replaced by something else, or they get their tails kicked so bad that they face reality and do some badly needed housecleaning — either is fine with me.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:18 pm 62. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

Well, for me, it was just a continuation of the existing hatred. Hatred before, hatred after. Status Quo, from my perspective. Never having been an insider in Democratic affairs, I don’t have the perspective that you do. So, no, I wasn’t being silly. I was just calling it like I saw it.

That said, what little inside insight on the political scene was with the ‘Pubs a while back at the local level, in Texas. From my perspective, there wasn’t so much a hatred of the Dems as recgonizing that the Dems were the opposition to be overcome in the election. It was sorta like the sports team thing — we are going to play the game, and play it to win, but it isn’t a hatred thing, it is just part of the game. No hard feelings, you know. There are rules to be followed, and we’ll follow them because it’s the right thing to do. Now, it is true that there have been ‘Pubs that have stepped over the line on this, but it isn’t really a “cultural thing” with them — they don’t promote it and don’t tolerate it when discovered. It is like they learned their lesson with Nixon. Oliver North aside, that is.

No, the seething hate I see in the political arena nowadays comes almost entirely from the Dems and their camp followers. But it has been that way, well, since ‘Nam, to one degree or another. That constant stream of hatred and uncooperation masked what you were pointing out.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:35 pm 63. JBR:

As much as I’d like to agree with those on here who predict a Democratic crackup after this election, I don’t see it. Suppose Bush wins by 5 or 6 points. Do the Democrats crack up? No, they nominate Hillary in 2008. The Republicans nominate whom? McCain? Pataki? Frist? Jeb Bush? Giuliani? Are any of those guys a sure thing to beat Hillary in 2008? I don’t think so. Now, if Kerry loses to Bush by 15, perhaps there is a different story. But there isn’t much evidence that that kind of landslide will happen.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:36 pm 64. JBR:

As much as I’d like to agree with those on here who predict a Democratic crackup after this election, I don’t see it. Suppose Bush wins by 5 or 6 points. Do the Democrats crack up? No, they nominate Hillary in 2008. The Republicans nominate whom? McCain? Pataki? Frist? Jeb Bush? Giuliani? Are any of those guys a sure thing to beat Hillary in 2008? I don’t think so. Now, if Kerry loses to Bush by 15, perhaps there is a different story. But there isn’t much evidence that that kind of landslide will happen.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:36 pm 65. mwalls:

lisa huang fleischman commented that the christians & the druids were the only religions banned/persecuted by the Romans omitting the fact that the Republic also banned Bacchus/Dionysus in 186 BC (threat to public order).

Also paganism is officially banned by the Emperor Theodosius I in 392 AD.

Adoption of christianity in the west is much slower than the eastern empire. You can see examples of this in differences in support Julian received from the west vs east.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:42 pm 66. Terrye:

JBR:

I could be wrong of course but I don’t think Hillary has a chance. I really don’t.

Samuel:

I know they hate Bush, but they hate Cheney too and they hated Reagan as well. This hatred now is more obvious, because of the 2000 election and the sense of moral outrage. But if they get their ass whipped they might stop and think about things a little.

Today I saw part of a speach Tonly Blair gave and he apologized for not finding wmd stockpiles in Iraq but said taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. Lots of stony faces and I got mad. Just what the hell did all these people think the outcome of a dozen years of resolutions was going to be? When Tony Blair and Bill Clinton agreed that bombing Iraq in 1998 was the right thing to do I did not see people in the streets.

They messed up and they know it. They can blame Blair and Bush and God knows who else but if there was a mistake made in intelligence it was made largely because the powers that be did not want to be bothered after the cold war. They failed, not Bush and Blair and they know it too.

Sep 28, 2004 - 4:59 pm 67. Samuel:

JBR

Now, if Kerry loses to Bush by 15, perhaps there is a different story.

That is the problem, I have predicted that the Democrats will lose by maybe up to 10% for a while now. Now I really believe we are looking at maybe a Mondale like thrashing of 12-17%, and if it reaches across deep into Congress and in Governorship races it deeply worries me. Which leads me to…

gb_in_ga

I guess I am worried, I grew up here in Washington D.C. in the 60’s and 70’s and that political climate brought forth assassinations and great discord. I am not saying it is inevitable now but I don’t want to be naive either. Without getting into to much history I believe these days are very much like the 1960’s and Bush is like JFK had he lived into a second term. If and when Bush wins I don’t expect wounds to heal. They can blame Bush all they want division is about the times we live in. Hopefully Bush can help steer us through these times.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:11 pm 68. JBR:

Samuel: There are a number of Democrats out there who can be reasonable– Lieberman, Gephardt, Evan Bayh, etc. What becomes of them if there is a huge Kerry loss/crackup?

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:19 pm 69. Greg D:

JRB,

You’re ignoring the dynamics of the Kerry voters. 50%+ of them are ABB voters. So long as they think he might win, they’re his.

But. Let the polls continue this way into October, with Bush consistently above 50% and leading in most of the battleground states, and the dynamics change.

Is Bush hatred going to get you to the polls, when you already know he’s going to win? If it does, are you going to vote for that loser Kerry, who couldn’t beat the “moron” Bush? Or are you going to vote Green / Nader / None of the Above?

Unless Kerry has it really close by Oct 15, expect to see his numbers start to crater, esp. among Likely Voters.

BTW, Roger, “Hitchens and yours truly denounced here” has nothing but nice things to say about you and Hitch.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:29 pm 70. gb_in_ga:

Jerry:

Uh, no. Maybe? Curious. While the Roman Catholic (yes, I know that Catholic means Universal, but just saying so doesn’t make it actually so) CLAIMED supremacy over the the Eastern Church in Byzantium (That is the Orthodox Church I referred to, centered in Constantinople) and all other Christian sects as well (like the Copts), the Eastern Church was NEVER recognized in it it’s claim that it was second only to Rome, and it was the Romans that rejected that claim, repeatedly — As I’m looking it up right now. So, the Romans wanted authority over them, but didn’t want them to be uppity, and the Eastern church ended up doing what they were going to do, anyway. From what I can tell, that is. Meaning, the Eastern Church was functionally independent, and that was partly due to Rome itself.

The Roman Church essentially gave up it’s claim when the Roman Empire split into the East Empire and the West Empire, that was hundreds of years before the 10th Century. Well, they didn’t really give up the claim as much as they lacked the means to do anything about it. Until, that is, the 10th century. And on into the 13th, when the claims were further loosened. So far as I can tell, anyway. So, in effect, the Eastern Church has been independent in practice since the time of the Roman Empire, they just told the Roman Church to buzz off when the Roman Church started meddling to an uncomfortable degree, which happened on occasion. They also attempted to mend fences on occasion and were turned away. Otherwise, they cooperated on some occasions, it is true. And then there’s the Copts…

All of this is confusing, and completely irrelevant to the Restored, New Testament Only Christian, like me.

Again, we don’t really dwell on that period that much, as it is sufficient to acknowledge that the apostasy was deep and got deeper as time went on, and never started turning around until the Reformers started doing their thing in the Rennaisance.

There is some truth about the original Reformation Protestants harkening back to what was happening in 300 AD — that was since they didn’t really see anything wrong about the overseeing Bishop problem. For that matter, nobody today sees much wrong with that, except for the Paleos like me. They viewed the overseeing bishop arrangement to be a beneficial thing, bringing order to the church. It was easier to keep the flock herded in, and tended to squelch schisms. What the earlier Reformers were trying to do was not so much to destroy the Universal Church, sometimes even from within the Catholic Church, but to clean up it’s excesses, bringing it more in line with what was in the scriptures. That is why it was called the Reformation movement — it wasn’t there to replace the existing church, but to reform it. Further Reformations happened, and that just lead to more sects and an asymptopic progression towards the standard of the book, but they could never get there while still holding to the semblances of the old Catholic, Universal church with it’s concept of congregational hierarchy in one form or another. Even the current day Baptists, which all claim to independent congregations, still have their annual Conventions, partially out of holding to that old hierarchial organization they sprang from.

That is to be contrasted with the Restoration movement, who sought to do away with that church of 300 AD, as the concept of overseeing bishop was rejected.

Another concept of the Restoration movement was about the nature of the Universal Church itself. The Restoration movement is different in that the concept of Universal Church is not something that is found here on Earth, it is a Spiritual organization founded in Heaven, with Jesus as it’s head, and as members all faithful believers alive and dead. There are no middlemen. No heirarchy. No priesthood other than Christ. After all, if Christ is our divine high priest, as the scripture says, why do we need any other? We don’t. So we don’t have any. They’d just be a 2nd rate substitute anyway, even if they were authorized which they aren’t.

And with no priests there is no hierarchy of priests, no hierarchy of bishops, and the congregations become truly autonomous. Answering only to the local overseeing Eldership (there is always a plurality of them) and to divine authority. And that’s it. The preacher is hired by the Elders, and answers to them, not the other way around as is the case elsewhere.

And Not One Bit of This has ANYTHING to do with the Democrats and their current bout of loonyness.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:42 pm 71. JBR:

Greg D: These ABB people have deluded themselves into thinking that we went into Afghanistan for the oil. Won’t they be deluding themselves into thinking that Kerry can win even if the polls clearly say otherwise? Rationality is not their strong suit.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:49 pm 72. Samuel:

JBR

Gephart is a strong part of what the Democratic Party should be, hawkish, labor oriented and while Big Government, enough fiscal realism to bend a little, though I will add his version of what the Party should be will never win me back, but a legitimate Democratic position.

Lieberman is a loyal Democrat and would probably just become a Scoop Jackson or Pat Moynihan type person who sticks with it in his differences, but remain some sort of conscience of the Party. I very easily see him in an Administration of either Party one day.

Evan Bayh, is one of my favorites and I don’t know how he puts up with it, he is the one I would love to see change, his state wouldn’t hold it against him that is for sure. Again he is loyal and probably would try to weather it and then grow tired and resign and go back to State Politics where he can be a Democrat of his stripe. He is not feisty enough like Zell to cause waves.

Bottom line, it will take a new breed of Democrats to change the Party, the people you mention will be irrelevant to that process and they are irrelevant to the future Democratic Party.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:50 pm 73. gb_in_ga:

JBR:

On the “Reasonable Democrats”:

One of 5 things will happen, and they depend on the eventual fate of the party.

1> The Democratic party implodes on itself. They stay in office, finding a new party home (like the ‘Pubs).

2> The Democratic party implodes on itself. They stay in office, forming the nucleus of a new, third party that fills the void left by the now defunct Dems.

3> The Democratic party survives, but still loony and in denial. They stay where they are as part of the status quo.

4> The Democratic party survivies, but general housekeeping becomes the order of the day. They become the nucleus of the Reformed Democratic Party.

5> The Democratic party survivies, but still loony and in denial. They get fed up and jump ship, maybe landing with the ‘Pubs, and maybe they form a 3rd party. Maybe some of both.

That pretty well sums up all of the possibilities. Of course, they being who they are will have much influence on which of the 5 scenarios comes to pass.

Sep 28, 2004 - 5:56 pm 74. JBR:

Samuel: Any chance that Bush convinces Lieberman to endorse him?

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:01 pm 75. PeterUK:

Although works of fiction Robert Graves wonderful books “I Caudius” and “Claudius the God” provide an insight into some of the topics above.Poison a General fighting on the frontier, for political reasons,plus la change.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:05 pm 76. gb_in_ga:

Samuel:

I’m more worried that the times more resemble the ’80’s, with the left being similarly unthinkingly rabid, and death threats abounded — and it does seem that I remember that someone took a potshot at RR. I agree with you that I don’t see a Bush landslide quieting the rabid Leftists. They are rabid now, and will continue to be rabid until one of their own is in office and is pulling us completely out of the WOT. That much hatred has to vent somewhere, sometime. Historically, that time for extreme political violence seems to come around every 20 years or so, and we are due for it again.

Yes, I hope that Bush can steer us through these times, too. Unfortunately, I think he is hobbled in that the faction that is the most unhinged, and most likely to resort to violence is that same faction that is so rabidly trying to bring about his downfall. So, I really don’t think that there’s that much he can do about them. He can’t placate them without committing sepuku on National TV. And of course, that is out of the question. So he is going to have to marginalize them, instead. Easier said than done since they make such good footage for the evening MSM news. No, it isn’t going to be easy.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:19 pm 77. gb_in_ga:

jbr:

Way back up there (partly my fault, no largely my fault), you hit on something significant. And that is not what is going to happen in ‘04, but what about ‘08? While I don’t think that Hillary is that strong of a candidate — she has certain constituencies locked up, but she is really weak in others. Like, if she was so strong, why didn’t she run for Senate in her own, home state? Could it be that she knew all along that she doesn’t stand a chance in the South? That’s my guess.

But all that aside, it still shows that the Dems at least have some idea about who to groom for a run in ‘08. What have the Pubs got in line for then? I know that it is still early, but this is still an advantage for the Dems at this point. The Pubs really don’t want to be caught with no really viable candidate, like in ‘96. I mean, Dole for all practical purposes ended up with the nomination by default. The only problem is that every possibility that you mention has some negative baggage of some sort or another associated. It is going to take a strong candidate to challenge Hillary, especially since she will almost certainly be an MSM darling at that point. So, any guesses on who it may be at this point?

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:49 pm 78. Terrye:

I think these guys would hate any Republican. Tony Blair is a labor party socialist and the same kind of people hate him in the UK.

That is what they do, they hate.

I remember reading something Orwell wrote years ago. He was referring to the left in Great Britain. He said that when it became apparent that the US was getting involved in the war in Europe the lefties in Britain said it was a ruse, that in realtiy the American troops were coming over to help put down the upcoming workers revolution in Britain. Of course in time all of that nonsense was buried beneath the bodies of American and British soldiers killed by Nazis.

He did say however that it is hopeless trying to argue with people such as this. They are mad.

I think this is the case. We are assuming it is Bush hatred. It is “not us” hatred.

Clinton mentioned God in his speaches more than Bush does. He had American troops going off somewhere every time you turned around, he threatened Saddam. The difference was they knew he did not mean that stuff, he was just paccifying the yokels. But Bush, now that man means it. And that strength is what scares them because it represents and unabashed belief in ‘doing the right thing’ that the Dems find embarassing to even see much less have to fight against.

Kerry with his finishing school manners and his workers unite bullshit is far more to their liking. And that is Kerry’s problem, he is liked by people the rest of us can’t stand.

Sep 28, 2004 - 6:52 pm 79. richard mcenroe:

I think Hillary is not going to be the candidate in ‘08. I think she’s going to be the Dems’ next Teddy Kennedy, something they trot out ever four years to scare good little Republican children in their beds, but never actually running. I don’t think she’ll step up to power with accountability, which is something she’s avoided so far in her political career…

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:09 pm 80. gb_in_ga:

Terrye:

You have a good point there. The haters hatred is directed at more than just one person, GW Bush. It is directed ALL Republicans, as they view all Republicans as repugnant. But it doesn’t stop there. It applies to some in their own home party, the ones like Zell who dare to stand up to them. In GB it is directed towards their own PM from their own party, since he has the unmitigated audacity to not kowtow to them, by doing the right thing for an long standing ally in time of conflict. They Hate. They want their own way, and they HATE those who stand in the way.

There is no placating them.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:10 pm 81. gb_in_ga:

Richard:

You may be right there, but it is a strategy that could ultimately backfire on them. At least, it does with me. When I look at a fine upstanding citizen like Zell Miller, I say to myself: “That’s a fine fellow, I Like Him.” And then I notice the (D) beside his name. Sigh. He’s a Democrat. Well, while he may be a fine fellow and all, by his being a Democrat he’s enabling the rest of the Democrat machine in Congress, to the tune of Ted Kennedy (the Sotted Blowhard), Robert Byrd (the PorkMeister!) and Hillary! While I may actually like Zell, I have misgivings about giving him my support since supporting him also supports them by association. And then I sadly turn away…

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:21 pm 82. JBR:

gb_in_ga: On paper, Jeb Bush is a great choice– popular governor of a huge and critical state, not too young, not too old. But are the Republicans going to want to run a Bush on the national ticket for the 7th time in 8 election cycles? Probably not.

Sep 28, 2004 - 7:48 pm 83. gb_in_ga:

JBR:

Agreed. Public perception may be: “Haven’t we seen enough of the Bushes already?, Let’s try something different for a change.” While Jeb may not be negative at all — he’s holding up pretty well, from what I’ve seen, under some less than ideal circumstances (I mean, 4 hurricanes: bam, bam, bam, bam! One is bad enough!) — he may suffer name burnout and the public’s aversion to political dynasties. To a certain point, I think that is one reason why the Dems never ran Ted Kennedy — his brother was already prez (and was assasinated), his other brother ran for prez (and was also assasinated), let’s not try for round 3. That, and one particularly soggy fatal traffic incident way back when.

So, who else? Who, on the Republican side of things, is the equivelant of Zell? Too bad he won’t do it.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:07 pm 84. BeckyJ:

Going back to the idea of the Dems imploding and leaving us without a so-called loyal opposition – the same phenomenon can be seen in the UK with the landslide Labour victory in the 2001 election. Not long after that election I was talking with some British political scientists and to a person they were all 3rd generation (at least) Labour voters. They also, to a person, expresed a great deal of dismay at the crack-up of the Conservative Party. They worried that without a viable opposition party that Labour could get out of control.

I have some of the same worries myself with regard to the Dems. I switched from being a registered Dem to an independent (I can’t quite go all the way Republican). But one of the things that worries me is the extreme hatred and head-in-the-sand attitude from many Democratic politicians and supporters. Continuing down this route will practically insure the disappearance of the Democratic Party as we have known it. I hope that the ideas advanced by Samuel, Mark and others that a viable replacement party will emerge are correct. As a political scientist (OK, no jokes about the “scientist” part) I understand that Duverger’s Law suggests that a viable opposition party, will emerge, but who will populate it is the question.

As an aside, this is one of the first times I can express these thoughts. As an academic, any deviation from the party line results in the same reaction Cathy Seipp talks about…”you seem like a nice person…” Most of my colleagues refuse to admit that there are problems with the way the Kerry campaign is going as well as the DNC.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:22 pm 85. JBR:

gb_in_ga: Condi Rice would be another great choice, but she apparently wants to become NFL Commissioner after Tagliabue. Giuliani could easily win a national election, but could he get himself nominated?

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:28 pm 86. gb_in_ga:

JBR:

I had thought about Condi, but I think she would be perceived as having a couple of weaknesses, other than not desiring the job as you point out. First, she really doesn’t have that much in the way of actual, political experience IIRC. While her resume is quite impressive, is it political, or is she more of a technician? How well will she do on the campaign trail, making speeches, etc. I can’t answer that. Second, from what I know, she may be perceived as being weak on domestic issues. My suggestion would be for her to move on to another senior administrative position in another, domestic, post. A little more seasoning, in other words.

On Giuliani — well, he may be electable in some areas, and is considered strong on the WOT, but he’s going to have some problems in the red states because of his perceived weakness on 2nd Amendment issues. He would have problems back home in Texas on that account, for example. Sorry, but that just won’t fly in the south. The Bubbas won’t stand for it. For that matter, similar problems will be encountered with most candidates from the North East. Unfortunately for him, the Bubbas actually CAN read and have something resembling a memory for that sort of thing.

Sep 28, 2004 - 8:56 pm 87. gb_in_ga:

JBR:

I had thought about Condi, but I think she would be perceived as having a couple of weaknesses, other than not desiring the job as you point out. First, she really doesn’t have that much in the way of actual, political experience IIRC. While her resume is quite impressive, is it political, or is she more of a technician? How well will she do on the campaign trail, making speeches, etc. I can’t answer that. Second, from what I know, she may be perceived as being weak on domestic issues. My suggestion would be for her to move on to another senior administrative position in another, domestic, post. A little more seasoning, in other words.

On Giuliani — well, he may be electable in some areas, and is considered strong on the WOT, but he’s going to have some problems in the red states because of his perceived weakness on 2nd Amendment issues. He would have problems back home in Texas on that account, for example. Sorry, but that just won’t fly in the south. The Bubbas won’t stand for it. For that matter, similar problems will be encountered with most candidates from the North East. Unfortunately for him, the Bubbas actually CAN read and have something resembling a memory for that sort of thing.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:18 pm 88. gb_in_ga:

Oops! Did I double Post? I didn’t think I hit it twice, did I? Miserable TypeKey…

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:19 pm 89. mwalls:

gb_in_ga: You might notice that the pope didn’t really get into papal superiority until the emperor couldn’t reach him. As long as the Exarch of Ravenna had viable forces able to deliver the Bishop of Rome to Constantinople, a certain deterence prevailed.

Sep 28, 2004 - 9:38 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: