I'm so with you 110% on this one Michael, it's not even funny. Where in the hell do these people come from? No, more importantly, what the hell planet are they living on? Your thoughts mirror so many of my own sometimes, it's a little eerie. I myself have undergone the leftist to liberal to quasi-centrist evolution, as well, and as a Democrat it sickens me to no end to see that this is the apparent direction we're heading. These people MUST be driven from the party, somehow, and somebody's got to have the guts to do it. I'd love nothing more than to see someone like John Kerry lead the charge, unite the party, win the nomination, and then send a clear message in his acceptance speech by, oh, say, offering Richard Perle (a registered Democrat) a job as Secretary of Defense. Would that about do it? IS THAT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE?! Of course, that won't happen, though...Kerry's now 21 points behind the Vermont Maple McGovern in New Hampshire and pandering out the wazoo. Dean all but has the nomination wrapped up. Maybe Lieberman and McCain will lead some kind of Centrist Revolt and start their own party taking a good 10 or 15 Senators with them, the party of the future: Center-Right-Scoop-Jackson on Defense with Dead-Moderate-Clintonian Fiscal Responsibility and Center-Left Libertarian Social Values. Oh, what a glorious dream...and between the Traitorous Left and Theocratic Right, who knows what dreams may come.

These people are maniacs.

But aren't you allowing your justified revulsion at their shenanigans to cloud your judgement on the advisability of a war in Iraq (which I supported, by the way).

Over a hundred people were just killed by a car bomb. Because we are the reigning power in Iraq, we will be blamed, even if we were neither responsible nor the targets.

The war is costing $1BN per week. Can we afford this? Money does matter, when you are paying a mortgage and putting your kids thru college.

Is it at all possible that this war may have been a dreadful mistake, justified by fudging the facts, and will ultimately turn out to be a diversion against the war on terror (which I and virtually all other Americans support completely)?

Is it at all possible that the real war on terror should be focused on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? But for political reasons was diverted to Iraq?

Associating Howard Dean with these nutcases is about as fair as associating that "God Hates Fags"-character (forget his name) with George Bush, just becuase they are both evangelical Christians. Not fair at all. Not logical, and not productive.

I am far more disillusioned than you. I can't see any scenario under which I would return to the Left. This might help explain why:
http://www.gefen.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_gefen_archive.html#106225040473681626

Diana,

I know Howard Dean is better than the people who made this "art."

Is it at all possible that the real war on terror should be focused on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? But for political reasons was diverted to Iraq?

I would rewrite this:

Is it at all possible that the real war on terror should be focused on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? But for strategic reasons began in Iraq?

Be glad, Diana, that we aren't occupying Mecca right now. Be glad we are moving out of that country for now. World War II did not begin with the invasion of Berlin, and the Cold War did not begin in with an attack on Moscow. It never involved an attack on Moscow at all, in fact.

So, are you saying we invaded Poland?

I'm sorry; I'm just being flip. But acknowledging that it would be an absolutely horrible idea to invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan doens't make it a good idea to invade Iraq. I understand perfectly well the new Middle Eastern domino theory. I just don't think the architects of this war understood how incredibly difficult it would be to bring it about --- or acknowledged that failure in Iraq was possible, and would be as catastrophic as success would be benficial. The war plans originally called for a drawing down of forces to about 30,000 troops by this point. It is becoming readily apparent that any other outcome strains our military to the breaking point. Since I can't believe that Don Rumsfeld wanted that, I have to believe he didn't think such a outcome was possible. Yet it has happened. This worries me.

By the by, even Dean, who oppossed the war, has acknowlegded that withdrawl is not an option and that we're gonna have to stay in Iraq for a long while and commit a lot of money to fixing it. He may be given to fire and brimsone, but he's not stupid.

Michael beat me to the punch on Diana's query. Yes, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are critical in this war. But it is going to be a long war, likely into the 2020s given the demographics of the region.

We could not put pressure on Pakistan while we needed their support in Afghanistan. A favorable Afghan government will give us, in a few years, a solid base of operations to begin to put pressure on Pakistan (and Iran).

We could not lean on Saudi Arabia while US troops were present to contain Sadddam Hussein. Now that he is gone, so are the US forces (officially as of 25 August). Iraq, in a few years, will be a great base of operations to pressure Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.

Bothered by all this talk of the future and future conflict? You are not alone, but the greatest revulsion of the future comes from those folks who created the "art" Michael posted. They fear what is to come, because they now realize (with the collapse of the Soviet Union) that it will not be the utopia they had hoped for.

This fear is understandable for we are likely in the midst of an epochal shift. Robert J. Bunker sees it as a shift from nation-states based on mechanical energy to something else. Philip Bobbitt believes the nation-state, which was to take care of its citizens, is becoming a market-state, whose job is to provide opportunities for its inhabitants. Fear of the future has a long history in human affairs. Heck, communism grew out of a dislike of the shift from animal to mechanical energy in the mid-19th century, positing a future that would be a return to a (mythical) communal past!

Those on the radical left are scared of the future and their fear leads to anger, anger at those who would dare show them the future and make them deal with it. (Explains a lot of European anti-Americanism too.)

We, if I may lump all of Michael's readers together, do share a concern with the future, but not the anger. We have, I think, adopted a position, to paraphrase George Orwell, that the future has to be faced, not feared. This does not mean that we should abandon all thought and support one position. That is what the radical left has done and it does not work. We must be more responsible than that.

Sorry for the length of the post!

Er, we've had Communists and Socialists (not to mention outright anti-Semites) around forever; they still don't define the Left, no matter what Ann Coulter says.

I self-identify as a liberal, and I proudly consider myself the intellectual heir to Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Dr. King, and Clinton. None of these pictures express a worldview which I share.

Dean may not support the people who did these pictures but they support him.
Iraq is a critical part of the war on terror. The terrorists know this which is why they are going there to cause trouble.
Our goal is fine but I think we have handicapped ourselves by commiting to Iraq, three countries would make a lot more sense and be a lot easier to deal with.
What really scares me is what has happened to the US college system. Where once free speech was the goal we now see administration enforced PC speech codes that are being used to stifle dissent.
Lancer mentioned Orwell and I think what we see on our campuses, where all sides should be debated, is the enforcement of a point of view that is far left wing, often disguised by what I can only refer to as doublespeak.

What fascinates me about people who do artwork like that (which is really facist art,when you think about it) is who they think they doing their work for... I don't think it persuades anybody about of anything. So it isn't much as propaganda. So what does it do? Rally the troops (I mean their troops, of course)? Maybe. Above all it's really lousy art.

One other thing. One I see something like that nitwitted poster equating Bush with Hitler and Stalin, my reaction is that it makes me like Bush more than I did--the reverse, I presume, of the artist's intention. That's the a phenomenon worht ocnsidering--that this kind of so-called art actually works against itself.

First, these people do not necessarily support Dean. Most of them would be Kucinich supporters, or Sharpton, or someone like that. Again, they are as representative of the Democratic party as Rev. God Hates Fags is of the Republicans. This is a straw issue.

Second, Michael, your analogy to the Cold War indicates that we wouldn't have to invade and occupy a country in order to bring it down.

It is possible that for strategic reasons the War on Terror swung over to Iraq. But the motive puzzles me. Remove a dictator who it turns out was more a paper tiger than an active threat, who had nothing to do with the terror attack against us, whose WMDs were very likely destroyed by the very international bodies that our actions have placed in jeopardy?

Michael, your emotions are running away with you. Please step back and look at this the way that a lot of the world is, including most middle-class Americans. This was was aggression. We invaded a country that did not threaten us. We ran around looking for excuses. And now we are, as Gov. Dean says, "stuck."

And it won't do to tar critics with the International ANSWER brush. It just won't do.

I meant, "the war was aggression."

Pure aggression.

Diana,
A good atlas will supply you with a schematic map and a geographic map of the middle east of the area.

Make a xerox of that page and, with a crayon, carefully color in Israel, Kuwait, Quatar, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Now imagine that, instead of having to surge carrier battle groups into the Med and into the gulf, you could just control those areas for operations and supply and resupply.

Try to look at it like the Quartermaster General.

As for the graphic left, well, push a lot of pointless kids through a lot of pointless elementary and high schools. Tell them everything they make has real value. Tell them that the life of the 'artist' is hip, cool and groovy and gets you laid a lot and gets you to a lot of great parties. Tell them that they will never, ever have to make a living. Then upload this bunch into art schools that will give a degree for a collection of gilded turds, let them summer in something akin to the Iowa Writers School or some such, and then cut them loose into the world.

You get stuff like this every time.

Dean may not support the people who did these pictures but they support him.

Ooh, ooh, can we play this game for real? That is, do I get to trot out the antigay bigots, outright theocrats, and racist sons of bitches who support Bush? Or can we get over the continuing guilt-by-association idiocy and actually analyze the man's policies?

If you dish it out, learn to take it. If you degrade the quality of intellectual discourse in this country, be prepared to have the same sort of unfair demagoguery thrown at you. Reap what you sow.

"Remove a dictator who it turns out was more a paper tiger than an active threat, who had nothing to do with the terror attack against us, whose WMDs were very likely destroyed by the very international bodies that our actions have placed in jeopardy?"

Diane, stop panicking.

He was not a paper tiger. He actively supported terrorists. He met with Al Queda. He was trying to develop WMDs. Those are all facts even Old Europe and the UN don't dispute. The only disagreement was what to do about him. AND he was a horrible tyrant and the Middle East is better off without him, and the Iraqi people still mostly agree. And there is still a good chance for democracy there.

AND the administration never said we were going to be in and out quickly. The shortest time I heard from any reputable analyst or pundit was a year. So far it's been less than 6 months.

What's the cost of another 9-11 or worse?

Geez.

PS About the posters - this kind of rhetoric is what got me disgusted with the New Left the first time around. If this generation is recapitulating the mistakes of their elders, I would say they are now about 1972. They haven't quite gotten to the Symbionese Liberation Army stage yet, but I'm sure that's coming.

Diana,
They are not for little Dennis. No one thinks Dennis has any chance and what these people want above all is to defeat Bush.
A straw issue? If anyone is raising a straw issue it is you. You can't look at them and assume that they are for Sharpton.
I will give Dean the benefit of the doubt and assume that he doesn't want them anymore than Bush would want the "the antigay bigots, outright theocrats, and racist sons of bitches ".
The fact remains that they and most of the overt anti-semites we have seen in the last year are creatures of the left.
As to the rest I agree with Yehudit.
In addition the fact that we won so overwhelmingly is more a result of our weaponry and soldiers than Saddam's weakness. We could have lost far more men had our plans not worked. It is easy to look back and say he was a paper tiger but that paper tiger was firing real bullets and had our effort been less well executed there would be a lot more soldiers dead in Iraq then there are.

Time will tell whether I am panicking or whether you are in denial. Truth will out. It won't be settled on a blog.

As I see it, if you stop reading other blogs and the Weekly Standard long enough to look at the situation with some objectivity, you'll see that the only people happy about the situation in Iraq are the Halliburton wing of the Republican party, which stands to make potsful of carpetbagging money (see thelookinggglass.blogspot.com for details), and the neocons, who think the Arab world can be shocked and awed into democracy.

Exactly what is it going to take for people to admit that the Administration had no plans for postwar Iraq? Isn't that rather strange, since the war took over a year to pull off? I wonder why.

I think the Administration lied their faces off. They lied about the status of Saddam's WMD program. Saddam's weapons program was effectively gutted by the weapons inspection regime and the country was well-nigh destroyed by sanctions. It suited Saddam's purposes to encourage the belief that he still had them.

I think further that they were working furiously behind the scenes to remove him by diplomatic means and their atrocious diplomacy fell apart, so we ended up invading. I admit that this is speculation, but I can't think of any other reason why we had absolutely no plans to rebuild Iraq, and for the tentativeness of our presence. I give this Admin more credit than all you diehards, oddly enough.

So Saddam (and other ME dictators, whose regimes we will not change) supported terrorists. So what else is new? When he supported terrorists, we supported him. We only turned against him when he got too big for his britches, not because he was a bad dood.

The terrorists he supported were those who attacked Israelis. I think that's terrible, but it's Israel's job to defend its citizens, not ours. Or was this war really all about Israel? I prefer to think not.

Getting back to WMDs, both Blair and Bush have a lot of explaining to do. If they misused intelligence information to leverage the US and the UK into a war of choice, not a war of necessity then he was an eggshell that could have been cracked rather easily, as the miserable performance of his army indicates.

One thing is correct: the disagreement was what to do about Saddam. True enough: Europe and most of the ME wanted to drop the sanctions. That's another reason for all the focus on Iraq. Before 9/11, the anti-sanctions movement had gained loads of traction all around the world, and even Richard Cheney was making some murmurs that they should be eased.

Judith has no more idea what most of the Iraq people think than I do. My guess is that the Kurds love us (now), the Sunnis loathe us, and the Shi'a will learn to.

"A good chance for democracy...." Dream on. This notion is as fantastical as Judith's musings about Baghdad being the Prague of the future.

The ME won't necessarily be better off w/out Saddam if his demise brings about a Shiite Muslim state. Remember: It could always be worse.

What's the cost of another 9/11? I have no idea what Judith is talking about. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and no one has cited one piece of evidence that he did. At least, the Administration hasn't, although I've seen a lot of blog-gossip to that effect. If the Admin has some hard evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, then let THEM put it on the table.

"This is a straw issue"

Im seeing this comment a lot from Democrats. It seems that everything is a straw issue these days.

I would suggest that you guys get a new line - this one is wearing thin.

Diana --

May I respectfully suggest that you spend a couple of hours reading the UNMOVIC documents on Iraq prior to making inane and false statements such as "[Iraq's] WMDs were very likely destroyed by the very international bodies that our actions have placed in jeopardy?" Particularly the last document presented prior to the invasion, known as the "cluster document". If you haven't seen it, it's about 100 pages of unanswered questions about proscribed weapons that were known to exist, but which could not be accounted for. So, you see, one of "the very international bodies" to which you refer stated quite clearly that they HADN'T destroyed those weapons.

can you supply the date of the document? and a URL where I can read it? also, is it possible for you to offer comments unaccompanied by insulting and hostile adjectives? just asking. but more important would be a date on the "cluster" document. thanks.

oh never mind, I found it here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/chronology.asp

UNMOVIC....the organizaiton that was headed by Hans Blix? That cheese-eating surrender monkey?

I'll take a look at it when I can get my PDF to work, but as for now I'll take your word for it, that it consists of 100 pages of unanswered questions. Some of which have been answered by the conspicuous inability of the Admin to come up with the kind of large-scale WMD program that they used to justify the war.

Try again.

Diana,
I think you are overlooking one of the most promising things to happen in that part of the world.
After the hostage crisis in 1980 I would have thought that the Iranian people would always be hostile to the US. Now here we are twenty years after the revolution and lo and behold the majority of Iranians reject the revolution and want to be more like us.
Who would have thought?
If it can happen in Iran it can happen in Iraq.
This is going to take time though.
How long? Beats me.
Longer than it has and less than twenty years.
We have deposed a vicious barbaric regime. That is something good, something to be proud of.
The worst is probably yet to come but if we hang in there I think we can remake the middle east which is no small task.

No serious person on the left really believes that Bush = Hitler, though there are some propaganda-style elements that are part of Karl Rove's arsenal. What I can't understand is why liberals like Michael tend to do the dirty work of the right for them. Is it some need to fit in with the Instapundit's of the world, or what? In a media culture that omits and denies most progressive/liberal ideas why are there more liberals bashing fellow liberals while the right-wingers sit back and laugh at us? I think we have enough Alan Colmes in the world.

this is desperate reasoning. i remember the iranian revolution quite well. the reason they had that revolution was because of our farcical attempts at 'nation-building' in 1953 which resulted in the installation of the shah. there's no evidence other than michael ledeen's ravings that the iranians 'like us' but conceding the point, the reason they do is because WE ARENT' THERE. they don't want us to interfere and the worst thing we could do is follow the neocons advice & go in there.

in any case i am no longer interested in arguing with the fanatics about fantasies like 'remaking the middle east.' you should more profitably concentrate on remaking your own life. buh-bye.

The left is a sewer, and those posters are merely the latest turds-a-floatin' down the channel.

I don't see the problem with these images. It's all just free speech. Some of the art is quite good, in its twisted way.

I'm so confident history will record GW Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war in highly favorable terms, these images have little more than aesthetic effect on me. I'm also very confident GW Bush's administration will be considered one of the more professional, comptetent, and effective in American history (and, sorry, Clinton's one of the most bungling, amateurish, and ineffective). Sorry if that sounds partisan or hyperbolic, but I don't think it's anything but neutral to say GW Bush's elevated spot in American history is secure, or Clinton's low spot is. Consider it a prediction, or a bet, and we'll see what "common knowledge" says in 10, 20 or 50 years.

Let the world's kids say what they want. As long as they don't go to Palestine and protect bomb factories, or throw bombs at American police, I see nothing wrong with these images. History's not on their side. A discussion requires debate. One needs the ability to say distasteful things, in order to review them and judge their merit. I'm confident history will regard GW Bush's decisions favorably, despite what some angry American and non-American kids think, and regard these expressions as ultimately worthless.

In fact, many of these images are quite enjoyable to me. Jasper Johns made a famous image of an American flag, and people didn't understand. He said: It's just an image. Read into it whatever meaning you want. I think it's visually interesting, and that's it. He was basically saying, all an artist can do is try to make a pleasing image, or tell a story, but an artist can't force another person to understand a particular thing. In that light, I might even look at these images in an ironic light, even feeling a little proud that people fear American "imperialism."

On the other hand, if one of my friends sent me a link to one of these images, I would break off my friendship with that person immediately, but still, I would never deny them their right to express themselves, nor worry about their having said it overmuch (except on a personal basis).

Diana --

Do you know what logicians mean by "argument from ignorance?" Because your last post is nothing but.

And to preempt your previous wail, no, that wasn't "insulting and hostile". Merely descriptive.

The level of disconnect from reality required to state that the Bush Administration (whether or not one agrees with its policies) is competent, while the Clinton Administration was not is both astounding and characteristic of the Right.

This Administration's level of incompetence is mind-blowing. At no point has it implemented any policy without a major error which either was caught and corrected by the Democrats or was not caught and therefore ended up being made. From top to bottom, it is staffed with ideologues, fools, and hacks (with the notable exception of Secretary Powell) -- in short, it looks a lot like its head.

It's been almost two years now. Where is Osama bin Laden? Where is the man who is responsible for 3,000 American deaths in the greatest single terrorist attack in US history? Nobody knows, and that is the yardstick against which the President must be measured.

Kimmitt, Osama is likely plasma paste on a cave wall in the highlands of Afghanistan.

Re: Roger L. Simon's and Gerard Van der Leun's discussion of the ineffectiveness of this type of material.
I was thinking the same thing too, but I believe that the point of this type of "art" is not to persuade but merely to "act out". As Gerard Van der Leun pointed out, in part it comes from a generation of children taught to value whatever they vomit up as some sort of "self-expression". Many of these children go to "art" schools for college where instead of learning anything about craftsmanship or aesthetics they are steeped in conceptualist art/performance art theory. I think that these posters are more in the category of "shock art" than an attempt at creating persusasive propaganda. From what I've seen at rallies etc. first hand and from reports they seem to have a lot in common with performance art, in that they have more to do with the self-dramatization of the protestors than any attempt to persuade the undecided. In fact, the result is usually to turn the observers of the protest against you, by defecating in the street (as I read happened in San Fransisco) or lying in the street during rush hour (as I saw first hand here in New York) etc. This is actually all the better, as it makes the protester feel superior as a dissenter and an outcast. These posters are similar. They are little conceptual art pieces, meant to shock outsiders, help the creator to "express" themself, and find an audience in the tiny cadre of insiders who "get it", just like most contemporary art. It's annoying, but ultimately doesn't really do much.
A far more pernicious phenomenon is someone like Michael Moore, who harbors these same hateful views, and is also a skilled enough craftsman in his medium to create persuasive propaganda.

Do you know what logicians mean by "argument from ignorance?" Because your last post is nothing but.

And to preempt your previous wail, no, that wasn't "insulting and hostile". Merely descriptive.

dear phil, do you know what logicians mean by "argumentum ad hominem?" because this is nothing but.

buh-bye.

OBL had lots of advance notice to leave afghanistan and the chances of his being somewhere in pakistan are pretty good. but no one knows for sure, and we certainly will not be told anything by this admin.

ps itals should have ended after the words "nothing but."

Diana --

Yes, I'm familiar with the ad hominem. However, I never attacked you, but only your arguments.

Um, Diana, you might want to do a quick Google for "argument from ignorance" before claiming that characterizing your argument that way is an ad hominem. (Bringing up the fact that your argument boils down to the "argument from ignorance" isn't a claim that you're ignorant.)

----

In the post, Michael remarked "I just don't think of my country in this way". I wonder whether the artists who created these graphics think of America as their country. (WIth the .us domain, I'm assuming they are Americans.)

In that article, "Can There Be a Decent Left?" that everyone was talking about a while back, there was a verbal image that haunts me, to the effect that Leftists often think of themselves as internal aliens. In America but not of it.

I perceive a divide on the left over the war that goes deeper than policy disagreements, or whether one hates Bush. I wonder whether the deepest divide is over those for whom America is, very personally, their country and those for whom that idea just doesn't have emotional resonance.

It's not. The cultural divide is between those who see dissent as treasonous and those who do not.

Well, there may be a cultural divide between Ann Coulter and the rest of the world. (As well, there may be one between those for whom it's natural to speak of following the conventional wisdom as "dissent" and those who aren't so sure about that characterization. ;-)

But I'm speaking specifically of the left here. I have lost count of the number of people who consider, or used to consider, themselves left or liberal who are moving further from association with that political position because they can't stand the stuff 9/11 stirred up among some on the left - even though their policy positions haven't changed, per se - and I've certainly seen enough anti-American leftists who seem genuinely surprised that anyone on the left would not agree with that position by virtue of being on the left.

I think it's real.

I'm not saying you're a Republican tool, Michael - I'm just saying why engage in gratutious bashing against a fringe element of the left that really has no bearing on the mainstream. Trust me, when the right looks at Democrats in the center and the loons at Indymedia - they don't see any difference and find us all one and the same. The past 3 years have told me: better the idiot I know, than the enemy who wants to be rid of both of us.

"The cultural divide is between those who see dissent as treasonous and those who do not."

Actually, it might be more like the cultural divide is between those who see any and all criticism as an active attempt at crushing their dissent and those who do not.

Or maybe it's between those who turn every thread topic into an excuse to attack their political enemies and those who noticed that you were the first person to bring up 'treason'.

Or possibly, just possibly it's between people who turn every issue into a nice, Manichean 'deep cultural divide' and those that try not to be so flipping simplisme (jeanne, just so you know, none of these are aimed at you).

(pause)

Oh, what's the bloody use?

(Bleep) it, replace 'treason' with 'treasonous' and 'deep cultural divide' with 'cultural divide'. I don't think that it'll matter to anyone rational, but, well.

It's not. The cultural divide is between those who see dissent as treasonous and those who do not.

This is such bullshit. I think what many on the Left cannot deal with is that the majority of the American people simply disagreed with them.

The cultural divide is between those who see dissent as treasonous and those who do not.

For the record, I don't think any dissent is treason. People who refer to Osama bin Laden as a "dissident" and Hamas members as "activists" are complete idiots. It is people like that (and Ann Coulter) who say it's all the same. Not I.

"Trust me, when the right looks at Democrats in the center and the loons at Indymedia - they don't see any difference and find us all one and the same."

Trust you? Trust has to be earned. The above is utter balderdash.

Proof: most conservative bloggers make clear distinctions between moonbat leftie (Chomsky, Ivins, Kucinich) and rational left-leaners (Kaus, Hitchens).

I link to MJT and several other liberal sites. I have long admitted that I would be quite calm and collected if Lieberman won the election (not just nomination).

If, in your opinion, the right is incapable of detecting differences in degree and intensity, if you are capable of making such a blanket condemnation, then I submit that you yourself are unable to see such distinctions.

One minor point - if liberals want to maintain (or recapture) mainstream credibility, blogs like Michael's are their best chance. He serves as a vocal reminder that the Left is not typified by Indymedia and their idiot brethren. There are people out there whose only view of the Left is from following Indymedia links on Little Green Footballs. A little Totten'll do them good.

Andrew Sullivan makes me optimistic about conservatism especially when he's ragging on it, because he's allowed to smack on it without being forced to turn in his conservative cred. There's something to be said for a movement that treats its honest, involved critics with respect.

You can listen, but you don't have to follow.

Unfortunately, radicals are on both sides, and often create the wrong image of the side they say they're part of.

I agree that moving rightward towards the center is probably your best alternative. Being a simple conservative, I have no need to shift.

As long as you know what you believe, and as long as you know where you are encompasses your beliefs, then you'll be comfortable.

Good luck in your move!

Repeat after me:

The left is socialist, not liberal...
The left is socialist, not liberal...
The left is socialist, not liberal...
The left is socialist, not liberal...
The left is socialist, not liberal...

Socialism is regressive, ot progressive...
Socialism is regressive, ot progressive...
Socialism is regressive, ot progressive...
Socialism is regressive, ot progressive...
Socialism is regressive, ot progressive...

Grant,

I'm pretty much a Bush supporter but if a party such as you mention came into being I'd drop Bush like a hot rock. Or if Liberman got the nod from the Ds.

I wrote a bit on Winds of Change a while back saying such a party was the future of American politics which usually governs from the center.

What cured me of leftism was the Vietnamese boat people. And the massacrtes. And the re-education camps. All of which the NVs promised wouldn't happen in order to get me to support the anti-war movement of the time.

Bush is fighting the war the American people want fought.

Clinton did the same.

Now call me stupid if you like but Clinton's strengthening of America's economy during his term in office put us in a very good position to prosecute the war that came to us.

Clinton did what he could given the mood of the American people.

This is something Bush haters and Clinton haters forget so easily. America is for the most part governed by it's people.

Also I want to add that those here who have pointed out the advantages of warring on Iraq have presented some of the most cogent and concise arguments for that battle in the war I have seen any where (including my own feeble attempts to present that case). Excellent.

The center in American politics is essentially libertarian these days. It will be really nice when we have a party that represents it. The right is closer to the center these days but I think the left will find change easier. The cultural conservatives are an albatross around the neck of the Republicans.

Given the Lieberman wing of the Ds. The Democrats do not have as far to go.

But the new Ds will not be leftish in the traditional sense. They will be national unity Democrats.

1. Pro capitalism
2. Pro war
3. Pro civil liberties

The current Rs have a very hard time with #3.

Now it may take a new party to include the above (and I have so predicted), but the Lieberman wing of the Ds is the new center of American politics. Liberal but not stupid. In fact it will be liberal in the original sense of the word.

I just want to join everyone else in responding to Oliver Willis's inanities above. Oliver, do you really think that this total abstraction you've created "the right" doesn't know the difference between centrist Democrats and the Indmymedia crowd? This is quite the Manichean moral system you've created. Do you really think that Republicans like Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Michael Bloomberg and Liconln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe don't know the difference between moderate democrats (which they essentially are) and left-wing loonies? As a semi-sorta-kinda Republican who's going to vote for Chuck Schumer and maybe even (gasp) Hillary Rodham Clinton when and if they run for senate here in New York again, I can assure you that this isn't the case. If you really think that those who disagree with you on politics are your "enemies" who want "to be rid of you" then it must be very hard for you to live in this free society.
As for the "dissent is patriotic" bumper sticker brandisher above, um, not all conservatives are Ann Coulter. No one brought up "treason" but you.

This is the second recent post I've seen from you that uses guilt by asssociation as a tactic (the other was related to the Bali bomber). It's really very unbecoming.

You can't take the work of a few nuts and associate it with all "liberals". That's Ann Coulter tactics. It says more about you than it does about "liberals".

There are nuts on the far right also. The Turner Diaries that inspired Tim McVeigh are in the same ballpark as the art you posted. McVeigh voted for the first President Bush (from the book "American Terrorist"). Does that mean all conservatives should be associated with Tim McVeigh? Not hardly.

By the way, if you want to walk so bad, then fucking walk. There are millions of independent voters out there. You'll just be one more.

Pug,

You said: You can't take the work of a few nuts and associate it with all "liberals". That's Ann Coulter tactics.

At no point did I say the pictures above represented any liberals, let alone all liberals.

I detest Ann Coulter. And I am awfully suspicious of "liberals" who take it personally when I criticize left-wing extremists, just as I would be suspicious of any conservative who was upset by criticism of the Ku Klux Klan.

I am not alone! This is fabulous. I get the same kinds of criticism from my coworkers because I am not in lock-step with their conceptualizations of liberalism. I too have been wondering whether or not the "liberal tent" is big enough for different points of views lately.

. Trust me, when the right looks at Democrats in the center and the loons at Indymedia - they don't see any difference and find us all one and the same.

Paleeze. Izzat why so many righties have lefties on their blogrolls, but not the loony lefties? Izzat why you have so many commenters on the right - who don't hang out at DU? And finally (last rhetorical question, I promise), do you find it ironic that you made a general sweeping statement about the "right" as part of a criticsm at how the right tends to make general assessments about others?

Last time I checked, I was solidly on the 'right' and was still able to admire and respect folks like Bill Bradley & Pat Moynihan or read folks like Totten, Yglesias, you, Meredith & others and still differentiate you guys from the types of folks who hang out at DU or eschaton's comments (or FR, as well). It's called 'disagreement' and the last time I checked, adults still did that.

No one has a lock on stiff-arming their fringe and pretending that "your side" is squeaky clean & any critique obviously comes from closed-minded souls is......well, just that (plus a classic case of victimization). IMO, of course.

"I need to feel there is some daylight between myself and the radicals. And if I have to move all the way to the center to make it happen, then that's what I'll do. There needs to be a clean break somewhere, either between the liberals and the radicals, or between me and the liberals."

Amen. That's what Howard Dean is doing right now - turning into a Clinton Democrat because he wants to win. And the usual suspects are howling "traitor!" I still don't think I will vote for him, but now I will take him seriously.

Michael,

What would a clean break between the liberals and the radicals look like? Are you sure you'd know it if you saw it?

Because to me, I don't see anything "liberal" about this atrociousness at all. I don't see IndyMedia types claiming to be "liberal". I don't see the folks who come up with this kind of trash working the left edge of the Democratic convention next year. I don't see Democratic candidates, even those that are theoretically liberal, trying to pander to this point of view for votes.

That said, I don't pay attention all that closely, so I could have missed it. But what is it about any statement that some asshole makes about hating America that makes certain people respond, "well, the liberals had better take a stand against that"?

Starhawk says:

Dean may not support the people who did these pictures but they support him

I challenge him/her to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. Try searching IndyMedia for Howard Dean and you'll see what I mean. He's apparently far too hawkish and supportive of Israel for their tastes.

(By the way, Kimmitt, Dean lost any chance at getting my vote when he said that Bush "promised us peace".)

Kimmet,

Clinton never went to the U.N. before executing a three month bombing campaign in Bosnia, or rearranging some rocks in Afghanistan or blowing the roof off a Sudanese aspirin factory. I think it is accepted as fact that the Clintonians did not seek this U.N. mandates or Security Council support because they feared French or Russian vetoes. In fact, this approach seems to have been standard operating procedure with the U.N. since its inception. If you claim to follow in the “liberal “tradition of Clinton, etc., would you have just avoided going to the U.N. as he did, or perhaps given them a shot at being relevant?

As far as the main topic, these kinds of pictures reflected the anger and disillusionment of many on the left. For those who wanted to rule out the use of force for regime change in Iraq (and mislabel it as “aggression”) these “art projects” were just creative contributions to the cause and welcome. As far as “can we get over the continuing guilt-by-association idiocy”, I don’t see that the anti-war left has ever disassociated itself with these idiots. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with these images. I agree with others who have stated that they have had precisely the opposite effect than their apparent intent (in this country anyway).

Diana,

You’re the one who is name-calling, honey. It must be deeply satisfying for you guys to see everything this country does in black and white. Not gonna argue with these “fanatics”. Shouldn’t be interfering in any of those dangerous countries, nah-uh, not gonna. haha.

Christopher,

You asked: what is it about any statement that some asshole makes about hating America that makes certain people respond, "well, the liberals had better take a stand against that"?

Because every time I take a stand against it, liberals give me a bunch of crap. And despite the bleatings of those who can't read (I'm talking about Pug here, not you) I do not say that this sort of thing represents mainstream liberalism, or even liberalism at all. I consistently defend liberals against such charges when they are made by conservatives.

I am surrounded by this sort of offensive thing where I live. Maybe you aren't, and maybe that's why it bothers you less. But my lovely and thankfully liberal city and neighborhood are plastered with it.

If I had to put up with Klan rallies on a regular basis, anti-racism would be a major theme of this blog for the same reason.

Those who think Dean is moving are those who are basically ignorant of where he started. Dean's current, former, and future positions are all consistent with his record as governor of Vermont; while he may change his mind on details or implementations based on circumstances (hooray for the end of faith-based foreign policy!), his ideals and approach do not change.

Dean never was a the socialist dove he was painted to be in the media, and he still isn't.

Anyway, if you really think that the Left is represented by the images on this page, I think a massive reality check is in order -- the people who publish these things have great photoshop skills and no power whatsoever. They elect a small number of local representatives, sometimes. They are a tiny minority which seeks to promote its views (as is, of course, their Constitutional right) but have next to no impact on policy -- or even policy discussion.

If you want daylight between you and the extremists, the Democratic Party is where you want to be. The Republicans have a massive theocratic wing, and the Greens, while generally quite well-meaning, have a sizable socialist/anarchist chunk. The Democratic Party is the Party of centrism these days. Of course, if you view opposition to the war as fundamentally unpatriotic, you're going to have a different view, but then at that point I'm lumping you in with the extremists, and there we are.

Many of Diana’s statements seem to be inconsistent, and I personally don’t see how she could have at first “supported the war” as stated in her first post.

Saddam's weapons program was effectively gutted by the weapons inspection regime. It suited Saddam's purposes to encourage the belief that he still had them. If she believes this theory, why would she accuse Bush & Co of lying, and then go farther saying “we won’t be told anything” by this admin concerning OBL’s whereabouts or fate? Sounds like she really trusted BushCo a lot before the invasion.

The war is costing $1BN per week. Can we afford this? Who thought war would be cheap? Luckily, Americans are very generous people. WWII was expensive and we didn’t have any budget or plans for post-war rebuilding.

We invaded a country that did not threaten us. We ran around looking for excuses. Right. That’s why the U.N. passed 17 resolutions against Iraq including the one that demanded Saddam provide evidence that he destroyed his WMD programs.

My guess is that the Kurds love us (now), the Sunnis loathe us, and the Shi'a will learn to. Okay, so her take is that the vast majority of the Iraqis will hate us because of Bush’s aggressive war, but had the war been based solely on collective security reasons (which she apparently supported), fewer Iraqis, Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists would hate us. Right.

"A good chance for democracy...." Dream on. This is just downright racism in my opinion.

The ME won't necessarily be better off w/out Saddam if his demise brings about a Shiite Muslim state. Remember: It could always be worse. The shift that has already occurred in the ME balance of power will be changing the entire region for generations to come. Liberating Germany and Japan could have gone badly if everyone at that time was this negative. Diana appears put herself clearly in the camp of anti-war leftists.

Kimmet,

I don’t hear anyone saying “opposition to the war was fundamentally unpatriotic” or that the left is represented by these images. What many found offensive in the anti-war marches were people not having the courage to distance themselves from the nuts carrying these signs. I told one anti-Israel guy that I found his sign offensive and he told me to “Fuck off and Die”. At the same time, moderate anti-war Jewish speakers were not allowed to address the crowd. In other words, there was no daylight for me there (even though I’m not Jewish). Since this shit was tolerated for the sake of increased numbers (or whatever), mainstream America disregarded the whole spectacle and Democrats may have lost the election in 2004.

And I am awfully suspicious of "liberals" who take it personally when I criticize left-wing extremists

Really? What are you suspicious of?

You demand that "liberals" draw a clear line between themselves and the left-wing kooks and nuts. What is it you would like them to do?

The idea that "liberals" need to prove they don't like terrorists is a little insulting. I guess you don't see why.

As far as being a centrist or and independent, that would hardly make you unique. There are millions of Americans who don't identify with Democrats or Repbulicans.

You demand that "liberals" draw a clear line between themselves and the left-wing kooks and nuts. What is it you would like them to do?

For starters, Pug, you could stop giving me a bunch of crap when I criticize the kooks.

Another liberal up above, Grant McEntire, said I'm so with you 110% on this one Michael...

So why aren't you with me, Pug? Why do you attack me instead of them? What are you trying to accomplish?

If you want to know why I find what you say suspicious, just imagine what you would think of a right-winger who jumped on Andrew Sullivan's case for criticizing the Klan.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no distinction between "extremists" and "The Left." In fact, the meat of your post is that you feel aliented from "The Left" because way off on the far reaches one finds loony-tunes with graphic artist talent, and there does not seem to be enough space between the loony-tunes and the movement as a whole.

What kind of "line in the sand" are you looking for? How thoroughly does the radical Left have to be utterly ignored by the mainstream Left for it to matter? Generally speaking, liberals look at those images, shuffle their feet, cough uncomfortably, acknowledge the bare grain of truth which is occasionally found in them, and put them out of their minds. Liberals don't have to repudiate the radical Left; the radical Left has nothing to do with liberalism. It's the same reason that Bush doesn't have to repudiate the KKK; for all of his manifold flaws, the President is simply not a white supremicist.

Ann Coulter isn't right; liberals are not part of a vast, Left-wing conspiracy to destroy this country and hand it to the Communists. I understand that the Right gets political points by advancing the point of view, but why should you require us to state the painfully obvious over and over? Are you just looking for an excuse to vilify an entire movement because many of its members did not share your policy approach regarding Iraq?

Kimmitt: "The Republicans have a massive theocratic wing, and the Greens, while generally quite well-meaning, have a sizable socialist/anarchist chunk. The Democratic Party is the Party of centrism these days. Of course, if you view opposition to the war as fundamentally unpatriotic, you're going to have a different view, but then at that point I'm lumping you in with the extremists, and there we are."

If that was true, why is Lieberman, the only centrist, failing at the polls, and the extremists like Kucinich and Dean succeeding?

"How thoroughly does the radical Left have to be utterly ignored by the mainstream Left for it to matter?"

Let me know when Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag get utterly ignored by the "mainstream."

I'm sorry, but your post makes no distinction between "extremists" and "The Left."

Come on, man, pay attention.

In my post I wrote: I don't think the pictures above are from "fellow liberals." They are from anti-war leftists.

I applaud you Michael.

Kimmit,

The cultural divide is between those who see dissent as treasonous and those who do not.

If you agree with Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, you are treasonous.

If you think that the US should subordinate its national sovereignty to the UN, you are treasonous.

If you think it is acceptable to be a "human shield" in Baghdad on the eve of war, you are treasonous.

Like most socialists, you hide your treason behind the concept of dissent. Just as anti-Semites hide behind the concept of anti-zionism.

HA,

That's bogus, and you should know it.

Treason is taking up arms against your country.

Being a human shield is awfully close to treasonous because it provides actual protection to enemy positions. It is a hair's breadth away from treason, but it is still in a different legal category.

An attempt to criminalize thought is totalitarian. You have every right to join the right-wing Thought Police, but don't go expecting any sympathy from me.

Argue with Kimmitt all you want, but he most certainly should not be lumped in with John Walker Lindh and Timothy McVeigh.

And what makes you think Kimmitt is a socialist? I have seen no evidence that Kimmitt wants to nationalize shoe factories or any other private industries.

News flash, kiddies: Joe Lieberman is a conservative. He's in favor of vouchers, the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the Iraq War, and fiscal sanity. The reason he's a Democrat and not a Republican is that there is no room for old-style Conservatives in the Republican Party (and they wouldn't have been too thrilled with his Jewish faith during the early part of his career), what with the theocrats having taken over. Lieberman's a conservative; Kucinich flirts with socialism; Gephardt's a liberal; Edwards, Dean, and Kerry are centrists.

...there is no room for old-style Conservatives in the Republican Party (and they wouldn't have been too thrilled with his Jewish faith during the early part of his career), what with the theocrats having taken over.

Wow.

Are you feeling all right?

Among the most popular talk radio shows are 2 hosted by conservative Jews, Medved and Prager. Jewish Americans would be immediately welcomed into the GOP, but, alas, they tend to vote Dem.

Also, I think you might need to get off this "theocrat" kick. Your monomania on this is starting to come across as... kind of unhealthy, off-balance. (Is everyone who has religious faith a theocrat? Is Bush a theocrat? Is it a code word for evangelical or Christian?)

Did you have some formative trauma or is this just bigotry?

You remind me of a republican I eschewed who considered liberals, hedons. He talked in much the same way you do, though with "libertine" or "immoral hedonist" where you would say theocrat. I thought he was off his rocker. Turns out he'd had a Ned Flanders (<--a cheery and kind theocrat, at least) beatnik upbringing.

I wonder. [tapping chin, peering at you] Hmmmmm....

Modify above to read:

...Ned Flanders (who is a cheery theocrat, at least) beatnik upbringing.

A theocrat is someone who eschews religious freedom -- someone who believes that religious law should be imposed on those who do not share the convictions. A prime example of this is the Christian Right's desperate defense of the criminalization of homosexual sex. I believe George W. Bush to be essentially theocratic in nature due to his ongoing struggle to bring down the barriers which separate Church and State. I believe that he is not the most extreme of these persons, but that he has extensive backing among those who do not believe that it is moral for the US government to fail to sponsor fundamentalist Protestantism.

That said, whether or not the Republican Party is welcoming of Orthodox Jews now, it most certainly was not thirty years ago, which was what I was referring to.

Michael,

From the American Heritage:

treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's sovereign or country

You're going to have do better than merely proclaim that my examples are bogus without any basis. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy qualifies as treason. All three of my examples meet that standard. I expect more insightful criticism than waving a rhetorical magic wand.

Was Tokyo Rose treasonous? Hanoi Jane? They didn't take up arms.

As for Kimmit being a socialist, if one is a Democrat, one is a socialist. The Democratic agenda is no longer a liberal agenda, it is a socialist agenda.

There are degrees of socialism. Being a socialist does not make one Stalin. I would classify the Democratic platorm as entry-level socialism. It is based on group rights rather than individual rights. It is based on confiscating individual property (i.e. high taxes) and redistributing wealth to favored groups. How can you call this anything other than socialism? Are Europe and Canada socialist? How is the Democratic platform any different?

America was founded as a free-market, liberal captialist society based on individual liberty. The Democratic platform undermines this and would model American society on European society. We'd better be aware of the consequences of this. Most Americans fled European society for a reason.

Oh yeah, It IS bogus to say that I lump Kimmit in with McVeigh and Lindh. I'd lump him in with Terry McAullife and David Bonior.

Come on, Michael. I expect more insightful criticism. Yours of me bordered on ad hominem. I think Oliver and Kimmit are getting to you.

Kimmit,

Newsflash - Lieberman has no chance of winning the nomination. The DLC Democrats are dead. The post DLC Democrats will never elect a conservative or a Jew and most certainly not a consevative Jew. A party that embraces Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson, Cruz "La Raza" Bustamente and Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd will NEVER ELECT CONSERVATIVE JEW!

What a "diverse" party. Its a good thing you guys share a socialist agenda to glue it all together.

Kimmit, when are you Democrats going to deal with your racists?

Michael,

One more thing. The Democrats may not want to nationalize shoe factories. But they do want to nationalize our health care system. Which is worse? Which is a bigger percentage of the economy?

Every government takeover of an aspect of our society kills CIVIL society. Can you deny that the enaction of the Great Society programs killed the black family and seriously damaged the white family? If you won't take my word for it, will you take Pat Moynihan's? Surely you respect him.

Also, can you deny that the public sector unions have killed our education system?

One by one, building blocks of our civil society are being eroded by public takover. The strength of America has ALWAYS been our private civil society. If we don't reverse this process, we are headed for stagnation and decline. Can you say hello to the Chinese Century?

HA,

[The Democratic platorm] is based on confiscating individual property (i.e. high taxes) and redistributing wealth to favored groups. How can you call this anything other than socialism?

By this logic, how is any taxation whatsoever anything but socialism? And which favored groups are you concerned with? The military? The interstate system? The Justice Department?

HA, our society, our nation and our government are complex entities with even more complex relationships with each other, and they will consitently fail to be adequately represented by the very simple boxes you're trying to put them in. Your consistent assumption that those who disagree with you do so out of stupidity at best, but more likely out of a sinister desire to harm the country, is making it impossible for you to appreciate the diversity of views expressed here for what they are--a bunch of diverse people from all corners of the country getting together and trying to work out what's going on with it and how to make it a better place.

Grow up, man.

Christopher,

Taxation for the sake of income redistribution is socialist. Taxation for the sake of rewarding political patronage is confiscatory. These are fundamental facts. Are you unable to grasp this?

Taxes for the sake of national defense, the justice system, infrastructure, etc. are necessary. Can't you see the difference?

The politicians who are taking your money from your paycheck to buy votes and maintain their power base don't give a shit about anybody but themselves. The ones who are true believers are ineffective and marginalized. If you don't understand this, then I suggest that you are the one who needs to "grow up" - man.

"Taxation for the sake of income redistribution is socialist."

I'd agree with you more if we didn't already have a word for folks who want to tax some to distribute some (instead of tax everything and redistribute completely). One of these is liberalism and one of these is socialism. The former exists at least partially for the purpose of preventing a Communist revolution, while the latter exists for the purpose of easing a nation into one.

HA,

What do you think is the appropriate punishment for treason? And do you think that punishment should be meted out to my liberal friends in this comments section?

Michael,

I think those whose treasonous behavior is limited to rhetoric should be punished in kind - through merciless criticism and mockery.

I think the "human shields" should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What did you think I was going to say - bury them in mass graves? Give 'em the "Pinochet" treatment? I think your question itself betrays a charicatured view of the right.

Not that I'm from the right myself mind you. I think voting for Clinton twice and Gore once excludes me from that smear. That was before 9/11 however.

The problem with the left is that in the interest of partisan unity, it refuses to throw out its garbage. Clearly, the extreme left is treasonous. Clearly, the mainstream left tolerates this. The mainstream left also winks at anti-Semitism and supremecist movements among racial minorities. Offending the base of the party tends to undermine ones power after all.

That's why for me, the Trent Lott affair was a defining moment. I saw the Republicans throw out their garbage. Not because of pressure from the left, which was virtually silent. The pressure came from the right from people who didn't want to associate with latent racists. That event signalled to me that I could actually SWITCH from being a Democrat to a Republican without betraying my principles or morality.

If the Democrats ever abandon their socialist agenda and throw out their garbage, I could see switching back if the situation warranted.

More on topic, there is OBVIOUSLY a difference between dissent and treason. Chris Matthews and Brent Scowcroft were both opposed to the war in Iraq. I don't think either is treasonous. Wrong, but not treasonous.

Let me turn the question around on you.

Someone earlier on this thread accused GWB of being a theocrat as if the second Inquisition was coming. Do you think there is a difference between a theocrat and a person of faith? Why did you choose to challange me instead of that person? (Note: apologies in advance if I missed it)

Furthermore, Do you think that someone who is opposed to affirmative action is a racist? Do you think that someone who thinks that Islam promotes violence is a xenophobe? If not, would you criticize those on the left who resort to such ad hominems? Intellectual honesty should compel you to do so.

Kimmit,

One of these is liberalism and one of these is socialism. The former exists at least partially for the purpose of preventing a Communist revolution, while the latter exists for the purpose of easing a nation into one.

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of what liberalism is. Liberalism predates Marx by a more than a century and is a revolt against government tyranny. Liberalism places individual sovereignty above sovereignty of the state. In fact, the state has NO sovereignty. The state is granted power by the people for the sole purpose of preserving their sovereignty. That's the theory at least.

Socialism (of which communism is one variant) reverses that and gives sovereignty back to the state. Socialism is therefore anti-liberal.

America is constitutionally constructed along the principles of classic liberalism. As such, contemporary American conservatives are in some measure conserving liberalism itself.

HA asks me: Do you think there is a difference between a theocrat and a person of faith?

Clearly there is an overlap, but "theocrat" means something very specific. I think we all know what that means: Religious law as state law.

Do you think that someone who is opposed to affirmative action is a racist?

Depends on the reason, of course. Some people support affirmative action because they are racists. It can go either way. I'm sure the Klan doesn't like affirmative action very much. Then again, my father's second wife (now ex-wife, unfortunately) was a left-wing Mexican-American lawyer who also hated affirmative action. It's complicated.

MJT: Yes, but it is evident that Kimmitt is of the opinion that anyone who honors faith or does not keep his personal convictions at arms length is by inference a theocrat.
Correction: if that person is a Democrat, he does not make the assumptive accusation. Thus Lieberman or Carter can talk about faith, but Bush is not allowed.

Trust me, when the right looks at Democrats in the center and the loons at Indymedia - they don't see any difference and find us all one and the same.

Oliver, perhaps that's because, when a Democrat in the center tries to separate himself from the Indymedia loons, he's accused of "bashing fellow liberals" and doing "the dirty work of the right".

Liberalism v. Liberalism

There are two major factors which lead liberal thought to splinter away from the libertarian ideologies (keep in mind that conservatism generally includes governmental interference in private moral affairs -- e.g. Texas sodomy laws -- and therefore classic liberalism is best referred to as libertarianism today).

The first was the miserable failure of capitalist structures to bring prosperity to the vast majority of people and the second was the rise of corporate entities large enough to act as quasigovernmental organizations (if you don't believe me, go visit one of the old-style factory towns; the corporation's control was absolute, through its utter dominance of the property structure).

The first lead to Communist revolutions (which I think we can all agree are basically bad), and the second lead to unaccountable shadow governments. As the liberal ideals of freedom for the common man had to deal with these new realities, the liberal movement, as a whole, moved toward a situation in which basic economic capacity was viewed as a necessary condition for the exercise of political rights (i.e. if you don't have any food, it is impossible for you to take time to educate yourself and be a good citizen to press for good policy, in an extreme example).

Capitalism is a lovely way to generate wealth, and a lousy way to distribute it or avoid human suffering. This, combined with the horrific working conditions suffered by workers in various enterprises, lead to a utopian alternative proposed -- Communism. Communist governments do a terrible job of guaranteeing liberal ideals, so liberals sponsor policies which are designed to make Communism less attractive (in addition, of course, to the straightforward benefit of feeding and educating children and the elderly, et cetera). These policies are largely redistributive.

That said, as large corporations (referred to as "trusts" under that great liberal Theodore Roosevelt) assumed power equal to that of the state in some areas, liberals were forced to sponsor the state as a competing interest which was at least theoretically accountable (unsurprisingly, liberals also became more interested in making government more responsive, and hence the Progressive era).

All of these policy prescriptions are entirely consistent with the application of 18th-century liberal ideals to 19th, 20th, and 21st century conditions. The ideals never change; the world in which they find themselves changes constantly.

Michael has my opinion precisely: a theocrat is someone who desires religious law as state law, and it is fair to say that Bush displays theocratic tendencies while many of his supporters are outright theocrats.

Kimmitt wrote: Capitalism is a lovely way to generate wealth, and a lousy way to distribute it or avoid human suffering.

I know, man. North Koreans have it so good compared to us saps in the U.S.

Going beyond that easily ridiculed statement, how do you answer the argument that people in the 19th-early 20th century chose "horrific" jobs -- jobs that seem horrific to us now -- because they were actually better than the alternatives of a) starvation, b) backbreaking farm work. It seems a similar dynamic is at work in the Third World today.

I know, man. North Koreans have it so good compared to us saps in the U.S.

How about North Koreans have it so good compared to the saps in South Korea? Or East Germans had it so good compared to West Germans? That's a good one Kimmet!

Dave -- I know, right? Germany and Korea are (were) like giant sociological experiments for the whole world to witness. Kimmit, what lessons do you draw from these countries' histories?

What is interesting to me is Communist revolutionaries have always insisted that growing pains and sacrifices are necessary to bring about the glorious Utopian future... which never happens. Contrast this with Capitalism, which indeed was not very pretty during the first several decades of the Industrial Revolution, but which has lead to the most awesome prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known.

"Capitalism is a lovely way to generate wealth, and a lousy way to distribute it or avoid human suffering."

Do you know anything about economics that isn't in the Communist Manifesto? Marx is largely full of shit. You may be interested to know that no democracy has ever experienced widespread famine. This is a field where communist countries specialize because they use it as a tool of genocide. Do you even know any history of the Soviet Union? Have you read the human rights reports on cannibalism in North Korea?

People like you are stealing air from the rest of us. Seriously, read a book. Start with Hayek.

Generally speaking, low-skill workers work at dangerous low-paying jobs for lack of better jobs available; I have two sets of ancestors -- those who fled the Irish potato famine and came over with the shirts on their backs, and those who fled the unification of Germany and came over with the money the made selling their ancestral farms. The Irish side of my family endured gruelling poverty and enormous mortality rates as urban laborers. The German side of my family enjoyed material success and extraordinary fecundity as farmers. Then the Irish side of my family started receiving decent public educations and went to college on student loans, and the unremarkable happened -- material success at white-collar jobs. People don't work dangerous, ill-paying jobs because they're good; they do so because they lack alternatives, whether due to lack of seed money, state-given resources, or skill. Capitalism generates wealth. Mixed economies generate prosperity.

So, have we reached the point where I continue to patiently correct your errors, or do I get to start flaming wildly about how the Right's argument style relies on an audience which isn't even capable of reading sentence fragments such as "Communist revolutions (which I think we can all agree are basically bad)"?

Ah, forget it. You assholes will either continue to enjoy the benefits of living in a society which is dominated by liberal politics (public schools, low crime rates, breathable air, antitrust laws), or you'll get what you want and turn this country into Burma. I guess you win either way.

On the bright side its nice to see someone on the left grouping Stalin with Evil.

Kimmitt, Kimmitt, Kimmitt....

Liberal politics are responsible for low crime rates?

What inherently liberal policy do you think is responsibel for "low" crime rates, and by what measure are they "low" compared to a totalitarian state such as (say) the former East Germany, or current China?

My perception is that increased personal freedom generally increases private crime, because people have more opportunity to commit crime, more items worthy of theft, and are more likely to commit multiple crimes without facing a permanent solution. This is an accepted tradeoff to avoid torture, chemical interrogation, false convictions, absolute surveillance, and other "crime-fighting measures" that liberal society has judged to be more harmful to society than the crimes tehy might prevent.

Hey Kimmit & Diana.....so which works of art are yours?

Kimmit, I have seen your comments on several blogs and, although I usually disagree with you vehemently, I normally think of you as a fairly reasoned proponent of the "leftist" political view. But PLEASE try to keep your anti-capitalist, anti-business bias on a leash - your failure to do so renders your arguments rather silly to people know a few simple facts. You said:

"The first was the miserable failure of capitalist structures to bring prosperity to the vast majority of people and the second was the rise of corporate entities large enough to act as quasigovernmental organizations (if you don't believe me, go visit one of the old-style factory towns; the corporation's control was absolute, through its utter dominance of the property structure)."

Tell me, Kimmit, did you ever live or work in one of these "factory towns"?? Do you have any evidence that the robber barons who owned these factory towns kept the peasants in town by armed force? Or could it just POSSIBLY be that, as "bad" as YOU think they were, these "horrible" factory towns were actually BETTER than the alternatives?

Kimmit, the United States is the ONLY society in the history of the world in which obesity and overconsumption, and the medical problems arising from and relating to obesity and overconsumption (heart disease, diabetes, certain types of cancer, etc.) are MAJOR health problems among the POOREST SEGMENT of society. The average "poor" person in the U.S. today has a higher standard of living than most "middle class" people did in the U.S. 50 or 60 years ago - and a VASTLY higher standard of living than all but the most wealthy few in most countries around the world.

A "miserable failure of capitalist structures to bring prosperity to the vast majority of people"???? Are you out of your flipping mind???? The economic engine of the United States has brought more wealth and more prosperity to more people than any other society in the history of the world. Unfortunately, it just chaps the s**t out of people like you that every homeless person can't have a Mercedes and a Rolex. Me, I'm happy that I have a chance to EARN a Mercedes and a Rolex, and if I don't make it . . . well, that's just MY BAD. I'll STILL have a higher standard of living than my Dad enjoyed, or than anyone except the plutocrats in South America. Yes, the Scandinavians distribute wealth more "evenly" than we do - and look what it is doing to their economy. At the rate the gap is currently widening, within 50 years, the poorest person in the U.S. will live better than the richest person (still left in) Scandinavia.

I'm sorry you can't live with the fact that in a truly FAIR system, some people fail. But ONLY in a truly fair system can the able succeed. And if you want to change that, do me a favor - move to your Scandinavian paradise. Leave a democratic, capitalist country SOMEWHERE in the world for those of us who would prefer to make it on our own - and aren't afraid to accept the consequences if we don't.

My goodness

Looks like Kimmit is getting hot under the collar. After being called on the "theocrat" meme where we're supposed to believe all republicans want to inject religion into government, he's shifted to the plight of the downtrodden exploited worker.

Thank goodness the hapless dupes who work for a living have the likes of Kimmit™ to enlighten them to the wretchedness of their condition.

And I howled at the statement about the absolute failure of capitalism to share the wealth with the people.. Hello? Only in America, where the poor exploited unskilled minions have color TV's, air conditioning, so much food they're fat, and cable TV. Yes, communism is so much more appealing; please pass the grass soup comrade.

Of course, several responses that highlight the fallacy of Kimmit’s argument bring the derision of "asshole", and the implication that we're headed towards the cesspool that is Burma (I think that's the implication) due to our oppressive capitalistic ways. Thanks goodness the specter of communism has made America a better place

I am amused at all those who say don't hold these idiotic images against the Left; never mind that similar images from the Right would be on the nightly news as "typical".

"No enemies on the left."

That must necessarily mean that anyone to the right of anyone on the left is an enemy. That means you.

Kimmitt -- I think Burma's called Myanmar now.

I'm starting to understand your comments and see that they weren't a blanket denunciation of capitalism. So, sorry for the North Korea crack. I can see your point, that there's evidence capitalism leavened by certain forms of state intervention is better than laissez-faire capitalism. (Certainly evidence in your own family, entertaining story.) However, the wealth generated by capitalism in the first place is what makes such luxuries as public education and concern for the environment feasible.

Please consider my personal policy -- not to call people "asshole" unless they actually literally would like to kill me in cold blood because I don't cover myself in a burka.

Michael,

Clearly there is an overlap, but "theocrat" means something very specific.

Thank you. That is exactly my point. There is also an overlap between dissent and treason. A dissenter and a traitor can use EXACTLY the same rhetoric. The only thing that may seperate the dissenter from the traitor is intent

So how do we differentiate between them? Its not easy. And if those on the left refuse to differentiate between dissent and treason, why should those on the right?

When the Republicans canned Lott, they drew the line between racism and policy differences. Democrats need to do the same with their traitors and racists before I'll ever consider voting Democratic again.

As for affirmative action, do you really think that it significantly benefits blacks? What percentage of blacks actually benefit from it? I don't have any stats offhand, but I'd speculate the percentage is marginal.

The real purpose of affirmative action is for elite left-wing whites to give handouts to elite blacks in order for the left-wing whites to preserve their hold on power.

This handout comes at the expense of lower class whites. Is that liberal policy or socialist policy? Is it liberal policy to favor Johnny Cochrane's children over some truck driver's merely on the basis of race? I think not. When you redistribute educational resources from a disfavored class to a favored class, it is clearly socialism.

Good discourse, people.

I think I may blogroll this here site, my first left of center entry.

Nice to see some civil chat among friends and enemies.

Kimmit,

The first was the miserable failure of capitalist structures to bring prosperity to the vast majority of people and the second was the rise of corporate entities large enough to act as quasigovernmental organizations (if you don't believe me, go visit one of the old-style factory towns; the corporation's control was absolute, through its utter dominance of the property structure).

That should put to rest any dispute as to whether or not you are a socialist.

That said, as large corporations (referred to as "trusts" under that great liberal Theodore Roosevelt) assumed power equal to that of the state in some areas, liberals were forced to sponsor the state as a competing interest which was at least theoretically accountable

I understand what you are getting at, but you are WAY off the mark in terms of what the competing interest was, and what the role of government was.

There is no question that corporations exploited workers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But the competing interest that remedied this was most definitely NOT government. The interested party was unions.

Individuals exercising their fundamental freedom of association formed unions in order to promote their self-interest. That is textbook liberal-capitalism. The role of government is to protect the rights of workers to freely associate. For years the government failed at this role.

keep in mind that conservatism generally includes governmental interference in private moral affairs

No, conservatism is maintenance of the status quo. If the status quo is liberalism, than conservatives are liberals. If the status quo is theocracy, than conservatives are theocrats.

I really don't know if Diana is still reading, but the late David Kelly believed Saddam had WMD, wanted to go back and find it AND convinced his family members that Saddam had to go. His quibble was how.

al-Guardian, via Daimnation (Damien Penny), 8/29(?).

And since WWI ordnance is still being found in phrawnce, and the Chinese just discovered WWII Japanese chem warfare containers, I think we need wait a little while longer. After all, the person putting the report together is already convinced, he has to make the paper trail to convince you. It is very tangled. Anyone here read the 20001 report on how to fool the UN inspectors? Was it even made available?? And considering some of the paper trail was conveniently burned in certain offices while other file cabinets were untouched......

I certainly agree with Michael's article. I am a liberal and am not ashamed to call myself so. But recently, I re-registered so that I could remove the (D) next to my name on the voter's rolls. It is not merely the fringe. Of course the fringe is offensive. It's what they do. Complaining about them is like staring at the eastern horizon at dawn and complaining about the sun getting in your eyes. The right wing fringe is as offensive. It's the meat and potatoes of what the Left -- the Liberal mainstream -- that has driven me away. There are issues on which I can still find common ground and think they have a firm grip on good sense. But there are many on which I feel they are not only wrong, but viewing an alternate reality that bears no relation to the world in which I live. Thus, I cannot stomach being associated with them any longer. I know that this fact is not likely to break any left wing hearts, but I have a feeling I'm not the only one undergoing this kind of ideological crisis. To me, it seems as if the Left has lost not only it's intellectual underpinnings, but in many ways, it's moral foundation as well. I cannot envision a scenario that would lead me to vote for Howard Dean for President, and that's saying something, because neither can I envision one in which I would ever embrace the totality of the Republican platform. It has nothing to do with wanting to bash the Left or doing the Right's dirty work...it's merely an honest personal appraisal of the situation. If it splinters and weakens the Left, so be it. That's the Left's fault, not mine.

Laurie K.

In Europe, those favoring lesser government used to be called “neoliberals” rather than “conservatives”.

I've never understood the need, by any political group, to lash out at 'heretics.' I don't believe that Oliver thinks that those works of 'art' are either accurate or representative of liberals in general, yet he feels compelled to lash out at you for questioning them nonetheless. Sure, far-righties probably do group the average liberal with nutcases who make art like that, but so what? I hope Oliver isn't going to argue that nobody on the left lumps right-side nuts like Pat Buchanan or David Duke in with the average conservative? Both sides have plenty of extremists, and those of us who lean towards a pox on both their houses are far more impressed with members of the left or right who are willing to take on their nuts as opposed to those who defend their nuts rather than concede the obvious: that there are idiots on every side of every issue.

So I am, as a conservative Democrat (along the lines of Totten, though probably slightly less enraged at the left than he is) facing the decision of whether or not to join the University Democrats at my school.

On the one hand, I basically agree with them all in that Bush has been a crappy president. That alone doesn't mean I'm blind with rage at him. And Bush has done some stuff okay, I guess, mainly the war.

Only the war, actually, and not even so much.

At the same time I have a hard time with all the reflexive and rote Bush-bashing and "selected not elected" stuff, if not only on a truthful level but a strategic one as well.

So I don't know what I should do.

I'm not a Republican, and I doubt the GOP could ever be my home.

But I'm not a straightjacketed partyliner either. I'm a McCain-Lieberman-Clark would be voter.

Anyone else feel like this? Anyone torn between dislike of Bush and distrust of the base impulses of the left?

Those pictures are gross, but they're not surprising. I know lots of people like that. One friend has a photo of the World Trade Center being hit, stuck to his fridge with a magnet, and it reads: "Our leaders can't protect you, but the CAN get you killed." Another likes to talk vaguely of "revolution" when he gets drunk and often goes on lectures about how the U.S. only protects the interests "of the white people". And another friend likes to substitute "Bush" with "Hitler" in her sentences.

Now, like I said, these folks are friends and acquaintances of mine. But I refuse to discuss politics with them, and I've already told them that A), they're insane, and B), they need to calm down, because if they really believe in their cause, they sure ain't helping it.

This is my first visit to your blog. Big ups.

The difference between the Liberals and the Radicals has never been more stark. The Liberals still love their country, although they may disagree about things like wars, taxes, etc. Radicals are decadent yahoos with a missing daddy fixation who believe first and foremost in their own moral superiority and to hell with everyone else.

Michael,

You're welcome to join the Republican Party. We're a pretty big tent over here. But it may be better for everyone if you don't. The Dems kicked the Scoop Jackson Dems out, and the country suffered as a result. What happens when the sane liberals leave the Left? The remainder becomes even more hermetic, loony, and dangerous. They stop engaging in relatively passive treaon, and shift to active treason. Not a good thing. You need to do what Buckley did to the Birchites and kick them out of the camp. Laugh when they claim you're doing the Right's work; you're trying to redeem the Left's soul.
The Right has had an advantage, or maybe its a silver lining. The liberal media just loved to tar us with "Nazi", or "rascist", and that forces Rep. to clean their act up rather than being overly accepting of trading integrity for temporary political advantage. The Left got a free pass, and so its loonies have grown like weeds that never heard of a hoe.

Either that, or you can say goodbye to the Left. And the Democratic Party. It will be the Era of Good Feelings all over again with a temporary one-party government that eventually splits into two parties. Probably the Libertarians vs. the Populist Tradititionalists, and way off on the fringes their will be the police hunting down bomb-throwing Chomskyites.

Or you can do what Buckley did, take up that hoe, churn up some new takes on your basic ideals, and begin a decade long march back to power.

Tadeusz

Christopher,
There are other other wackos than those that frequent Intermedia. That said perhaps I should have been clearer in that I don't know how many of those people support Dean and more than Diana knows how many support Shapton.
In the end if Dean is the nominee they will support him because they hate Bush.

For the record I am a male and recent Texan. There is a female named Starhawk who has written several books, is a wiccan, tree-hugger and supporter of Pals. She lives in California I think and I never want to be confused with her since our politics are almost a different as two peoples could be.

COme join the moderate wing of the republican party. The Democratic party is falling apart. Help us rest control of the party from its more reactionary members. Of course this will mean the party will split but this is expected as the democratic party becomes more irrelavent.

Come join the moderate wing of the republican party. The Democratic party is falling apart. Help us rest control of the party from its more reactionary members.

Thanks for the invitation, but think about what you're saying. You're asking me to trade one group of yahoo comrades for another.

If I change party registration it will be to Independent. I'll miss the feeling of solidarity, but that's already gone anyway. And my "peers" in the moderate middle would be a lot more refreshing, and rarely embarassing.

For the first time in my life (since I was 18 and I will soon be 48), I may not cast a presidential vote in 2004.

I am a social liberal/libertarian, a fiscal conservative, and a foreign policy realist.

Dubya seems to be the only candidate out there of either party who is even close to recognizing the Islamofascist threat we face (which is carefully enumerated in AL QUAEDA'S FANTASY IDEOLOGY by Lee Harris and WHEN DEVILS WALK THE EARTH by Ralph Peters), and will continue to face for some time. On the other hand, his tax-cutting/borrow-and-spend default fiscal policy is, in my opinion, as personally repugnant and economically destructive as is the democratic tax-and-spend inclination (however many selfish and greedy votes it gets - those who magically want everything for nothing), and I do not see a fiscally responsible Bill Clinton, who realized that even federal credit card bills eventually come due, on the horizon on either side. I also am deeply troubled by Dubya's continuing assault upon church-state separation, showcased by his anti-abortion stance and his faith-based charity initiatives.

I may just, for the first time in my life, have to sit this one out, as a matter of personal conscience.

" Trust me, when the right looks at Democrats in the center and the loons at Indymedia - they don't see any difference and find us all one and the same. The past 3 years have told me: better the idiot I know, than the enemy who wants to be rid of both of us." - Oliver

Oliver Willis, perchance? Howdy.

Nope. Nor do libertarians like me find you "all one and the same", consdiering that I read, quote, and link to Michael, Demosthenes, and Esmay [who's a classic liberal often lumped in as a conservative by leftists].

It's the "idiot that you know" that makes the "enemy" want to be rid of both of you. More precisely: decide that there's no alternative to being rid of both of you, since, unlike Michael, Esmay, and others, you won't divorce yourselves from the "idiots you know".

Friend of my enemy is my enemy as well. Deal with it.

By the way, good article, Michael. Kudos.

Hit post too fast on my last one. ;]

I ditched the left when several of my best friends (who I once considered my lifeline in the sea of reactionary craziness that is Alabama) jumped into the abyss of anti-Americanism and neo-Marxism. When I didn't shout their Judenhass slogans with enough fervor, they labelled me a "Zionazi" and will no longer have anything to do with me, except to anonymously troll my LiveJournal with whatever lies their tiny little minds can develop.

The fact is, it's not only quite possible to be conservative on some issues and liberal on others, but the vast majority of people in the U.S. have just such a mix of views. By purging the left of all who don't hate conservatives with every fiber of their being, the neo-Marxists have cut the heart out of liberalism and left it to die (and are now intent on creating conspiracies to pin its death on anyone but themselves).

"Neocon" is not an insult, it's a badge worn proudly by those who are too open-minded to be tolerated by the New Left.

Dear Michael,

Your post reminds me of myself 30 years ago. In the mid-1970s, I visited the U.S.S.R., just to see for myself what it was like; and I returned utterly appalled: a blind man could see that it was an utterly repressive police state. And then, reading "The GULAG Archipelago" put into focus what I saw there, politically and historically.

But when i tried to explain to "liberals" of my acquaintance what I had discovered - some in my own family - I found that they preferred to cling to their slogans rather than confront reality: any argument that would somehow not cast the United States as the "bete noir" of the world was unacceptable to them. Their hatred of their own country was pathological.

Granted, we had just withdrawn from Vietnam a short time earlier - and South Vietnam was to fall to the armies of the North shortly thereafter - but this attitude went beyond simply rejecting, however vehemently, a particular policy. How shall I put this? The "liberals" fought to achieve ignorance about their own country and its place in the world and history, and they displayed their ignorance as a badge of enlightenment. "Ignorance Is Strength", indeed.

An little incident I had in college, I think, sums up this attitude of studied ignorance. A young woman of my acquaintance liked to wear a button that read "QUESTION AUTHORITY". Being a smart-ass, one day, I asked her, "Why?" (Questioning authority, you see.) This question elicited a blank look, then narrowed eyes and pursed lips, and finally a stream of vituperation - it seems I was an agent of Fascism for questioning her assertion that authority should be questioned.

So, I left the Left behind. As for the Right, I found that there is no such thing as "the" Right; rather, there are many sub-movements on the right, which overlap rather than move in parallel. Any political movement that can embrace everyone from the Ayn Rand-style Libertarians to ultramontanist Catholics can hardly be said to be monolithic.

However, these disparate movements are bound together by one thread: Distrust of the state. It may seem paradoxical to a leftist that the right, which has a strong strain of patriotism and
does not demonize the United States, should be distrustful of the state - but it's not really, when you think about it. Remember: the country is not synonymous with the state!

No doubt you and your fellow liberal refugees from the left will find a niche where you feel comfortable - or you'll form your own. The Republican Party may not be broad enough for you, right now, but you can make it so.

Regards ...

Michael, I just wanted to voice my support. The only people doing the right's dirty work for them are the left. The rest of us are the ones that count.

I cannot help feeling that, if I were approached by a person carrying a bloodied sign such as the one above and I expressed any form of disagreement towards such as sign and towards it's message, the person carrying the sign would beat the living daylight out of me for disagreeing.

From what I have witnessed, the radical left operates through intimidation. I will point out that I reside in New York City and live among many supporters of the radical left.

The Republican National Convention is coming to New York City next July and I know the radical left is planning to make some big statements. I question whether it will be safe for me to be on the streets during that time.

This is just my opinion, please don't shoot me.

Odd that you and I share common elements of ancestry and yet have nearly diametrically opposed ideologies, Kimmitt. Maybe it's those odd French bits.

So, have we reached the point where I continue to patiently correct your errors, or do I get to start flaming wildly about how the Right's argument style relies on an audience which isn't even capable of reading sentence fragments such as "Communist revolutions (which I think we can all agree are basically bad)"?

I think I've had to say nearly the exact same thing to you on other threads. You reap what you sow, or so I've heard.

"I also am deeply troubled by Dubya's continuing assault upon church-state separation, showcased by his anti-abortion stance and his faith-based charity initiatives."

I have absolutly no idea how opposing the killing of unborn children is an assault on church-state seperation. I am non-religious and pro-life due to the fact that I believe it is an assault humankind to kill children. Does that make me a theocrat? A theocrat that hasnt been to church in 10 years?

The fundamental question is, Michael, do the Democrats follow your standard, which leads to a healthy and viable Democratic party, or do they go the way of the Bush-hating hyper-partisan leftists. If they choose the latter, the Democratic party is truly in peril.

I can't remember who said 'there are no enemies on the Left' (Stalin? Lenin?). Given the source, I'd say it's a false statement. The Left needs a serious and open debate, with all viewed aired.

It's probably just because I'm a warmongering neoconservative with a god complex trying to achieve world domination one Zionist brick at a time, but I act