Recapturing Kansas

“The idea being that if a liberal gets one, than a Purple Heart is a joke. “

Typical. The joke was that *Kerry* got them. Not because he is liberal. He “earned” three and got a get out of Vietnam free card. And then came back and in many minds betrayed his fellow soldiers still in Vietnam.

Who here can testify as to how serious his “injuries?” actually were? And did it really make sense to attempt to run as a “war hero” when he was only in Vietnam for 4 months? His real “legacy” from that conflict was his anti-war stance, which was controversial to say the least!

One can imagine that Kerry would have run as an anti-war candidate. But he did not. He could have run on his “record of achievements” as a Senator. Nope. He was an amazingly weak candidate and could not beat a very vulnerable president. Sad.

And yet, most liberals still don’t get it. Even sadder. . .

Posted by thinkHarder on Jan 12, 2005 at 1:26 PM

the question is how can you consider his anti-war actvities a betrayal of his fellow troops? It seems that someone who actually cares about his fellow troops would try his best to get them unnecessarily out of harm’s way. running into a shit storm for no good reason makes about as much sense as a suicide bomber blowing his ass to high heaven thinking he’s doing something great. What will it take to get some of you people to admit to your mistakes? That would be much more honorable. Maybe I’m just a ‘fancy-pants’ who bothered to go to college on my own damn dime of my own hard work.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 12, 2005 at 2:17 PM

I didn’t realize the military gave purple hearts out as a ‘get out of Vietnam free card,’ but even if this were true, the fact is Mr. Kerry was actually there. Even if he did it solely to improve his resume, the Vietcong didn’t know this, and when he saved a fellow soldier under heavy fire, it was luck—not some pre-determined career path—that allowed him to survive.

The joke is how so many current conservative patriot types used the system to not get purple hearts or serve a quick tour of duty, but to avoid serving in Vietnam at all. They padded their resumes without the risk of being killed and forgotten. 

That’s not a liberal or conservative view point, and there is nothing to ‘get.’ Removed from this continual churning of the soundbite argument that defines modern debating, deriding individuals who achieved their goals through great personal risk and civic duty ought to be called “shameless” and “despicable.”

I think the larger point that Mr. Frank was trying to make about wealthy citizens (whose offspring largely avoided the Vietnam war) mocking a symbol of patriotism w/the purple heart band aids, and cheering a tax cut that mainly benefited themselves, was that their beliefs dispute the supposed populism of the republican party.

Would it seem as cute if cheerful democrats mocked their rivals with mini-bottles of booze containing little plastic George W. Bush’s inside?

Posted by ken on Jan 12, 2005 at 2:40 PM

“Who here can testify as to how serious his “injuries?” actually were?”
They were “serious” enough to qualify for the Purple Heart based on the military requirements of the day.  Who are you to question that?  Are you equally curious about the quality of injuries of the (multiple) thousands of other purple hearts given out during Vietnam?  How about the ones being handed out now?  To laugh at anyone’s medals honorably earned in any conflict is indefensible.  These same idiots who wore these bandages mocking Kerry’s service are driving through drive-throughs with Support our Troups magnetic “ribbons” on their SUVs, ordering “Freedom Fries” with their super-sized burgers, accusing anyone who questions the policies of this administration of not supporting our troops.  Well, how is mocking a medal winner “supporting” our troops?

Posted by Steven Bean on Jan 12, 2005 at 3:17 PM

I agree that Kerry was an amazingly weak, even amateurish, candidate. Even so, it took voting machine malfunction, hours long lines at polling places, throwing out of 90,000 “spolied” (that means minority) ballots in Ohio alone, and loads of other tricks to beat him. I guess Bush’s faith still wasn’t strong enough to just trust that enough people would vote for him on their own.
  I enjoyed Frank’s book very much and have pushed my friends to read it, but I disagree that anyone should do anything with regard to the democrats short of disbanding them. They have proven over the last 12 years to be utterly useless at defending their core values, or their core constituents. To be sure there are individual members who still fight the good fight, but usually have to first fight the leadership of their own party to take a stand.
  How in the name of all that’s holy can Alberto Gonzales be seriously considered for anything besides a subpoena to appear before a committee investigating the widespread torture and several murders of prisoners in US military custody?
  How can the proposed use of the “salvador” option (paramiltary death squads of the type we trained for action in central america in the 80,s)in Iraq fail to cause massive civil disobedience in this country?
  How can anyone take seriously the chicken little-like rhetoric around social security designed to benefit wallstreet brokerage houses and further undermine and impoverish the american family?
  How can a CIA operative be allowed to be exposed, and their most experienced hands be driven out for the crimes of having pointed out the lies told by this administration to manipulate a nation into a war of choice.
  How can medals be hung around the necks of the very people who conned our nation to war after having failed to heed the numerous alarms sounding before 9/11.
  With the full help and co-operation of the democrats, that’s how. They are to the republicans what the concentration camp capos were to the nazis. The good cop to the republican’s bad cop. No progress will be made against the right wing and their authoritarian agenda until clear thinking people build a new party that actually does fight for the rights granted us in the bill of rights, and not one that votes for pre-emptive wars, patriot acts, and torture memo writing attourney generals.

Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 12, 2005 at 9:49 PM

Nobody wants to write about Mr. Frank’s interview? Too bad.

Posted by Marcus Tullius Cicero on Jan 13, 2005 at 5:09 AM

Ryan - accusing his fellow comrades of atrocities was not exactly supportive. Except in the way that Jane “supported” our troops. . . :0

ken - yes Kerry did go. The dispute has always been over if he was a “war hero” and whether he really deserved the purple haarts he received (note that no one here has yet described his “injuries”).  (I do like your idea of marketing booze - or better yet cocaine! - with GWB icons (i’m GWB and i can testify that this is kick ass coke!).)  (Also, ***3*** purple hearts in four months!?! A tiny bit suspicious, perhaps?)

Steven - while i know that questioning the governments judgement is perhaps arrogant, i still wonder sometimes. (I even sometimes wonder if Bush deserved an honorable discharge! Or if we can really hold people forever in Gitmo. . .)

kenneth - while i have some sympathy with your stated pov, it is way over the top. This administartion may not be the best (but if in next 25 years Iraq is a democracy or at least civilized than it Bush may be in the top 25% of prez’s eventually), but it is not as bad as some of the early days of the republic.

Marcus - you are right. Sorry for the distractions! :)

Posted by thinkHarder on Jan 13, 2005 at 7:02 AM

Yes, let’s get back to Kansas. I recently finished reading Dr. Frank’s book (I believe his Ph.D. gives him the right to the title?). Though I found it somewhat repetitive in places, I thoroughly I enjoyed it and would highly recommend it. His wit is sharp and tarty—reminiscient of Twain and Mencken. I look forward to the follow-up, i.e., what he thinks the Democrats have to do. (In the meantime, he should go to http://www.standupdemocrats.org and give them a piece of his mind…)

As a lifelong student of history, I appreciated Dr. Franks’ giving this enitire discussion its proper historical context. Another “success” of Republican ascendancy is the general excision of certain economic aspects of American history from the public consciousness. (Somehow Democrats have to expose this revisionism and set the record straight.)

I think Mr. Frank is right about the tension between what he refers to as “the left” and Democrats, though I haven’t thought about it enough to really be able to articulate what I think that means, exactly. I’d be interested to hear what others think about this (wish he’d elaborated more himself).

Posted by upstater on Jan 13, 2005 at 10:53 AM

Think harder.  Please.  Now that the election is over can we stop with the idiotic parroting of Fox Network talking points.

“accusing his fellow comrades of atrocities was not exactly supportive. Except in the way that Jane “supported” our troops.”

Anyone whose head is not lodged up their derriere knows that Kerry was voicing the speeches of his fellow vets that were given at the Winter Soldiers meetings after they asked him to.  Equating it with accusations is just stupid, factless blathering.

“Also, ***3*** purple hearts in four months!?! A tiny bit suspicious, perhaps?”

STFU stupid!  Now that you guys won and have 4 more years, I’d prefer that you just keep track of how many more American boys and girls die because of President Dumbass’s stupidity and lies and your inability to question him on it, rather than cast suspicion on awards earned in the line of fire by those who don’t happen to die because of their injuries.

Posted by Matt Harris on Jan 13, 2005 at 12:25 PM

I guess the point is that people have a biological need for scapegoats…what’s boggling is that the Conservative scapegoats are so patently ridiculous and yet the majority of people eat it all up. 

What’s the Left to do?  Create their own scapegoats?  But then we’re playing the same game as them..and winning by deceit doesn’t really seem right…

I dunno, I just wish people weren’t so stupid…

Posted by lefty on Jan 13, 2005 at 12:37 PM

So who are you to say that some of the soldiers in Vietnam didn’t commit atrocities? So if John Kerry was aware of atricities being committed by U.S. soldiers he should have just looked the other way? You conservatives talk about your wonderful values and how only you are getting into heaven, but your lack of concern for human life, especially human life existing on foreign soil speaks for itself. Iraq wasn’t civilized before we got there? Wow, I remember reading in highschool that Mesopotamia was the ‘cradle’ of civilization… or maybe you just never saw what the place looked like BEFORE we got there and blew it all to hell.

On a seperate note, middle-easterners have different core values and a different way of life from us. Let Iraq become a democracy, we’re still not going to like the decisions they make as a democracy. If these people are so damn ‘uncivilized’ as you put it, then why on earth would you trust them to make decisions for themselves?

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 13, 2005 at 1:33 PM

I think the real atrocities are that the Republicans can fool so many into voting, again and again and with such fervor, against their own economic interest and that noone seems to care that their president blatantly lied to send numerous American kids off to fight an ill-planned war that has killed undisclosed numbers of Iraqis. So sad, all of it. Let’s get mobilized!

Posted by Wendy on Jan 13, 2005 at 1:52 PM

Kerry was a weak, ineffectual candidate. I have to believe that the Dems did NOT want to win the election in 2004. Howard Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, would have been better candidates, yet as Dems, would have been under the DNC’s blatantly idiotic, right-leaning control. The Dem’s are fools, most of them, with no real desire to win the hearts and minds and VOTES of real people.

Tom Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” was an eye opener to me. How the Republicans have been programming people, dividng and conquering. Abortion, gay rights, the bull over the war records of the candidates, why talk about real issues, when you can pull the media “wool” over 54% of the population? What a crock. But the Dems whine and cry, beat their chests, and suck up to the corporations, while decrying a few really blatant criminal actions by them, ingnoring the rest. WHAT Democracy? For the people? Bullshit.

Posted by Maria Lichter on Jan 13, 2005 at 6:31 PM

I don’t think you could even have found close to 50 percent of the population who would have voted for Al Sharpton.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 13, 2005 at 7:38 PM

The history of our country is that we have undermined and helped overthrow many more elected leaders than we have helped (Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile,to name a few). And we have supported and continue to support many regimes as bad or worse than Iraq’s, which was one of the ones we supported. The only democracy we will tolerate in Iraq is one that tows the US line, allows US corporations to privatize everything in the country, and gives us a permanent military presence. What do you suppose will happen if the Shi’ite majority decides they don’t want Allawi, but prefer an Iranian style theocracy. I don’t mind, but then I don’t owe my soul or my election to the oil-igarchs, the evangelicals, the likud-niks in our government, or the military-industrial complex.

Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 13, 2005 at 8:34 PM

The woman who is wearing that purple heart should be deeply ashamed of herself.  She thinks of herself as “more patriotic” and “morally superior,” but she is not capable of independent thought. She apparently has the moral development of a seventh grader and thinks its appropriate to participate in mobbing (a kind of group bullying and ridicule) even if at a distance. Why are these people so deeply nasty? I think Franks makes some very excellent points about authenticity BUT I do not for one moment believe that this woman or people like her are somehow more authentic than I am from Massachusetts and happen to have worked hard to get a good education (in public institutions while working full-time, I might add, so I am no elitist).

Posted by Leslie Smith on Jan 13, 2005 at 9:29 PM

I wonder if the 25 year long conservative attack on public education in this country and the disdain for those who have an education, has anything to do with the ease with which people are manipulated.

Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 13, 2005 at 10:03 PM

NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the American people. God, why is Barack Obama only 43? Yes, I know it has to do with birth dates…If you don’t have the $ to buy Frank’s WTMWK, just visit the book store and read the last page. It will scare the beeeeJesus out of you. I still have nightmares that a Christian fundamentalist grabs my hand and pulls me over a cliff into the ______(read the last page).

Posted by Mark Cartwright on Jan 13, 2005 at 10:26 PM

thinkHarder! Please, think harder. 

John Kerry got his three Purple Hearts, and other medals, long before he was a politician and well before anyone knew he was going to lead an anti-war movement. He was just a member of the armed forces on active duty during a war, what is so ‘suspicious’ about that?

The reason the democratic party made such a noise about his war record was for two basic reasons.

One, was to highlight and contrast the actions of a relatively cowardly president. 

Two, because they knew that the first thing the right wing dominated television media was going to try and say about any democratic candidate is that he or she was in some way weak or soft. 

Just the fact that Kerry signed up for active duty at all makes him a more courageous man than Bush.  That’s why the conservatives drove themselves half crazy trying to tear him down and spit on his reputation. 

Personally I would not have signed up, I would have chickened out like our commander in chief. I wouldn’t have spent four hours in a war zone being shot at, let alone four months. But Kerry is made of better stuff, for which he has been almost constantly atacked by conservatives in this country whose values are obviously very different.

His record as a politician may perhaps be a different matter, but the fact remains, Kerry chose to fight for his country as a young man, Bush did not.  And that says something about him as a person. 

In this upside down country I suppose bravery no longer matters, just how rich your daddy is. 

thinkHarder, think harder!

Posted by Max Godwin on Jan 14, 2005 at 1:48 AM

What has really irked me in this last election is the fact that this president (yes, lower-case P) is so well-loved because he seems like “a real person” (this was an actual quote from a woman who I’ll bet rarely reads anything, let alone a newspaper).  Did that make Senator Kerry a “fake person”?  Is there *that* much of a stigma these days towards anyone who speaks in polysyllables?  What the hell IS this?  I’ve read Thomas Frank’s book, and, his opening chapter on “The Two Americas” confirmed every suspicion and—dare I admit it—prejudice I tend to have towards those who blindly follow authority, blindly adhere to fundamentalist Christian doctrine,and, instantly prejudge those who are “different” (which I think is a nice way for those who won’t say outright that you’re either weird at least or dangerous at worst) So, if you drive an SUV, eat at McDonald’s, and get coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts, you’re normal.  But, if you drive a subcompact four-cylinder gas saver of a car, eat spicier and more exotic fare, and, drink coffee at Starbucks, you’re a FREAK??? Uh, I don’t think so.  Whew!  Glad I got that out of my system!

Posted by Lisa N. on Jan 14, 2005 at 4:34 AM

mmmmm… babaghanouj!

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 14, 2005 at 7:23 AM

“Real” usually means base… someone you can be sure isn’t making fun of you… using big words you’re not familiar with in front of your face.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 14, 2005 at 7:25 AM

I believe in my heart of hearts that the last 3 elections (2000, 2002, 2004) were rigged by the voting machines.  Example: in 2002- Cleland was ahead in Georgia and Mondale ahead in Minnesota by double digit points for their senate elections- both lost and both states had voting machines.  it’s just that simple.  How could a majority of Americans have voted for this incompetant facist government?  Only by fixing the election and intimidating the media.
Herman Goering would be proud.

All of this talk of changing, revitalizing or critiquing the Democrats is useless unless voting and election laws are changed and continually challenged.

They will continue to fix elections

Posted by cathy law on Jan 14, 2005 at 9:14 AM

Any conservative Republican that disparages John Kerry’s medals just proves that they are the people that hate our troops.

They don’t hand out these medals for just showing up. They don’t hand them out like M&Ms;, and why don’t you talk about his medal for VALOR.

Kerry’s critics diminish the medals of ALL THOSE that have served and received honors from this nation. It diminishes the sacrifices of those soldiers. For if you call into question the medal of one, you call into question the medals of ALL.

You want me to be even more cynical? How is it that a myriad of pilots were shot down and recovered in WWII…but it just so happens that a MOVIE CAMERA…not a common item in those days…was available, loaded and operating just as George Herbert Walker Bush was rescued from the sea? Hmmmmm…..

Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jan 14, 2005 at 10:35 AM

Does Think Harder ever really THINK at all ?
I have to say that I personally think it a waste
of time to engage these clowns because that Kerry
killed people in Vietnam is not something we should be bragging about. He was a weak candidate,
he would let Bush spout that crap about “partial
birth abortion” even though there is no such
medical occurence but just a lying slogan
by the anti-aborts. Nothing pro-life about that
crowd. I think Air America has been a positive
development, much feistier than NPR & Pacifica,
and they are not so PC either.
If Dean gets elected DNC chair, that’s a good omen. He’s much more progressive and much harder
hitting than the other contenders.
The Dems have to shake this DLC-Clintonian centrism, if they can’t, they need to fold.
We do not need two GOP’s.

Posted by Michael Hardesty on Jan 14, 2005 at 10:46 AM

Lisa, why is drinking coffee from Starbucks any different than eating a doughnut from Dunkin Donuts?  As far as I’m concerned Starbucks, Walmart, and Dunkin Donuts are all part of the same corporate system.  I can’t distinguish the difference except for that more pretentious trendy types hang at Starbucks than Dunkin Donuts. 

Sorry everyone to take the discussion away from the article, but that comment just irked the crap out of me.

Posted by Beth on Jan 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM

Well, Beth, in a consumerist culture such as the United States, you are what you buy. I think Lisa was pointing out that what brand of coffee you choose to drink sends a message to the people around you regarding what kind of person you are.

And I think you implied that it isn’t the lifestyle you buy that’s the problem, but the buying itself. I think that’s true.

And to tie this in to the Frank article: It says a lot that Purple Heart Band-Aid fest was held at a yacht club. Talk about conspicuous consumption and buying a lifestyle!

Jeffery

Posted by Jeffery on Jan 14, 2005 at 2:24 PM

It’s too late to ‘recapture’ Kansas (or anywhere else for that matter). The time to take action was 30 years ago. Free and fair elections are over and will never be back. When will the bloody Dems wake up to the reality that democracy is now just a corpse?

Posted by James Paterson on Jan 14, 2005 at 4:06 PM

Not necessarily on topic - but the Starbucks reference is related to the term “Latte Liberal” thrown around to disparage us Pacific Northwesterners, and others such as Nancy Pelosi

While I agree with the fact that consumerism is destroying the planet, I also think its wise to extol the virtues some of these companies embrace

The fact of the matter is that commerce is a part of life - so instead of blindly denouncing it, lets focus on making it work better for people

Starbucks pays much better than most comporable businesses, they also have great benefits, promote fair trade (arguably), and gave 100% of their corporate contributions to democrats

This same pattern can be seen in other companies as well, such as Costco

Posted by Matt on Jan 14, 2005 at 4:36 PM

All I’m saying is that I’ve watched Starbuck’s take over my town street by street, and small coffee houses close one by one—including the one I used to work at while paying my way through college (which paid great, and served fair trade coffee.  It just makes me sad, that is all.

Posted by Beth on Jan 14, 2005 at 4:48 PM

Beth, sorry to hear about your hardship

I don’t mean to minimize the effect of overaggressive consumerism and banal branding techniques

i agree that we must support small businesses, in part as an antidote to homogenity, but we also must support the ideas of living wages, health benefits, etc.

Posted by matt on Jan 14, 2005 at 4:59 PM

No one ever mentions the complete ass local coffee house coffee usually tastes like. Coffee houses usually end up closing because they offer social events and entertainment at maybe 3.00 cover or a one coffee minimum. That’s basically a license for college kids to sit there all night nursing one or two cups of coffee. Even if the coffee is 3 bucks a pop that doesn’t exactly equal huge profits.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 14, 2005 at 5:01 PM

Also, you can only drink maybe two lattes before you get heart palpitations from the caffiene, whereas for cheaper you could go to a bar and buy an intoxicant that you might be able to pound 12 of. Then you might meet a loose young lady and get laid. How can a coffee house compete?

Posted by Ryan Conover on Jan 14, 2005 at 5:04 PM

The reason I’d brought up the bit about Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds vs. “spicier” more exotic cuisine is because, from what I remember in a chapter from Thomas Frank’s book, these days it really does seem that people are judged by what they eat, what they drink, and, what they drive.  Either they’re referred to as “elitists” or “regular” guys and gals.  Personally, I like both Starbucks and DD coffee (that doesn’t make me a fence-straddler, does it?)  And, in my neck of the woods (Boston area), no one really gives a rat’s behind what you eat, drink, wear, buy, or drive.  So I wasn’t going on about consumerist culture and/or how big corporations are wiping out Mom-and-Pop type small businesses (which I think is just as sad, especially since such places have a more personable atmosphere).  This was just the first response that hit me after I’d read this interview with Thomas Frank. 

I’d seen Dr. Frank a few weeks ago on C-SPAN and, had I not already bought this book, the interview would’ve definitely given me the itch to go and buy it.

Lisa

Posted by Lisa on Jan 14, 2005 at 6:11 PM

Nancy Pelosi is kinda weak, don’t you think? She let us down the last four years, just like Daschle, when we needed them both. I’d much rather have Kucinich, Conyers, or a host of others that speak clearly and more up front than Pelosi. She didn’t do much to derail the Arnold train either, which seems intent on destroying public education, social security, and regulation of corporations.

Posted by edmund on Jan 14, 2005 at 6:19 PM

And, yes, I’d seen the expression “latte liberal.”  I have to ask if any of you have also read or heard these expressions during this last election: “Wine Democrats” and “Beer Democrats”.  I’m totally serious—I’d read such terms in one of my local daily papers.  And, again, it just reminds me of that early chapter in Thomas Frank’s book.
I know it’s crazy! I mean….damn!

Posted by Lisa on Jan 14, 2005 at 6:20 PM

I think Mr. Frank makes some excellent points. Democratic populism (the authentic kind) is exactly the prescription for beating back the resurgent right.  They are incredibly phony.  One of the reasons Kerry was such a weak candidate was that, coming from such a privileged background (Skull and Bones, scion of the Forbes clan), the Dems had no opportunity of playing the class card.  That would and should beat a Bush any time.  They are the epitome of class privilege, getting by on your name and elite, effete snobbery.  Democrats need to rub their noses in it repeatedly and hard!

Posted by Stephen Kriz on Jan 15, 2005 at 6:32 AM

For me the scariest line in the whole interview was near the end when Frank quoted that Kansas lady’s response to his book:

She and her family sit around the dinner table saying, “Someday liberal blood is going to have to be shed. That’s the only way this is going to end.”

That has been my fear - that the cultural war may eventually turn into a real civil war. For years, there has been a growing, relentless chorus of conservatives demonizing liberals. Not just from the usual suspects, but within mainsteam media, and in upper political circles. “Liberals are unpatriotic.” Liberal hate America and your values.” “The godless Liberals want to take away your Bibles.” “Liberals support the terrorists.” “Environmentalists are terrorists.”  etc. etc.

It isn’t just a matter of the Democrats’ own political failings during the past 20 years. It isn’t just campaign rhetoric. There has been a relentless, well-coordinated, well-financed campaign by the Right not only to marginalize and discredit the Left, but to turn it into the hated “Other”. We don’t need to look that far back in world history to see where that kind of program ends.

Posted by Gary on Jan 15, 2005 at 9:30 AM

The thread that hasn’t been picked up on in the conversation about this interview is the point Frank makes about how the Dems that determine the party’s agenda abhor the left and will never embrace the values of the left, DESPITE THE FACT that there is a strategic argument for doing so. It’s hard to find hope in this destructive self-hatred…. Frank himself said that people always ask him to be optimistic, and he’s not very….

Posted by Emily Udell on Jan 15, 2005 at 10:23 AM

I understand Steven’s point about real (Democrat-style) populism; and, maybe the Kerry candidacy *did* turn off those voters who found his attempt at embracing populism ringing hollow.  And, yet, Lyndon B. Johnson was hardly poor and he created the Great Society.  I believe that FDR, too, came from privilege,and, from his presidency sprung the New Deal.  And, we know about JFK’s New Frontier.  Remember what Rev. Al Sharpton said during one of the primary Democratic presidential debates: he said that there were some rich people with big hearts and some poor people with no hearts at all.
Maybe some rich politicians *do* have generous hearts.  And, maybe some voters need to be convinced of this

Posted by Lisa on Jan 15, 2005 at 3:43 PM

Lisa, this is the LBJ biography from the Whitehouse website:

Johnson was born on August 27, 1908, in central Texas, not far from Johnson City, which his family had helped settle. He felt the pinch of rural poverty as he grew up, working his way through Southwest Texas State Teachers College; he learned compassion for the poverty of others when he taught students of Mexican descent.

And from the libraryreference website:

Johnson was born on Aug. 27, 1908, near Johnson City, Tex., the eldest son of Sam Ealy Johnson, Jr., and Rebekah Baines Johnson. His father, a struggling farmer and cattle speculator in the hill country of Texas, provided only an uncertain income for his family.

Posted by BDL on Jan 19, 2005 at 12:49 AM

Just before the November 2 election, I read Philip Roth’s ‘The Plot Against America, telling myself, brilliant as the book was, I didn’t want to think this idea of American fascism was an allegory of America in 2004. As a European, I don’t like the word fascism and swastikas being blithely bandied about as facile parallels for the prfesent-day problems of an America I still love from my long years in Chicago. Then I read that (pun scarcely intended) blood-curdling quote in Emily Udell’s interview with Tom Frank from his Kansas reader’s family:
“Someday liberal blood is going to have to be shed. That’s the only way this is going to end.” Is that the backlash?

Posted by jackyaltman on Jan 19, 2005 at 2:37 AM

Thanks, BDL, for the information on Lyndon B. Johnson.  Very appreciated.
:) 

*Sigh*. Don’t we all wish there were more out there, especially among those we elect, like LBJ….

And, to jackyaltman regarding Philip Roth’s latest book:  It sounds compelling, yet, I’ll confess that I’m scared as hell to read it.  Maybe one of these days I’ll quit being foolish and pick it up.

As has been said: “knowledge is power.” 

Too bad knowledge (at least it seems that way to me)doesn’t seem as respected as money these days (sounds like that other saying: “he who has the gold, wins”).

Thanks again, BDL and jackyaltman.

Peace

Lisa

Posted by Lisa on Jan 19, 2005 at 4:04 AM

“Tom Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” was an eye opener to me. How the Republicans have been programming people, dividng and conquering. Abortion, gay rights, the bull over the war records of the candidates”

1) Abortion is a major issue as Liberals decided to settle the issue by judicial decree instead of applying democracy. The notion that the constitution mandates unlimited Abortion rights is so absurd that it would be a miracle if the descision hadn’t resulted in widespread opposition.

2) Similarily, the (supposedly non-existant) East-West-coast elite is now trying to redefine marriage through long-time decree. Again, this is an arrogant approach that is bound to cause a reaction.

In addition to that, here are several problems with Frank’s thesis:

1) Kansas isn’t an economic wasteland as Franks makes it out to be. Thus, a large part of his thesis just falls flat.

2) True, the free market is the enemy of traditional values and social restraint in many ways. The problem is only that these market-related problems are very unlikely to be fixed by Democrats. The problems Democrats have with free markets are rather different, except for limited areas of overlap, such as between christian activists and feminists regarding porn.

3) The Liberal East Coast Elite isn’t a vague sociological category. Compared to most others, it’s rock solid. For decades it’s been forcing it’s world view and values on a largely hostile, but powerless American public through every concievable channel of mass communication. Now that public is fighting back, albeit on a somewhat limited scale.

4) Saying that the DLC et al “got everything they wanted” this election is just… well, borderline delusional. This was the election of Michael Moore and Moveon.org, not of the DLC. The DLC was hiding out in the wings for most of this campaign.

5) Given the WMD fiasco, Kerry should have won pretty much regardless of policy, as long as it didn’t contain anything hugely outrageous. He didn’t - enough said.

Posted by dob on Jan 19, 2005 at 4:05 AM

“Then I read that (pun scarcely intended) blood-curdling quote in Emily Udell’s interview with Tom Frank from his Kansas reader’s family:
“Someday liberal blood is going to have to be shed. That’s the only way this is going to end.” Is that the backlash?”

There is never any shortage of people mouthing off - on or off the internet. There should be at least a couple of people plotting the violent overthrow of Chimpy McHitler right now over at democraticunderground for one. I think it’s safe to say left-wing frustration currently outweighs right-wing ditto in the US right now. (Except for the slice of the right that hates both Bush and the left, of course…)

Posted by Dobeln on Jan 19, 2005 at 4:09 AM

Thomas Frank says that capitalism is not the friend of America, but he never explains what he is going to replace it with.  That is one of the problems of liberals.  When I hear people like Frank speak, the first thing that comes to me is that he is going to take away my house or my car or my pension fund to give it to someone who does not work.  I know Kerry is not giving up his billions.  I know Frank is not giving up anything.  All the people that Frank believes are stupid are just more realistic than he is. We’d rather have the unfairness of capitalism that the much worse unfairness of socialism.

Posted by Andrea on Jan 19, 2005 at 6:47 AM

If tax cuts create more jobs (as history clearly proves) how are they bad for the working class?

Posted by Walt on Jan 19, 2005 at 8:00 AM

What about us tequila democrats?

Posted by knuckledragger on Jan 19, 2005 at 8:05 AM

a few comments:

Dob:  I can’t believe you are trying to trot out that tired old trope about big bad “liberal media”...c’mon, that lazy rabblerousing, you can do better!

Andrea: if you really think that the evil liberals are going to storm your house in the middle of the night and take it away so they can give it to a crackhead then you have bought into to Conservative party line so deeply that there is little hope to save you

Walt: Even if history “clearly proves” that tax cuts create jobs (which I find to be a highly dubious statement), then what about Bush’s constant mantra of it being “a changed world, nothing is the same since 9/11”?  Seems it applies to economics as well…or by new jobs do you mean being a clerk at Starbucks?

Tom Frank is on to something here…your attempts at refutation fall flat…I guess it’s too bad he doesn’t look like Michael Moore, cause then you could just dismissively call him fat :)

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 10:31 AM

I am a Democrat and I am pro-life. Though I voted for John Kerry, why does Emily Udell and her subject, Tom Frank, consider abortion to be a “...mirage issue”? It’s a defining issue for this voter as it is with many in the south.

Posted by Tony A on Jan 19, 2005 at 10:39 AM

“Thomas Frank says that capitalism is not the friend of America, but he never explains what he is going to replace it with.  That is one of the problems of liberals.  When I hear people like Frank speak, the first thing that comes to me is that he is going to take away my house or my car or my pension fund to give it to someone who does not work.  I know Kerry is not giving up his billions.  I know Frank is not giving up anything.  All the people that Frank believes are stupid are just more realistic than he is. We’d rather have the unfairness of capitalism that the much worse unfairness of socialism.”

A couple of points that should be clarified here: First, not everything is like an on/off switch. No one (least of all “liberals,” which as you must have heard by now doesn’t really mean what most people are using it to mean these days) is saying “turn Capitalism off.” America has never operated as a pure free-market (or “capitalist”) system and it was never intended to. In fact, Adam Smith himself (you know—one of the guys who pioneered free market theory) was very clear on the point that healthy free market competition requires stringent regulatory mechanisms to discourage cheating. The word “free” in the term “free market” doesn’t mean anything goes: It means that the marketplace is open and accessible and operates according to rules that ensure fairness of competition and diversity in the marketplace. Take away the regulations and what you get is not a free market in the original, egalitarian sense, but a snake pit full of hyper-competitive cheaters and con-artists (in other words, exactly what we’ve got now). That was never how the free market was intended to operate. The original idea was to put the mechanisms of the free market—that is, open, public participation in a fair marketplace—to work for improving the living conditions of humanity. The free market was originally envisioned as a means to an end: The end being the improvement of humanity’s lot. The problem with modern “conservatives” (another word that nobody seems to remember how to use correctly anymore) is that out of self-interest they’ve put the cart before the horse and begun to think of the free market as an end in itself.

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 19, 2005 at 10:48 AM

Try for a moment to think out of the box that this country’s elites want to trap you in. Actually, it’s not a box, but rather a spectrum, with big-government socialists on one extreme and warmongering, special-interest-loving outwardly religious, big-government types (yes, you read it correctly) on the other. 

There is a third way.

Unrestrained free-market capitalism? If only. The fact is that we’ve never had it. Both parties are much too fond of big, wasteful and counter-productive policies and programs that distort and thereby restrain the invisible hand of the market from promoting justice and prosperity. I’m probably the only libertarian who will tell you that Clinton was a better president than Bush because he was more fiscally responsible and the federal government shrank under his watch. (It’s a lonely position to take in today’s polarized America.) As for Kerry, I think at least the first advantage would have applied, and possibly the second. Kerry would have won if he had simply repeated ad nauseam the following simple sound-bite-friendly themes which would have resonated with the public: 1. Adherence to free markets (well, at least more than most countries) played a big role in making America great. Distorting market forces leads to misallocation of resources and makes nearly everyone poorer than they otherwise would have been. 2. Bush’s massive spending on the military and warmongering is not only wrong but also causes serious distortions of market forces. 3. Bush’s favoring certain business interests at everyone else’s expense also causes serious distortions of market forces. 4. Job losses under Bush’s watch were precisely due to the above-mentioned distortions of market forces. Need evidence? Just think of the impact your money would have in terms of job creation in your local community if less of it went as taxes to support the military and special interests.

I’m not saying that Kerry should have abandoned the notion of a social safety net. He could have taken the kind of moderate liberal stance that made Clinton popular.

Kerry only weakly touched on the theme of special interests. The fact that he didn’t accuse Bush of being anti-free-market when this is clearly the case means that Kerry is either sadly out of touch or was in cahoots with the Bush crowd and lost the election on purpose.

Posted by Stephen Marsh on Jan 19, 2005 at 10:57 AM

Question for those who have read the book.  Is it just a modern reformulation of the marxist concept of false consciousness, or is there more to it?

Posted by Flashy on Jan 19, 2005 at 11:52 AM

“Dob:  I can’t believe you are trying to trot out that tired old trope about big bad “liberal media”...c’mon, that lazy rabblerousing, you can do better!”

Erm, the media is chock-full of self-identified liberals who vote for Democrats. (There are polls galore…) The entertainment industry is chock-full of self-identified liberals who vote for (And raise funds for!) Democrats. This is hardly a secret either. More power to them for securing some neat commanding heights.

But you really shouldn’t be surprised if Conservatives are a bit dissatisfied with that state of affairs and attempt to change it. (Read: Fox News)

Posted by Dobeln on Jan 19, 2005 at 12:22 PM

Ever used a dictionary?

Liberal adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

Would you prefer the media NOT be “broad-minded” or “tolerant of an opponent’s position”? Sorry to all you chumps who don’t worry much about what words actually mean, but if the media weren’t ‘liberal’ it wouldn’t be reporting fairly because it would impose a particular point of view on its stories—that’s the whole point. In order to properly do its job, the media IS SUPPOSED to be liberal.

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 19, 2005 at 12:42 PM

still not good enough dob! I want to hear some real harsh invective!!

I know you can do it if you put your mind to it!

say something really insensitive and/or patently false…

it’s what we love about you right-wingers that cherry-pink on leftist message boards!

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 12:54 PM

and by “cherry-pink” i mean “cherry-pick”

oops :)

(although Cherry-Pink has some interesting possibilities… :)

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 12:56 PM

Dobelin,

maybe I’m missing something here. Let’s see there’s CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Headline News, Fox News, THe New York Times, all owned by HUGE multi-national corporations with obvious agendas and bias.

we got The Daily Show…yep, there’s obviously a massive leftwing bias in news reporting…

Posted by The Great Went on Jan 19, 2005 at 1:07 PM

Neil, you insulted me, but you still did not answer my question.  Exactly what is Kerry or another liberal going to do for the “heartland”?  What is going to be taken from whom? And given to whom? If Kerry is going to retain his billions, and tax me more, so that I can’t go on vacation when I want to or spend $5 for a cup of coffee when I choose, you have to really explain to me what I will get out of the bargain.  And I probably make less money than everyone writing here.

Posted by Andrea on Jan 19, 2005 at 1:29 PM

Andrea—not to butt in here, but I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve been suckered by some of the best con men in the game if you honestly believe that Republicans stand for lowering the tax burden on working class people. Exactly the opposite. Republicans (and the Bush family in particular) have always been known as vanguards of the country club elite. They don’t like to see increased social mobility because it threatens their station. It’s almost comic how effectively they’ve turned working class folks against each other. As anyone who’s looked closely at the details of Bush’s tax policies can vouch, they tend to be regressive (meaning harder on people with lower incomes). It’s telling that the one tax increase Bush has actually considered is one that would cut the payroll tax deductions for employers who provide health care benefits to their employees. There’s no shame in getting conned. It happens to a lot of smart people. The trick is being humble enough to recognize when it’s happened and not let it happen again. Good con artists use a person’s innate sense of certainty and self-confidence against them—that’s why it’s called a con or “confidence” game. A little real Christian humility can go a long way toward lifting the veils.

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 19, 2005 at 2:02 PM

andrea:  see above post by all-seeing eye dog :)

p.s. I doubt I make more money than you, I make none (student loan a-go-go :)

p.p.s I find it amusing that you deride Kerry for having billions, when the Bush clan is one of the richest east coast elite families going.  Just ‘cause “dubya” has his texas twang and a propensity for the malapropism does not make him a good ol’ boy.

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 2:53 PM

Here are some reasons why conervatives have taken over America: 1)They don’t cater to blacks, 2) They don’t push social engineering, 3)They don’t criticise the lives of ordinary people. Long ago I realized voting for a Democrat was like electing my own private prosecutor who would indict both me and my country. No thanks. What can Democrats do about this? Frankly, nothing.
Democrats shot their wads with the New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society and there’s nothing left for them to do because voters won’t stand for it.
We refuse to be burned again!

Posted by Bill on Jan 19, 2005 at 3:29 PM

Looks like some of us are getting fired up. 

OK, the definition of a liberal for me, from the time I registered to vote at age 18 (many years ago, too!), meant fairness, open-mindedness (which includes a willingness to listen to a POV that differs from yours, which is why I like all this to-and-fro), optimism, hope, and, OK, sure, a slice of moral relativism because I don’t believe in absolutes (so I *had* turned prematurely gray—-but, I’ve since fixed it). 
Anyways, I have to wonder about some of the Conservatives who’ve reacted to the Liberals on this board.  It sounds as if you on the Right are accusing those of us on the Left (whether we have lots of money, enough money to be comfortable, or are paying student loans and have little if any money) as people who punish wealth or, worse, money earned from hard work.  And, I don’t understand why the hell we on the Left are “elitist” if we believe in a right to privacy, or, if we don’t like the idea of business deregulation, or bemoan the loss of the Fairness Doctrine (hence the slew of Right-Leaning talk radio until the dawning of Air America and Pacifica).
What would be a better alternative? Force women to carry their pregnancies to term no matter what the consequences? (like if it’s life-threatening to the mother?) Slave wages and possibly child labor? (OK, maybe not child labor. But, who knows?)  A media which is even *more* beholden to this Administration than it already seems to be (and perhaps already is)?
I’d rather be a liberal, thank you.
Call me an elitist, a snob, and/or divorced from reality if you wish.

I could go on even more, but, I haven’t eaten for hours; and, I can tell when I’m rambling. ;)

Posted by Lisa on Jan 19, 2005 at 3:39 PM

Easy there Bill,

don’t get your pointy white hood in a knot now…

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 3:53 PM

Just because you call yourself a “liberal” doesn’t mean you are one. The problem with Thomas Frank and his approving audience is that they are tone-deaf to the broad American public. They believe that everyone would vote with their wallets if they had the “real” picture. To respond to Lisa: the reason Liberals are tarred as elitist is as follows: they are condescending. They can’t believe that someone who disagrees with them can be anything other than deluded, stupid, and evil. And that is why they lose elections.

Posted by NJ Sue on Jan 19, 2005 at 5:58 PM

not as condescending as giving a massive tax cut to the super-rich and then trying to tell the common folk that it’s in their best interest even as their job is going overseas…what’s condescending is that Bush et al think that the american people are idiots and will buy into whatever they say as long as it’s couched in the red, white and blue with a healthy smattering of 9/11 rhetoric.

that’s fcking condescending.

Posted by neil on Jan 19, 2005 at 6:07 PM

I’ve admired Tom Frank’s work for some time, but I do wish he’d taken this occasion to be more specific on what the Democrats should do to counter a movement that wants to turn them into imitation Republicans. Something far more drastic than articulating “points” is clearly needed.

Kerry was a weak candidate because he refused to fight BushCo as hard as BushCo fought him. He should have ripped the fratboy coward limb from limb. Instead he stood back and tried to make like a gentleman. Well there are no gentlemen in politics.

Posted by David Ehrenstein on Jan 19, 2005 at 6:12 PM

Lets see. The poor, at least those living in Kansas, are tricked by the R’s for voting based on thier conserative moral values instead of thier wallets. But what about the liberal rich, should not they being voting for the R’s based on thier wallets? Yet they vote for the D’s based on thier preception of liberal moral values.

Maybe someone should write a book - “What’s the Matter with Hollywood?”

Posted by Ron Glenn on Jan 19, 2005 at 7:46 PM

Mr. Frank states that “Back in the ’30s, the labor movement just came out of nowhere, and had its great organizing drives. And it did it more or less by itself, not with a lot of help from the Democratic Party.” As is the case with most of his assertions, these statements are ludicrous. The entire impetus for the labor movement of the 1930’s was the forced passage in 1935 of the notorious, one-sided Wagner Act (the first U.S. Labor Relations Act) by the totally Democrat controlled Congress, which was under the thumb of Roosevelt’s “new deal” leftists. The gross excesses of the Wagner Act were later corrected, starting after the War, by the efforts of Senator Taft and Representative Hartley, as well as many other decent members of Congress who were not corrupted by the union thugs and their Mafia overlords. Thus, this ghastly movement declined.

Posted by Pat West on Jan 19, 2005 at 8:28 PM

Regarding the Semantics:

I use the word “Liberal” in the narrow, US-centric, political context; not in the general “history of ideas” context. I.e. “Liberal” = “Left wing”. On this side of the pond, “Liberal” = “Right wing”, so I’m just trying to cater to the natives here.

more replies to follow…

Posted by Dobeln on Jan 20, 2005 at 2:41 AM

Good morning. :)

If it’s true that Liberals are as condescending as some (not all) Conservatives claim us to be, I have to ask: How is it condescending to stand up for and defend those who need help when they try to stand up for themselves?  And, as far as “voting for your best interests”: Whose best interests?  Those for the good of the U.S. (like raising the minimum wage so people won’t have to work two, sometimes three, jobs to make ends meet)? Or, those for the good of the few (like the top one or two percent of the population that control the wealth? Even Bush 41 referred to Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down ideals as “voodoo economics”)?  And, if Liberals aren’t paying attention to the heartland, why did the Democratic candidates campaign quite heavily in that heartland during the Presidential election?  How is it that at least two red states (Virginia and New Mexico) have Democratic governors?
Barack Obama made a good point in his convention keynote speech when he said, “We worship an awesome God in the Blue states, and, we don’t like government poking into our libraries in the Red states.” 

So, instead of being simply “Red” or “Blue” states, I’ll make a bet that there are lots of purple within the country.

By the way: Neil, you’re my kind of person! :)

Posted by Lisa on Jan 20, 2005 at 4:52 AM

Another thing I need to ask:

Does being a “liberal elitist” include not wanting only Fundamentalist Christianity shoved down your throat at the expense of other beliefs?  Are there not Jewish, Mormon, Wiccan, Rastafarian, Islamic, Buddhist, and—gasp!—liberal theologians in the U.S.?  Not to mention those who choose not to ascribe to any one religious doctrine?  Or, the freedom to be non-believers?  “Values” is way too loaded a word; I’ve come to loathe it, and, that’s a shame, because values such as acceptance, empathy,and compassion, are wonderful values.

Posted by Lisa on Jan 20, 2005 at 5:15 AM

“To respond to Lisa: the reason Liberals are tarred as elitist is as follows: they are condescending. They can’t believe that someone who disagrees with them can be anything other than deluded, stupid, and evil. And that is why they lose elections.”

Really? Every single one of them? What about Jesus? Was he a liberal? Didn’t he say that most people were deluded and blind? Was that condescending? Do you hate Jesus too? Who are you actually so angry at, because I get the feeling this isn’t really about politics at all for you… I think it’s really about blaming “those other people” for everything you don’t like about the world (especially your own personal setbacks and failings) instead of working for positive change. Sorry if that sounds condescending; but since you say I’m a liberal and you say all liberals are condescending, it stands to reason I couldn’t help it.

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 20, 2005 at 7:30 AM

The problem might be that leftists might have a certain aversion towards the average, dirty man. After all, so much of our leftism comes from our college degrees, and our visits to starbucks (where do leftists hang out in Mobile, Alabama, for example). In other words, leftism is not of the down and dirty variety that it needs to be populist. That’s why there’s room for the Republicans to come in and make up a fake populism. I genuinely believe that leftists care more about the average man, but we only care more for them if the state is willing to do our work for us. Sometimes to show our willingness to be on the populist side, we have to go and help without the assistance of the state apparatus.

Posted by Eteraz on Jan 20, 2005 at 7:37 AM

I am glad that this issue has been so alive on the message board.

I make a point of posting myself on this, a day of national tragedy.

Bush reclaims office today—much to the ruination of the nation.  He has waged unjust wars, has bankrupt the economy, has lied and cheated to benefit his corporate masters, and, worst of all, he is responsible for each and every dead American in Iraq.

Politics are personal—Bush has murdered these young men just as surely as if he shot them himself.  And why? To score political points, to keep an uninvolved electorate spectacle and enrich American oil companies.

These are dark and terrible times.

Posted by Bob Madison on Jan 20, 2005 at 7:42 AM

I don’t deride Bush for having money because he’s not always going on about the evil rich.  Kerry does that, but he’s one of them!  Not one person explained how economic plans from the left are going to do more for Americans than Bush’s plan.  Are you going to guarantee that salaries are raised, give more welfare, relieve me from working every day? Give me health care as good as the plan I get from my job for less money?  What is your plan liberals?

Posted by Andrea on Jan 20, 2005 at 9:09 AM

“What is your plan liberals?”

Again: Despite how it’s been redefined by unscrupulous talk radio hosts in the last few years, “liberal” really just means being open to sweeping systematic reforms. Like many people who get lumped together as “liberals,” I’m actually a “conservative” (meaning I don’t want to go monkeying around unnecessarily with existing governmental systems like social security). And ironically in light of the whole moral values conceit of the Bushies, the biggest beef most so-called liberals have with the Bush administration is a moral one: namely that it lies a LOT and innocent people are dying and core American values are being undermined because of it. Did you know, for instance, that the Bush administration has a policy of enlisting foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia to abduct and detain American citizens on their behalf without any legal protections or oversight at all (it’s a practice known as “rendition”—google it and you can find out more)? Is that the sort of “freedom” our young men and women are defending in Iraq? Aren’t issues like REAL PEOPLE DYING more important than petty little arguments about the size of your tax refund? America’s money has “In God We Trust” printed on its face, but it seems Bush’s God has “In Money We Trust” tatooed on His face. How does all this talk about taxes jive with the God who once said: “the love of money is the root of all evil”?

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 20, 2005 at 9:46 AM

If you seek really legitimate, credible populists, look at the history and politics of Senator/Governor Huey P. Long, or Governor Earl K. Long.  They were effective at accomplishing real, believable, supportable popular goals.  Dr. Franks interview suggests his book is worth a look.

However, as one of many former democrats driven to the republican party by LBJ and the Left, he still misses the mark.  The problem for the democrats is that “the People” are smarter than they give us credit for.  We know what the democrats, and John Kerry, really stand for and seek to accomplish. A group of elite, theorizing, would be Bolshevicks who have not yet figured out that even the Russians and PRC Chinese now know socialism is a failure.  At least if they turn further left, the democats will finally be honest.  Neither books, nor interviews, nor more whining from the Kerry crowd will ever convince most of us to ever again trust the democrats. I am certain that the dems can only be “trusted” to assuage their “moral outrage” for the “disadvantaged de jure” by stealing my family’s money. Whether it is the Ponzi Scheme of Social (In)Security, the failed social engineering of “busing” to destroy the public schools, or the insanity of Carter’s “Human Rights” foreign policy that gave us Ayotallah Khomenhi and Iraq, the democrats can not be trusted to do anything but cheat and betray America. PERIOD!

If the democrats really believed in “the people” they would not oppose opportunities for real choices or BS us with more left wing propaganda. The democrats problem is “the People” are smarter than they want to realize. If Social Security is so great, let people choose to participate, or not. Instead of social engineering by “busing”, let people choose where to educate their children.  Oh but what if they don’t make the right choice?  Well the Left has the answer, compel the misguided “unenlightened” to make the right choices, by extorting Social Security taxes, forcing social engineering and stealing through redistributionist schemes. 

Worse for the democrats, we even understand foreign policy too.  Well before 9/11 we knew there was a real world in which significant groups of smart, dedicated, motivated people want to kill us. I’ve been in the Middle East and all the whining, soft minded stupidities of the Carter crowd ever did was convince our enemies that we could be attacked with impunity. Clinton was no better.  Yes, there is a correlation between Vietnam and Iraq. Just as in Vietnam, the major media, and their democrat allies are the best weapons our enemies have.  Just how many car bombs and suicide bombers would there be without the anti-American cheering squads at CBS, NBC, ABC the NY Times etc doing their best to publicize each incident? 

As to the comments about the “demonizing” of the democrats and the Left, quit stealing from the people through extortionist taxes and betraying us to our declared foreign enemies.  Then, and only then, will we stop thinking of you as thieves and traitors. Until that happens (after Hell freezes) don’t be suprised when we regard you as demonic!

Posted by Richileau on Jan 20, 2005 at 11:33 PM

Look Richileau, I don’t know who or what you’re screaming at, but I’m an actual human being, born in 1974, raised by my grandparents because my birth parents were too lazy and irresponsible to raise me. My grandfather came from a family of eight brothers and sisters who worked as sharecroppers in Alabama to become a successful logger. He died on the job site, working just as he had every day of his life, and after he died, you know what happened?  His business partners convinced a corrupt judge to give all of his valuable tools and equipment to the men that had worked him to death. My granparents wanted me to have a good life, so I went to college. Does that make me part of some god*amned liberal elite conspiracy to promote communist propaganda? Why are you so angry?

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 21, 2005 at 6:56 AM

NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

And that’s the problem right there.

You expect people to vote for you when you say things like this?  If so, I’d say the phrase is more like, NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Just passing through on Jan 21, 2005 at 1:12 PM

What’s so wrong with being stupid? If you’re honest about it, everybody’s a little stupid, aren’t they? I’m definitely stupid. I used to think hate-mongers in modern America were a figment of the liberal imagination; now I go to the O’Reilly factor site and see some guy bragging about wasting thousands of tax-payer dollars to sue the website for not allowing him to use the N-word, just so he could be free to spout off more belligerent nonsense about how the N’s are all on welfare wasting taxpayer money. Who did he turn to when he needed someone’s help to bring the lawsuit? The ACLU—a bunch of “liberals”—proving that even right wing bigots know who to turn to in a pinch.

Posted by all-seeing eye dog on Jan 21, 2005 at 1:37 PM

Well, I’m a liberal, and I’ve never called anyone whose views were the opposite of mine stupid. 

I have to wonder what kind of liberals you conservatives on this board know.  Or, have the likes of Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage just reinforced views you’d already had.  That liberals are condescending, for instance.  Maybe individual liberals—-just like individual conservatives—-can be condescending because it’s in their *individual* natures to be condescending.  But, to tar all liberals as condescending is just as bad as tarring all conservatives as low-IQ lunkheads.

Posted by Lisa on Jan 21, 2005 at 6:00 PM

I think Kerry lost the election the day he said he would have voted for the war even if he knew there were no WMDs. Nuff said on that point.

Now to Tom Frank’s issues. I know the folks he’s talking about, even if they are not from Kansas. My Dad, a retired auto mechanic, was a Wallace sympathizer in 1968. Now he says Bush has to go. The reasons? The war and the attack on the safety net by the right.  He’s a Pat Buchanan antiwarrior—the blood of American boys shouldn’t be shed in battles that are none of our business.  The safety net?  He was a hardscrabble child of the 1930s, and belives social security is the way we keep faith with the notion that we are our brothers’ keepers.

He’s torn over racism, a prisoner of old ideas. He hears and believes the Pope when his Church tells him it’s a sin, but he has a hard time deconstructing the old roles about the ‘place’ of Blacks and whites.

My generational battles with my Dad in the late 1950s-early 1960s were all about values. He valued security, duty and self-respect in view of your neighbors. I valued freedom, fairness, ‘justice for all’ and openness to new experiences. It’s why thousands of my generation were bold enough to cross the color line and join the freedom marches. It was about values, and those values are even more rooted among ordinary people than they are among liberal elites.

My Dad and I both opposed Bush this time around. So, beleive it or not, there’s some common ground out there.  I know the DLC elites hate the left; so much the worse for them. They’ll have to be put out of the way.

The right’s conception of values is corrupt; they only start at the belly button and go downward. The left core values are univeral and also the core values of the people.  We just have to speak their language, don’t put anyone’s head above or below our own, and organize like hell.  Then we can give Bush and the right a run for their money.

Carl Davidson

Posted by Carl Davidson on Jan 22, 2005 at 9:33 AM

Give the devils their due.  The reactionary-fascist coalition is much better in conning people to vote against their best interest.  By using mockery, ridicule, lies they are able to destroy the candidate who would make a better, much better president.  Kerry and his advisors set him up as an elitist fool.  Just why did they permit him to go wind-surfing when anyone could see how the Rove crowd would use it?  And why didn’t he make a preemptive strike against the swift boat liars instead of letting two weeks go by?  If the Democratic strategists were half as savvy as the Rove mob, they would have won.  Bush didn’t win the election; Kerry lost as did Gore.

Posted by Joe Adams on Feb 3, 2005 at 5:38 PM

Hello, all. 

And, to Joe Adams: I know what you mean, but, it’s an awfully sad day when something like windsurfing can be used against a presidential candidate.  *Really* sad.  That’s how low political campaigns have sunk.

Peace to all

Posted by Lisa on Feb 4, 2005 at 6:09 AM