Contemporary conservatives are a classy bunch:
♦ One of them, a Texas congressman, invited a vulgar, Obama-hating gun freak to the State of the Union address to provide, he explained, “balance.” The vulgar, Obama-hating gun freak then said he could not offer a reaction to the speech because, “I’m supposed to keep my pants on.” Now, that’s balance.
♦ Another conservative, a well-known and well-paid whore for the gun industry, urged people to buy even more guns just in case there is a “fiscal collapse” brought on by President Obama. If that sounds familiar, it is exactly the rationale of Nancy Lanza, a “prepper” who feared an economic collapse and kept several guns in her home to defend herself. Unfortunately, her disturbed son shot her in her sleep and proceeded to Sandy Hook Elementary School to kill six-year-olds and teachers before putting a gun to his own head.
♦ Two insanely-conservative U.S. Senators—I repeat: U.S. Senators—have essentially accused President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, former Republican Chuck Hagel, of being in bed with foreign terrorists. And 41 Republican Senators, including Missouri’s Roy Blunt—who had previously indicated Hagel should not be filibustered—supported a historic filibuster to keep Hagel’s nomination from coming to a vote, a vote he would otherwise clearly win.
Hagel’s offense, as John McCain eventually admitted, was pissing off his fellow Republicans many years ago by criticizing George W. Bush and the surge in Iraq. Republicans can forget all the damage they have done to the economy and all the debt they have racked up, but they can never forget one of their own who told the truth about them.
♦ Three Fox “News” hosts mocked Desiline Victor, the 102-year-old African-American woman who, because of Republican voter suppression tactics, waited hours in line to vote last November, with one of the hosts saying,
What was she the victim of? Rashes on the bottom of her feet?
♦ A Republican congressman from Georgia, seeking an open U.S. Senate seat in 2014, has bragged in a fundraising letter about his insight into Barack Obama:
I was the first member of Congress to call him a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies like government control of health care and redistribution of wealth.
Turns out the congressman is a liar, but not for saying Obama is a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies—heck, we all know he is—but because the congressman was not “the first” to say so.
♦ A big-time Tea Party group, FreedomWorks, which recently paid its former chairman Dick Armey $8 million bucks to go away, produced a video with a segment that featured two female interns, one pretending to be a panda and one pretending to be Hillary Clinton. The panda-intern was, reportedly, “performing oral sex on the then-secretary of state.”
Classy stuff. Real family values. Onward Christian soldiers!
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
Jim Wheeler
/ February 15, 2013We truly live in bizarre times, Duane. Has it always been like this and I simply not paying attention? I suppose it’s possible but I hate to think so.
Speaking of un-classy behavior, I see by an AP article in today’s paper that right-wingers have been flaunting their second Amendment rights in Billy Long’s favorite vacation destination. Since Newtown, new shooting ranges have been opening all over the city.
And the beat goes on.
Rachel Maddow is promising a new documentary delving into the inner workings of the disastrous Iraq War, set to air on her show Monday night. It’s a damn shame that most Republicans won’t see it – they’ll be otherwise occupied in conservative behavior such as going to Las Vegas to shoot holes in effigies of people they hate.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Jim,
If there is anyone left in America who doesn’t know about the deception used to get us into the Iraq War, they can get educated in less than an hour by watching that well-produced Rachel Maddow special show.
I want to call your attention to something I found in an article reviewing her MSNBC documentary. It is a quote from Republican congressman Walter Jones, who initially supported the war but eventually change his mind. About his vote for war, he said:
Jones paid a price for his rebellion, for his honesty, by losing committee assignments and prestige among his Republican colleagues. But he didn’t lose his life, as so many did, both Americans and Iraqis.
Duane
LikeLike
Brad Lang
/ February 15, 2013When asked to come up with similar examples of left-wingers being “un-classy,” the righties have cited things like liberals accusing right-wingers of not being classy. There have also been several reports of liberals calling NRA leaders “crazy” because they want more guns. What could go wrong with that? Crazy? Like a fox. With an AR-15.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Brad,
You make a great point about the equivalence argument. It works in other ways, too. When we call them out for things like, say, exploiting white angst, they charge us with being “racists.”
Are there extremists on the left? Sure there are. But they don’t have their own television network or a zillion radio shows to spout their nonsense 24 hours a day, every day. And they tend not to arm themselves and contemplate fighting American troops in yet another civil war.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 15, 2013Duane,
A simple question based upon what you wrote above. You wrote, “,,,,,,,but not for saying Obama is a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies—heck, we all know he is-…”
I read and reread the paragraph and of course understand you were disputing the words by the Georgia politician. But as well, did you intend to really admit that Obama is a “socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies”. I doubt that, but then again, you surprise me from time to time.
Call me naive if you like, but sometimes your sarcasm seems instead to be realism, the truth behind your views.
Anson
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 15, 2013Now, hold on there, buckaroos! A way back close to the top of Duane’s list, we should be thankful for Texas Senator Ted “Slimey Ooze” Cruz calling out Chuck Hagel’s possible connection (not) to Mid-Eastern terror money because it opens the door to a real investigation of Bush-Cheney to significantly more of the same: hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq due to corruption, lies, and feathering the Bush-Saud family ties; billions of stolen dollars by Brown and Root (Haliburton) in no-bid mercenary contacts; the Wall Street-engineered collapse of the world economy — dang! I’m out of time. Let’s investigate and put these bastards (including Cruz and Cornan) in jail. And Anson — we’re putting you in knucklehead jail.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013“Knucklehead jail”? I like that. And we could give the inmates free lessons on sarcasm!
LikeLike
J. D. Hightjdhight01
/ February 15, 2013And people wonder why I am so critical of the Republican Party. I would send this to my Republican family members and friends, but they would either agree with it, dispute it, or fail to see your sarcasm and think you were supporting their point of view. I am getting to the point of believing that they are stuck in their right-wing bubble, listening to Limbaugh, Fox noise, Roy Blunt, Ozark Billy, and all the rest of the wrong-wingers whose only purpose is promoting their own welfare or the welfare of their super-wealthy johns.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Jim,
There is definitely a “right-wing bubble” and a lot of folks stay inside it for comfort. Fortunately for me, as a former dittohead, I would often leave the bubble, where I eventually found how fragile it was. Keep trying with your friends and family. You never know who may break out someday.
Duane
LikeLike
laborerman
/ February 16, 2013These people are zealots. The same eyes that they view others with they refuse to view themselves with. They believe (with a certain amount of hypocrisy and sanctimony) that they are martyrs for a cause that is as phony as the sincerity of those that planted it as a wedge to divide and conquer! The words freedom and liberty are always their fall-back and have been so overused that I want to puke when I hear them uttered by greedy, draft dodging chichenhawks that care nothing about respect for individuals or their individual rights! Yes, most of these folks..to coin a phrase..are “Walking on the Fighting Side of Me”!
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Laborerman,
Nice Merle Haggard reference you slipped in there! I, too, get dismayed at the use of words like “freedom and liberty” by those who believe they are the only ones interested in them. Ted Nugent, for instance, had his chance to serve in Vietnam. He passed it up, because unlike wild turkeys or geese, the North Vietnamese tended to shoot back at those pointing guns at them.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 16, 2013And therefore, no one commenting herein beileves Obama is a “….., heck we all know he is..” type of politician. I don’t either, but……
Would advocating “European-like socialism” meet with your approval? How about “American style socialism”? Or how about “socialist-like government policies”?
In other words, are any of you ready to admit that if it sounds like socialism, looks like socialism and reads like socialism, then……..?
For several years following WWI the whole country endured the “Big Red Scare” a massive reaction against Boshevism, complete with battles in the streets between left wing organizers and police (see the Boston police strike, the manner in which Coolridege resolved it and thus a major factor in his election as VP that then President).
Obama’s and your won efforts politically tend towards socialistic solutions, in my view. Why not just admit it and then defend your position.
As I have long stated, I will support your programs to help the downtrodden up to the point that we the people can afford such programs. After that line is crossed, you will continue to read my challenges to your assertions, politically. As for Sat mail deliver, go read what I had to say on that point, a trivial matter in the whole scheme of things of intense national interests today, in my view.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Anson,
As I have tried to tell you many times: nearly everyone, including you and your extremist pals who say nasty things about me on your blog, believes in socialism, in its American form. If you believe Medicaid and Medicare are good and necessary programs, you are embracing a brand of socialism. So, there’s no need for me to defend the programs, only their integrity, which is in jeopardy if Republicans have their way.
Duane
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ February 16, 2013I did not know that Nancy Lanza was prepper.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Bruce,
Start with this, from Salon:
Nancy Lanza was a “prepper”
LikeLike
J D Hight
/ February 17, 2013I am all for a European-style of socialism, with Medicare for all. When Republicans talk about death panels, I always associate that with insurance companies. Who else makes their profits from denying coverage for something for which the consumer pays? As I recently experienced, Medicare does the same thing, but the government does it after everything has been exhausted in a hospital. This is unlike the insurance companies, who will deny necessary treatment or cause their customer to jump through hoops before they will even consider the next level of treatment. How else would one define a death panel?
Another area that I would like to see increased governmental oversight is the energy industry. For too long, consumers watch gas prices rise then fall and rise again, never asking why the constant fluctuation. The oil companies were pretty slick getting us to think three dollars a gallon was a bargain, and they are now closing in on four dollars. It is time that the government step in and take a look at this. If it is speculation, then there must be some kind of concrete proof to raise prices ten cents a week. Is it profiteering? If it is, then the oil companies need to be fined. It is time that politicians work for those who elect them and not those who finance them for a price.
Finally, the banks and Wall Street. It is so slick how Wall Street and their mouthpiece, the Republican Party, have suddenly turned the responsibility for the economic meltdown of 2007 on public employees, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and anything else in the social safety net. As anyone with a memory or a conscience can remember, the real culprits were the banks and Wall Street making faulty and very risky real estate investments. As usual, they cried and were bailed out by public funds. Now, they are again wanting the freedom to play by their own rules and gut any and all governmental regulations. In other words, let them, the fox, back in the hen house, and all with the blessings of the Republican Party. Personally, I believe every CEO and other persons who were at fault for the collapse of the economy should be sitting in jail, but they are again welcome in Congress as exalted figures.
It is time for the government to represent the people and not the special interests. What we need now are term limits for members of the House and the Senate. The career politicians become too beholden to special interests and enrich themselves tremendously. I believe this would take care of many problems and, on a personal note only, Anson, possibly change my mind regarding the implementation of European style socialism in any field except healthcare.
LikeLike
Treeske
/ February 17, 2013Anson, After three decades of increased Corporate Dictatorship, Social Democracy starts looking better all the time. Until one lived in a true Socialist Democratic system, witnessing birth to death, one can not criticize it.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 18, 2013Good for you, J.D. and even Treeske,
Both of you seem to unabashedly endorse socialism, even the European form according to J.D, unless he simply restricts it, socialism, to HC.
Now that is political honesty, it seems to me.
I would suggest that Duane feels the same way but he covers such sentiments with many rather crafty phrases and not an outright endoresment of socialism, as such.
If we were all actually honest a great debate, without mudslinging, COULD be held with real American style freedom and liberty vs. the far more controlling socialism from the two sides. Actually we have been engaged in such for several years now but the mudslinging gets in the way far too much herein. We’d at least have to leave Janesreaction and Juan out of such discussions!!
Anson
LikeLike
Brad Lang
/ February 18, 2013Anson, don’t kid a kidder. You said, “If we were all actually honest, a great debate, without mudslinging, COULD be held with real American style freedom and liberty vs. the far more controlling socialism from the two sides.” By positioning the debate in such a way, you have already won by characterizing our (liberals’) point of view as one of “controlling” socialism vs. your good old American freedom and liberty. To that I have to call “bullshit.” Only if you are willing to admit that socialism does not seek to control anything other than the tendency of capitalism to encourage greed and increase the gap between rich and poor can we have an honest discussion. We would also have to agree that the whole point of our form of government as devised by the founders was to avoid the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few that they had witnessed in Europe. Without that basic understanding, we won’t have anything to talk about! (I don’t know why I’m talking now, in fact.)
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 18, 2013To all,
I encourage you to consider http://ansonburlingame.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/a-congressmans-view/.
It is NOT MY views expressed therein. It is a letter from a Congressman to his constituent, a college class mate of mine. It is exactly the kind of discussion that COULD be a reasonable one without name calling, etc. Agree first on factual numbers, financial numbers, and then consider, realistically just how to reverse the trends, indicated by such factual numbers.
I read the letter and posted it as a blog after posting the last comment above.
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 19, 2013You see Brad,
We disagree, fundamentally. You wrote, in part, “……our form of government as devised by the founders was to avoid the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few ”
I thought our “ideas” of government were to remove the dictatorial power of monarchies and let the people decide. Our Founders spread the power around in various different forms in just such an attempt.
OUR form of government was created, as best I can tell, to limit the power of government to specific things, like national defense, etc. Then the government was expected to get out of the way, back then, and let equality of opportunity (but not outcome) be left to we the people to succeed or fail as the case may be, individually.
And if you don’t think socialism is far more controlling than allowing each and every individual to find his own path to success or failure with unfettered freedom to do so, well, I agree, why argue between each other!!
Anson
LikeLike
laborerman
/ February 19, 2013The GOP is not in favor of “unfettered” freedom..ask ALEC, Koch Bros, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc..they want laws to protect & condone their actions, but are not willing to have laws that work the other way. Let the people decide?..Since money took over people decide very little..It is not just about governments becoming “monarchies” that we should worry about! A corporate controlled entity wrapped in “freedom & liberty” is no better!
LikeLike
Brad Lang
/ February 19, 2013While it is true that we can never know for sure what was in the minds of our founders, Anson, the notion that they wanted government to “get out of the way” of business has no basis in fact. They knew that the enemy of democracy was the monied powers of Europe, and designed a government that was not supposed to fall under their power. Democracy IS a form of government, and it has to be maintained and strengthened, not told to get out of the way. The one incident in early American history that proves your approach to be wrong is George Washington personally leading federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He wanted to federal government to be strong, and was not friendly toward any notion of rebellion against that government over taxes or any other subject. Please stop characterizing our founders as a bunch of libertarians. Masons, maybe. Libertarians, no.
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 19, 2013Anson and Brad —
We’re all trying make the classic case regarding the intentions of the framers. That debate is not really deliverable because so much of life has changed beyond the ability of any of the founding fathers to predict. We mischaracterize each others’ ideas of what the founders had in mind because we interpret their actions 250 years ago through the lens of our own preferences. Some of us believe democratic socialism is exactly what they had in mind because we see that as the most enlightened and civilized approach to a community committed to mutual success and happiness. Anson — I don’t think you believe that. You think the framers wanted those who did have to be able to have more. Whatever. Hyper capitalism and healthy civilization are NOT mutual exclusive — but almost.
LikeLike
jdhight01
/ February 19, 2013Henry Wallace, VP for Franklin D. Roosevelt, was asked by The New York Times in 1944 to write on American fascism. He wrote the following, which rings true today: “A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.”
You can read the rest of the article at the following link: http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 19, 2013Wow, JD. Great point and terrific article from Wallace. And frightening. The boss (Duane) discourages us from using the “f” word, but, well ……..
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 19, 2013Generalist,
I agree that we all interpret the Founders through the lenses of our own experiences. But be careful trying to “analyze me”. I in no way expect a society where those with more get an unfair chance to get more. I only expect a society to allow anyone to advance or fall back based on their own merits and hard work. Sure there is a real need to care for those that are in terrible shape, particularly when it is not their own “fault”. But determining the cause(s) of individual misfortune is a difficult process as well.
Go back and check the discussion with Jim Wheeler somewhere in here about poverty being multi-generational. My point is does not HAVE to be that way and the efforts of government to prevent it from being so have been lame, in the extreme, in many cases.
As for facism, J.D., are you suggesting that American society, in part, is or is becoming facist in its beliefs? Would that not be the same as me calling liberals communists?? I don’t believe either term applies in today’s America, but perhaps I am not as extreme as you may be. Socialist and conservative is about as far as I am willing to go today, in terms of labels for either side.
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 19, 2013Laborman,
You said, “..Since money took over people decide very little.” The last time I checked money took over around the time of Rome and has been in “power” ever since then. Actually the wealth in Egypt was controlling long before Rome, I suppose.
The Industrial Revolution was still ahead when our Founders “founded” the ideas of America. At that time the landed gentry, “rich white men” if you will started the whole thing called America. To me they did a pretty good job, slavery still being left untouched being a mistake, but unavoidable at the time, it seems. We had to fix that one later.
I am currently reading a history of the French Revolution. It is a scarey read, at least to me, particularly when I know in advance the abysmal failure of that revolution once “the people” gained power, actually the “mobs” gained the power and for sure lots of heads rolled when that happened.
When I read of the OWS protests and some violence I was reminded of such at the time. But when I read of rich “fat cats” today, they do not compare in any way to the power of wealth in the hands of the “nobility” in France in 1789, either.
But this of course if a very long discussion.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ February 20, 2013Anson,
I will interject myself in your conversation here and note something you said:
Okay. We all seem to agree here that the moneyed class has a lot of power, presumably much more power than they ought to have. My question would be then: What is the best way to remedy that situation? Less government? Hardly.
America does not and can not exist in a “liberty” vacuum. In other words, if you remove, say, government regulation of business, you are not doing anything but putting Americans at the mercy of business. If during an emergency, like the aftermath of our tornado, you allow price-gouging, whose liberty is threatened? The gouger or the gouged?
Something or someone will fill any vacuum created by getting government out of the way. Moneyed interests have a way of both clamoring for “less government” while also using government to further their own interests. They always seek their own well-being, no matter what. Government, thus, will always be a part of the mix.
The challenge of our democracy in this regard is to limit the influence of the moneyed class. We can do that only through government, but through a government whose actions are transparent, whose influences are well known. That’s why Citizens United and other rulings were so wrong. That’s why a robust press is vital to the life of our democracy, if we want a democracy as free as possible from the disproportionate influence of the wealthy.
A lot has been made recently about Obama playing golf with Tiger Woods and the press being shut out. I don’t give a damn about him playing golf with Tiger Woods. If that’s all he did, no big deal. But I do care that he played golf with “oil men.” Here’s a paragraph from a story about the golf affair from the Huffington Post:
It’s relevant that President Obama is spending time on the golf course with such “players.” They had access to him that ordinary Americans don’t get. The White House and President Obama himself was wrong to keep reporters, those reporters who follow the president around, away from the “event,” even if they claimed it was his vacation time. When someone in government is meeting with someone in industry, it is not a vacation as far as I’m concerned.
It bothers me that President Obama would agree to ignore press concerns about covering his golf outing. As I said, if it were merely a matter of golfing with Tiger Woods, that’s one thing. But hitting balls with oil execs is quite another. We should all know about it and the press should ask what was discussed. We have to hold our government, and its officials, accountable. That’s the only way we can try to keep wealthy interests from dominating our country.
Duane
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 20, 2013I agree with Duane’s comments here and am moved to relate something I heard on a podcast this morning relative to the necessity of government to business as well as the citizenry. It has to do with the auto industry.
Did you ever wonder why there aren’t any “car” stores? By that I mean a shopping center where you could shop for various brands of new cars, just like you shop for fruit juice or ice cream. There aren’t any, although the concept has been tried, but it failed for one reason and one reason only. Laws. The auto industry has over the years promoted and insured that auto dealerships are protected from competition by another dealer in their same make of car, so you will never see two Ford dealerships in the same block, much less a “car store”. It was estimated by an authority quoted in the podcast that this network of laws effectively adds roughly $1,800 to the average cost of a new car.
I just thought the matter added substance to Duane’s point, which was a darned good one.
LikeLike
laborerman
/ February 19, 2013I believe that while there is much to be learned from history, & given the fact that history will repeat its self over a period of time; I still believe that America is a tad bit hypcritical in the way that the divide between have and have nots is treat/condoned. France, Rome, and Egypt never touted the banner of “freedom & liberty”, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, or any of the other things that I consider part of America’s history/founding qualities. In the three aforementioned countries people knew what to expect, their way of life was the law of the land, they were told no different ; not true in America, we are far removed from our early years and that way of thinking (we do not practise very many of our founding qualities).
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 20, 2013Good reply laborman. We could have a good discussion for sure.
There are many areas in America where we still adhere to “founding principles”. One that many do not like is the “right to bear arms” today as just an example. As well many believe the clearly stated “founding principles” have been perverted by SCOTUS over a couple of centuries, one way or the other. You could attack Citizen United and I would respond with Affirmative Action, as just an example.
However there is ONE “founding principle” that I suggest NEEDS to be reemphasized today. Go read the very short “Farewell Address” by George Washington. He speaks very clearly about American debt accumulation. Encur debt when needed to fight a war but pay off the debt soon thereafter. We did exactly that for about 150 years until……
And we have been going downhill, ever since, in my view and urged to do so by both GOP and Dems. One is just worse than the other in that regard, however!!!
Anson
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 20, 2013Anson —
I think you just nailed it: you like “Citizens United” — I like “Affirmative Action.” You have, in a sentence, brilliantly and accurately demarcated the GOP’s love for the rich and powerful in contrast to the Democrat’s love for the common man. Thank you. now, we can move on to another topic.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 21, 2013Generalist,
I was merely making the point that SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution many times and both sides raise hell when it does so. Super Pacs and Affirmative action, as far as I know do not get mentioned in the Constitution and thus government should stay out of such fights. But again, a long and tortuous argument, for sure.
Now Jim,
I recently bought a new car at a “shopping mall” for cars. It was located in Fayetville, AK, one huge lot with about 5-10 different dealers located thereon. I could have shopped until I dropped at that “Mall”.
Instead, I first went to a local dealer, test drove the cars that I had first researched online, brought in my trade-in for appraisal, etc. I received a written offer, a best and final offer.
Then Janet went online and we wound up in AK. We saved over $5000 dollars and got a better car, than what was offered in Joplin. Don’t you just love the free market and competition????
Duane,
A good and “honest” reply given your poltical views. I don’t call you names for such views other than reference on my own blog to “the EC”. I then rebut what you write, sometimes. But I do not censor name calling on my blog as well, just like you don’t do so herein. I DID write “you two” recently in an attempt to get off the name calling and back to a reasonable policy debate however. I got chewed out for doing so by one of your commenters!!
I acknowledge the divide of long standing in American politics between liberals and conservatives. The positions of such “camps” have changed from time to time over the centuries and decades as well. That has routinely been a reasonable debate and America traditionally returns to near the “center” when all is said and done.
Today however the political debate has become much more divided. Just look in your own blog with all the rants against “nuts” on the right, many of whom in fact are “nuts”, in my conservative view. I could spend days digging up dirt on people from the left, “nuts” on the left as well but don’t bother with such antics.
In my view, the left has become much closer to Socialism in America than I have observed in the past. I don’t like that. On the other hand Conservatism takes on a whole new meaning as well when the likes of Todd Akin, etc. take the stage. I suppose I COULD call Akin a “facist” but choose not to do so and I have yet to call Obama a died in the wool Socialist either.
More and more today political pressures move the left farther left and the right farther right. I disdain such movement from either side. I was “distressed” to say the least during the GOP primary campaign and if you “lurked” on my blog you would have read some real rants, against Akin, Santorum, etc. You and “yours” did all you could to try to make Romney sound like Santorum and Akin as well and even threw in some “Mormonism” to make your various points!!
Had the Democratic Party held a contencious primary campaign I trust you know full well how that debate might have sounded as well, strong pressure for stronger leftward movement within that Party. Had that happened it would have been very interesting to read where YOU would have positioned yourself in such a debate.
The democratic (driven by demographics primarily) trend towards more socialism concerns me, a lot. My principle resistance to such a trend is fianancial, we cannot, nor can any other big and powerful and very diverse country afford to meet all the “needs” demanded to be met in socialist countries. Thus my resistance to such a movement, but not a facist resistance either, not by a long shot.
I however fight a heavy headwind, politically today on the national front at least. Not here in “redneck”Jasper county, however. Nationally Joplin is indeed a “backwater” area and the likes of our local Tea Party sentiments receive very little support from me as well, publicly but more important privately. John Putnam for example cringes when I show my face in private gatherings around here!!! I almost always challenge his views, particularly when he supports the likes of Akin, etc.
So where, you ask, are my “true colors”, politically. My best answer is somewhere to the “right” of Claire McCaskill but not too far in that direction. Someday you and I could even engage Roy Blunt in a “conversation”. You might be surprised what I would say in such a session as well.
You however have long been (4 years and counting since I began to engage politically) the “duty socialist” in my book. Thus I routinely fight the headwinds herein!!
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 21, 2013Interesting to know there are exceptions to car dealerships, like the Fayetteville Autopark, carrying more than one brand. The Wiki page on “Car Dealerships in North America” says,
Arkansas appears to be an exception to the rule.
LikeLike
jdhight01
/ February 21, 2013I agree, Anson. The political divide has become so extreme that nothing is being accomplished at the federal government level as well as many state levels. I admit that I favor nationalizing healthcare, some parts of the energy field, as well as regulation of the financial industry. As far as my recent posting of Henry Wallace’s definition of fascism, I believe that the far right, which is represented by the Koch brothers and others, as well as the tea party, fit that definition. I did not mean for it to be applied to everyone on the right side of the political arena–only those most extreme factions who have sold themselves out to the moneyed groups who, in my opinion, truly fit Wallace’s definition of an American fascist.
As you know, I am quite extreme in my political views–a bleeding heart liberal would be a true characterization. It really bothers me, though, to see wealthy people as the Koch brothers (note how I always refer to them–pure evil, in my opinion. I have nothing against wealthy people. In fact, I admire most of them) use their great wealth to try to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class. Why else would their (Koch) organization threaten Congressional representatives and Senators with the withdrawal of financial support if they voted for the Hurricane Sandy aid package? The reps and sinators (not a spelling error) who voted against the package, which would help millions of people, are those of whom Henry Wallace was speaking.
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 21, 2013And — JD — how about Benito Mussolini’s definition: “Fascism should more appropriately be call Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” I’m willing to set aside the “F” word for the “C” word as long as we get American Corporatists (The Kochs, the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, etc. and SCOTUS) to admit Citizens United is a ploy of the miserly and paranoid right and they and their congressional minions in the Tea Party are part of a dark army as corrupt as any we’ver every seen.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 21, 2013See what I mean. JD and I had a reasonable discussion going and then…… here we go with facism, again. You write of the “miserable and paranoid right”. Take a shot at the “whining, crybabies on the left that NEED everything imaginable”. Then we can REALLY make some progress in reaching agreement on things!!
AB
LikeLike
thgeneralist
/ February 21, 2013Anson —
Not “miserable”, but “miserly”. Although the “C’s” do tend to create a lot of misery. As a student of history, your inability to see the links binding the Kochs and fascism (or corporatism) is — at the very least — disingenuous. Or, complete and utter BS. Or, amazingly ignorant.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 21, 2013JD,
My own wife is a “bleeding heart liberal” but I don’t chasitze her as such. I simply rebut many of her own views, like when she saw Romney on TV during the campaign and said “I HATE that man”!!!
Recently you have been forthright in expressing “labels” for your polticial views. I agree with the “labels”, bleeding heart liberal and sort of socialistic in policies you deem right for America. Obviously I disagree and try to say why, many times. Fine. We both know where we stand and why we stand there. Same with Duane and others.
But I remain engaged in a hope that common ground can be found as well Kabe for example generally supports unions and I generally disagree with many union arguments. But Kabe and I don’t go tooth and nail after each other herein, either. Someday I hope to also surprise Kabe by supporting some union issue. Might well be a cold day in hell but I keep looking!!!
I would suggest, as just an example, that Duane and I agree on Pro-Choice and mitigation of gun violence with better laws. Neither one of us likes “evangelicals”, either. But we don’t spend much time patting each other on the back in agreement. Instead the social democracy and conservative divide have us either ignoring each other or going after each other tooth and nail.
I have long been saying it but say it again. The political divide in this country is worse than ever seen by me, in my lifetime. The conflict in ideas between Duane and me is a perfect example of such divide, locally. Until Duane and I can find SOME agreement on SOME things, well why should we expect Congress to be any better in finding compromise???
We would BOTH, I HOPE, hate to see an OWS mob confronting a radical Tea Party mob in Joplin. But……… someday????
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 21, 2013Adding JD,
That last comment expressing concern is EXACTLY why I decided to read a good book on the history of the French Revoluion today. Any sane person would suggest a pox on both sides in that revolution, but it happened anyway, and failed, miserably, despite the best efforts of Jefferson and Layfayette.
Anson, again
LikeLike