Krugman: Fighting the Last War
Paul Krugman bops Obama on the head today in a column titled Played for a Sucker:
Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.
The fear, expressed by others in the Lefty blogosphere, is that accepting the Right's framing of a Social Security crisis puts the program in mortal peril.
I know, Social Security -- even with growth projections well below the historical norm -- is going to be solvent for another couple of decades. I get it. But can we get real? Privatization failed. It didn't even get out of committee. It didn't come close to getting out of committee, and that was before the 2006 election. Liberals are so traumatized, so used to being abused, that they would rather keep clutching the orthodoxies they're used to rather than grabbing the advantage. And that is precisely what Obama is doing!
He has proposed raising the cap on Social Security income, making our most regressive tax a little more progressive. Is Hillary Clinton really being a better liberal because she punts on the issue and leaves it for a blue ribbon bipartisan committee to work out later? Is there a more progressive solution this committee might come up with? Raising the retirement age? Lowering benefits? Are those more progressive solutions?
We've got to stop acting like scared children about this. We won. Privatization is dead. Now... can we talk to people about our solutions to their problems?
--
I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
as Krugman points out the only ones who talk of crisis are people who don't understand the numbers.
Obama is being played for a fool. SS is simply not an important issue right now. There are dozens of things of greater importance.
Instead of buying into the ridiculous right wing "something must be done about SS" meme he should talk about issues that need to be addressed now. If he feels the need to comment on SS he should explain how utterly idiotic it is to talk of a crisis in a plan that is OK for another 3 decades. He could help by educating voters as to the true state of SS.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
)Obama's cap-raising proposal is fine. His language is careless, if not a sign of total political incompetence.
Perhaps K, being a long-time political columnist, is somewhat more aware of how language has to be used in this kind of debate.
--Holographic Foam Cosmology. Improved! With bigger bubbles!
- reply
- quote
)I've been pounding a similar drum at Daily Kos and getting some pummeling in return.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
)The fear, expressed by others in the Lefty blogosphere, is that accepting the Right's framing of a Social Security crisis puts the program in mortal peril.
Well, yes. As soon as you let the opposition frame the question you have lost. "Are you with the terrorists or do you support the President?"
- reply
- quote
)As soon as you ignore a concern of the electorate because you need to hew to your party orthodoxy you have lost.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )There is no Social Security "crisis". Yes, there are possible issues funding it in the long term, but those can be easily managed with relatively minor adjustments.
The whole crisis meme is part of the GOP plan to kill one of the most popular and most successful government programs of all time. No Democrat should use the word crisis when talking about Social Security and, if pressed on the issue, should emphasize the following points:
If the electorate is concerned about this issue, then they need to be educated about it. They don't need Democrats echoing GOP talking points.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Whether we call this a 'crisis' or not?
During the privatization debate we correctly said exactly what you're saying... that SS does not need to be privatized, it only needs some small tweaks to fix it. Now Obama has proposed a progressive proposal on such tweaks, and the left reacts like he's committed an unforgivable apostasy.
Honestly, Chuchundra... do you really think privatization is going to come storming back from the grave and -- with a Democratic congress in power -- become law, just because a Democratic politician uses the word crisis? We've got to be a little more confident than that now.
Whether we like it or not, this is a perceived problem. Whether we like it or not, many years down the line, probably decades, we do get a shortfall and that does worry people. Can we do the tweaks we said were necessary, or is the more righteous path to continue cowering in fear here?
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )calling something "strengthening SS" as opposed to "a crisis with SS" makes a huge difference in the arguments one can use and the attacks one will face. It's Politics 101. It does matter what you call it. That's not fear, it's respecting one's opponents and not falling into the fallacy that anything is ever final in American politics.
BTW, learn something from the Republican's recent history and don't assume a D President, Congress or Supreme Court. No one knows what the future will bring, just because things look good for one party now means nothing a couple years down the road.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )You're expecting that they will come back at you with the same play they did last time. The next move will be benefits cuts, or means testing (which will rob the system of political support), or raising the retirement age. Why not preempt that? The only way to really make SS safe is by making it solvent for as far as we can see. Yes, our political ascendancy is not forever, but that is the very reason why we should offer a solution on our terms while we have the upper hand.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that the "tax increasing irresponsible tax and spend Democrats" theme doesn't get traction, I'll be happy to agree with you. Until then, not so much.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )Every one of the Dem candidates is proposing a tax increase. Every one. This tax increase is just more politically palatable than most because it hits only the upper brackets and because people don't want to worry that they won't get their SS.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Exactly. An analogy:
I know I'll have to replace my car every 5 to 10 years if I'm going to stay mobile. Should I panic about the three to six cars I'll need to buy over the next 30 years? Should I be all wanked about the fact that in 2037 a car will likely cost six figures? No. I'll be able to afford them as when the time comes.
There are other things to worry about, but this isn't it. Letting the opposition frame it as a "crisis" distorts the problem (to the extent that there is a problem.)
- reply
- quote
| parent )In Bill's own words:
"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
)because it made sense from a "goose/golden egg" standpoint, and I recall numbers being blackboarded that showed the disaster Clinton predicted was at least possible.
When did people decide that this was all just BS?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )But Bill Clinton didn't always tell the truth.
If I had to guess, I'd say that, in part, the very strong economic growth during the 90's really helped mitigate the problem, such as it was. In truth, the "crisis" was always based on extremely conservative economic forecasting.
Secondly, I would say that Clinton used the specter of a SS crisis to protect his budget surpluses from the Republicans who wanted to use it for tax cuts. Remeber Al Gore's lock box?
The key is that, while we don't really have a Social Security crisis, we do have a bit of a general fund crisis. Eventually SS is going to want to cash in its bonds to pay benefits and that money is going to have to come out of the general fund.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
- quote
| parent )If those on SS now are getting more out than they put in, where's the $$$ coming from, and what will happen (or is happening) when the ratio of retirees to workers increases?
Laugh all you like, but then please answer me. Thx.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )The productivity boost in the 90s obviated many of the long-term concerns.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )the estimate was that SS would run out of money to pay promised benefits by 2029. Today that date has been pushed out to 2041.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )With the eventual trough being shallower, etc. etc.
Besides the real problem with SS is as MSE says; while the bonds the SS Trust Fund hold truly are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the citizenry of the United States of America, we've gotten very used to financing our deficits with that money. When the Boomers start collecting benefits in nontrivial numbers (say, in 2012 or so, in deference to the Mayan calendar), there will be a massive realignment of some sort.
It is this realignment which will be the true Bush Administration legacy; instead of paying down our national debt in preparation for large incoming liabilities, he massively expanded it. Things will be much worse than they could have been. Our challenge as liberals is to get the Democratic Party in good enough shape that it is capable of making the case that the fiscal collapse was, in fact, the fault of irresponsible Republicanism and that the Party of Deficit Spending should be kept away from cash registers and debit cards, much less the US Treasury.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )BTW Point of information - is SS index linked or some such thing? iow How is it inflation proofed?
- reply
- quote
| parent )rather than inflation rates.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that follow this professionally I don't think anyone ever thought this was a disaster.
It's like the 'global cooling' articles in the 1970s. They only appeared in the popular press not in the science journals.
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )And Howard Dean made a similar proposal to Obama in 2004. I guess that was before the orthodoxy was established. Honestly, Krugman (and other players on the left) have really come unhinged here.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )lies in a desire to deny Obama a point of leverage against HRC.
Further, privatization is not the only threat. Luis Alegria for example routinely talks about Social Security as just another entitlement program and claims that we should acknowledge no distinction between FICA revenue and general revenue.
This (IMHO) opens the door to eviscerate Social Security by placing those monthly checks on par with budget expenditures for things like F-22 Raptor aircraft.
Removing the $97,500 cap solves a whole lot of problems, mostly political.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
| parent ). . .because tax increases that will screw the upper middle class have worked so well for Democrats before.
Even from the POV of Democratic/Willie Sutton tax ethics, it would make more sense to propose that the payroll tax be abolished altogether and that SS be paid for with general revenue--lifting the tax cap without raising benefit limits will just make it blatantly obvious that the "trust fund" is a fiction anyway and that once again the Democrats are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
--- reply
- quote
| parent )What does raising the tax cap and not benefits have to do with the trust fund being real or not?
--This place is my vacation.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Are you implying that Saints Ronnie and Alan were being perhaps a mite disingenuous?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I have no problem with Obama "leveraging" Hillary to more liberal positions. In fact, I welcome it.
Removing the cap causes problems with the R portrayal of raising taxes. It may still work as effective propaganda, despite abundant evidence of D responsibility and R irresponsibility on fiscal matters.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )You assume good faith on the part of current Republican Party officeholders. Bush's rhetoric was clear -- he did not wish to balance the books, he wished to repudiate the debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )They lost that battle, and they won't win it if they try to fight it again.
Obama's right on this one: raise the cap.
- reply
- quote
| parent )the Rs won't take every chance to use fear mongering and deceptive tactics to get this done, then I don't know where you've been for the past 25 years. It's not a crisis, and saying that it is is like going to a knife fight without a knife. Call it what it is, not what your opponents want it to be called.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )unlike Medicare: I'm just saying that funding any projected revenue shortfalls now by raising the cap is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
- reply
- quote
| parent )however, giving one's opponents ammunition is never a smart political thing to do, which is one of the issues I have with Obama.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )This is a winner in the general.
Giuliani vs Clinton in the general. Clinton punts on SS. Giuliani punts on SS. Draw.
Giuliani vs Obama in the general. Obama says he wants to raise the cap. Giuliani comes back with what? He can't punt anymore: from a Republican who's decried the circumstances of SS that comes off as dishonest and cowardly. Privatization? Lose. Benefit cuts? Lose. Raise retirement age? Lose. Raise the cap? In a million years is he going to raise taxes on the rich.
It's a winner, Hank.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )He'll come out against "tax increases" and the entire R apparatus will move in lockstep behind him, along with their dimwitted supporters in the media.
I mean, this is like the Road Runner cartoons. Call something "illegal wiretaps" and everyone's against it. Call it "protecting America from the terrorist threat" and it gets 48 - 52%. We've seen this over and over. And if you think that "dishonest and cowardly" will ever be applied to St. Rudy of the 911 you're crazy (just an expression, I'm sure you're not actually crazy).
Words matter. Framing matters. It may not work on people who actually pay attention and research the issues, but that's a small minority.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )And then what? I'd be happy to pit raising the cap against privatization. That's a winner for us.
Get out of the weeds, Hank! No need to hide anymore. The enemy is in retreat! Press the advantage! L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )is to borrow a page from the Bush/Rove playbook and hit them where they think they're strong. Fiscal conservatism? A weak, played out joke. Strong national defense? Same thing. Better internal security? More like giving Grandma a body cavity search.
The Ds already have the social and cultural high ground, thay have a slight advantage in fiscal issues as well. Hit em where it hurts on their supposed strong points. Everything else is just avoiding the issues that matter in crushing the Rs this election. Every statement by every candidate should start by stating how badly Bush and the Republican Congress have f^%$ed things up. Every statement should talk about the lies and mistakes of this administration and the lickspittle Republican congress that did nothing about it. Every single statement. That's what it's going to take to not only defeat but totally refute the so-called philosophy of the Bush Republican party.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )...I bought this book last night after seeing a passage concerning the writing of Brown v. Board of Ed and some lowly clerk wrote and said, "Write the Opinion like you believe it, don't write it like you're ashamed of saying what is right and good for the country...." The Brown Opinion was re-written with this in mind...wow, that's how you do it.
I wanted to buy the Kit Carson, winning the West history book, but the Earl Warren Bio is something I should read, so I bought it instead.
I would further add that as I finish up The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, David Halberstam's last book, I am continually struck how closely today's political news matches that in the late '40's and early 50's with the whole, Who Lost China arguments that raged across America at that time...(as if China was ever ours to lose or have).
This is what Republicans do...they've been doing it for a very long time, we've been here before...Agressive counter-punching is the only, only,only answer and proper response to them.
There is a Nation for us to make also.
Now.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
- quote
| parent )I have problems with Clinton, Obama, Edwards and all the rest of the Ds. None of them are my "ideal" candidate. But I'd vote for any of them in a nanosecond compared to the other clowns who argue about how much we should expand Guantanamo (a stain on out country's honor if there ever was one), about how we can cut taxes to reach fiscal balance, and who think that the answer to any foreign policy question is to stack dead (foreign) bodies like cordwood.
I see no aspirations on the Republican side other than more of the same failed policies. They deserve to have Bush hung around their necks until they support him or repudiate him. Is it really so hard to understand that politics is not a polite debating society? Many if not most people make their decisions based on their gut feelings - we need to reach into their guts and twist them. The Republicans have no qualms about doing so.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )"Don't fire until you see the white of their 'let's increase taxes' press releases, men."
--- reply
- quote
| parent )... that you guys are still using muskets.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )fully solves whatever crisis exists. If any.
Crisis identified, crisis solved, overall tax structure made more progressive.
What's left to argue about?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )efforts to re-define social security payments as "entitlement spending"
That is another line of attack on SS we have not won, yet.
Related, BOTH parties are guilty of raiding FICA surpluses for general spending and shall be very reluctant to end doing that. When those surpluses are consumed the temptation shall be to agree that those monthly checks are the equivalent of entitlements and start making cuts in benefits to avoid raising taxes in other areas.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
| parent )the "trust fund" will need to be drawn down because of demographic trends, there's no way around it. I'm not worried about R's refuting St. Reagan's compromise, it opens up a big can of worms, all on their side.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )If Obama wins, I'm assuming we'll have both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The good faith of Republican Party officeholders will not be needed.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Iraq, Afghanistan, bin Laden, national health care, re-rationalizing the tax code, criminal prosecution of Bush 43 for FISA violations, etc. etc.
It's just not worth talking about, when there is no reason to take immediate action and all we do is feed into Republican memes.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )and it would be just as dead if proposed by a Democrat. This isn't going to be a case of Nixon going to China.
That aside, Krugman's more depressing sentence was this:
Has Krugman (whose writing I generally like) watched the results of the elections of the past seven years? This is a deeply divided country, and the reason we got stuck with Bush v. Gore (not to mention Bush himself) was that it was close election. That hasn't changed: even in upstate NY, a significant number of the recent local races were so close that they're still being recounted.
Neither side may like bipartisanship*, but it's going to be the only way a Democratic Administration is going to get legislation passed in the near future**. Kudos to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for being smart enough to know this.
* That would be real bipartisanship, i.e. compromise. Not caving in after a few nice speeches.
** Obviously that changes if the Democrats can pick up a total of 60 seats next year, but that strikes me as optimistic.
- reply
- quote
)This quote: "But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool." It makes me wonder how many issues Krugman has identified as beyond compromise, and therefore liberals must fight political war rather than negotiate. This is why I have such huge problems with ideologues like Krugman and Greenwald. We're not the opposition, we are the enemy.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
)Stick with traditional interpretations of the Constitution concerning the appropriate scope of executive power and Greenwald won't argue hardly at all.
IMHO.
Greenwald and Russell Kirk could find ample swathes of common ground easily enough.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
| parent )If "we" is all conservatives, obviously not. That sort of eliminationist Dolchstosslegende rhetoric is a province of our right-wing posters on this site; for example, luisalegria.
If "we" is the current organizational apparatus of the Republican Party, well, yes, y'all vote for and support a Fascist Party. I believe that it's out of a highly varying combination of disbelief at how bad things actually are, a bone-deep hatred of liberals, an attachment to the old-style Republican brand, and bigotry trumping common sense (homophobia and racism being the biggest deals). Any one person may only hold one or two of these, but the combination creates a coalition.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )blah blah blah hatred blah blah blah bigotry blah blah blah homophobia and racism blah blah blah...
Meanwhile, the leading contender for the Republican nomination is a notoriously gay-friendly supporter of open borders.
PM, does it ever occur to you that such posts come across not as reasoned statements that invite discussion, but as unpleasantly messy emotional ejaculations that invite only scorn, contempt and derision?
P.S.: still keeping up with the Jena case? I am. With a smile on my face.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Ken White and I have already had this conversation, ad nauseum.
But if your response is to discuss Giuliani, who:
1) is garnering nontrivial opposition due exclusively to his pro-choice and pro-gay stance, and
2) did a complete 180 on open borders,
then my response is that reason and facts are not entering the conversation to start with. You gotta meet people on their own level.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )(1) Opposition to Giuliani based on his "pro-gay stance" is utterly trivial.
(2) Opposition to him based on his "pro-choice...stance" is non-trivial but irrelevant. Why did you suddenly bring this up?
(3) Unfortunately, he has not done "a complete 180" on open borders. Fortunately, immigration restrictionists (like me) are not as easily fooled as you are.
And so on and so forth.
You really need to take your own sig line more seriously.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I can only interpret it as an attack on PM, not his comment.
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )I would have thought that the implied subject of the predicated "typical idiocy" is, precisely, PM's *comment*, and not PM himself. "PM's comment is typical idiocy" makes good sense, while "PM is typical idiocy" does not.
But I'd be happy to change the subject line to "delusional nonsense" or something like that, if you'd prefer.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )your #1 and #2 answers, unless you think that "cultural conservatives" are trivial or irrelevant in the Republican party. I haven't seen any evidence of that.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )The folks at Redstate, for example, are more vexed about Rudy's pro-choice and gun control positions than about gay rights, although a couple of idiots went on about him going drag a time or two. But their idiocy pales before PM's moronic crap about the GOP being a "fascist party". Personally, it doesn't bother me so much that Rudy's pro-choice because he said he would appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. But what tipped me against Rudy was not that he just pro-choice, but that he donated his personal monies to Planned Parenthood. Add his takes on gun control and that he is more liberal than the rest of the slate, and there is no way I could vote for him in the primaries. Rudy's main schtick is that he would be strong in the War Against Militant Islamism and beat Hillary. Well, for me, McCain could do both much better. Even so, cultural conservatives or Christian conservatives are going to pull the lever for Rudy if nominated, because they're not stupid. They know that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for Hillary.
--"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."
--Robert Gibbs
- reply
- quote
| parent )I really have a hard time believing that opposition to pro-choice views are "trivial" or "irrelevant". I'm not arguing that voters won't engage in strategic voting (Hitlery Xlintoon!!!) but I thought those statements were over the top.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )I am also very gay-friendly (to put it mildly). I also know and hang out on the internet with lots of other cultural conservatives. And I can tell you with absolute confidence that the minority of Republicans who strongly object to Giuliani are not much motivated by homophobia. They *are* *very much* motivated by his *pro-choice* stance. But so what? PM's claim was that the current Republican Party is a Fascist Party, driven by hatred of liberals, homosexuals and racial minorities. The existence of Republican
--pro-lifers provides no support whatsoever for that deeply silly and offensive claim.
God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )that you're an outlier, else why the huge push for anti-gay marriage amendments and such over the past several years? Also, saying that opposition to Giuliani's pro-choice views is "irrelevant" seems quite an over statement to me. I'm just going by public utterances by self-proclaimed cultural conservatives. I just find it hard to believe that after the past twenty years of anti abortion rhetoric, they're just going to say "never mind".
I think "hatred" is the wrong word. I do think they're happy to demonize those groups for political gain.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )1) The GOP is a Fascist Party.
2) It wasn't always.
3) There are people who are in favor of a Fascist Party. They are in the GOP. There are people who do not grasp that the GOP has turned into a Fascist Party and who were committed to the way the GOP used to be. They are also in the GOP.
This was fairly explicitly stated.
But, yes, any Party whose credible candidates for standard bearer say that they would "double Guantanamo" to resounding cheers could be a Fascist Party; further, any Party which created Camp X-Ray in the first place could also be Fascist. Any Party which seeks to authorize warrantless wiretaps on American citizens could be a Fascist Party. Any Party which uses the power of the State to spy on and/or destroy its political opposition -- and their donors -- could be a Fascist Party. Any Party which begins and supports a war based on false pretexts and misinforms both lawmakers and the world at large regarding those pretexts could be a Fascist Party. Any Party which implements a systematic torture regime could be a Fascist Party.
Any Party which does all of these things is a Fascist Party. The folks who think I'm wrong either don't believe that the Bush Administration with its enablers in Congress are doing all of these things or that any action taken by the GOP could conceivably result in it being a Fascist entity, due to its previous status as a mainstream institution.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )Hope everybody reads it.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- reply
- quote
| parent )- reply
- quote
| parent )I honestly didn't think I mischaracterized your position; I had thought your references to "moonbats" and "BDS" were pretty clear. Is there a nuance I'm missing?
Quick request for a moderator to erase the offending parenthetical.
(Note that luisalegria has explicitly endorsed the first statement, so it probably ought to stay.)
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
- quote
| parent )For the posting rules violation mentioned. It's also not true, btw.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- reply
- quote
| parent )As a liberal, of course, I have no idea what it must feel like to be demonized.
--I've taken the pledge: no more troll-feeding. Clean since 5/06/09.
- reply
- quote
| parent )How high can you count? Remember Avrogado's number?
--My views on most things would jibe with most Americans'. A. Franken
- reply
- quote
| parent )to put Krugman up against Larry Kudlow or any other R economic shill.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )Isn't that the stuff used to make guacamole?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- reply
- quote
| parent )we just agreed on something! : )
Neither side needs another generation of Holy Warriors enforcing ideological purity. There's too much work to be done.
- reply
- quote
| parent )