Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1673)Man ! A liberal friend whom I spar with emailed me this link. All I can say is poor Mr. Keillor needs a nap or maybe a long vacation. This is so funny.
yeah - all us middle America Republicans are just dupes of an evil conspiratorial gang of neocons who want to impose their ruthless will on the world. God help y’all if Bush wins again- I don’t think they can make that much Xanax. But it would make for a hilarious realty series.
Good luck my freinds - may the best man win.
Posted by lee on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:06 PM I always knew that deep down inside he was a dumb@$$ that dragged his knuckles and belonged in the South. Garrison Keillor—thanks for finally revealing YOUR hatred…we knew it was there all along.
Samuel
Posted by Samuel Smith on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:13 PM Is it just my imagination or has this thread suddenly been highjacked by the frat boys? I posted a fairly long response over an hour ago which has still not appeared, though more than two dozen anti-Garrison responses have during that time. Since I have three hayfields to cut, I’ll wait until this evening to try again. But unlike naked dancing elephants, my memory is quite functional. So this is just a test to see if the “free flow of discussion” on this thread is still free and flowing.
By the way, one of the points I made in my earlier (unposted) comment was that the Rasmussen Poll (updated daily) shows Bush with a 1.2% lead over Kerry today (that’s right—there is a decimal point between the 1 and the 2.) The link to that poll is as follows:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
Don’t buy the hype and “the election’s over” nonsense from the repub-libans. Kerry’s still very capable of returning Crawford’s village idiot to his rightful home. Keep working. Elect Kerry.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:13 PM Um…yeah 1.2 and here is the location to read that Bush is now up in the 16 battleground states. Glup—glup—glup—Kerry is taking water on his not so swift campaign.
Samuel
Posted by Samuel Smith on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:18 PM On the Other Hand…
What if this wasn’t really meant seriously. Maybe Mr. Keillor is trying to broaden his comedic range? Take his act in a new direction? Maybe he has developed the ability to do clever satire of political extremism, a change of pace from his usual mild-mannered, middle-of-the-road persona. Maybe this loopy, outrageous piece is just meant to be a parody of moveone.org liberalism?
Taken in that spirit, this is knee-slapping, laugh-out-loud funny. “Faith-based economists”, “nihilists in golf pants”, “Lamborghini Libertarians”, “Oh Mark Twain where art thou”—hilarious!
Garrison, please tell us that’s what you were shooting for here. ‘Cuz I’d hate to think this was serious.
Posted by Paul on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:18 PM Garrison Keillor is, once again, right on. Much has alredy been said here rather coherently, even if sometimes interrupted by neocon harangues.
However, I do have one question: Why is it that conservatives hang on to their hatred for France? Is it because France is not Bush’s lapdog? Well, neither is China or Germany, but you do not hear much conservo-babble about them. Is it then because the French are just so un-NASCAR? So European (whatever that means)? So….French? Or is it the Right’s silly, transparent attempt to divide the country into “us” and “them,” “us” being the righteous, “love-it-or-leave-it,” flag-waving citizen-patriots, and “them” being those effete, book-reading (sometimes even in French! Mon Dieu!), tree-hugging, latte-drinking “elites”? You know, the ones whose world-view tends to extend beyond one’s county line, the ones who can point to Paris (or Kabul, or Saudi Arabia, for that matter) on a map, the ones who can read the New York Times (or The Wall Street Journal, or a Congressional bill) all on their own, without requiring Limbaugh or O’Reilly as interpreters and tour guides….You now, the “cosmopolitans.”
And you do not have to look too far back in history to recall some of the previous authors of such attempted divisions between “us” and “them,” and their subsequent effects. But then this would require conservatives to open a history book not necessarily approved by the Heritage Foundation). And that would be just so….French.
Posted by Anna on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:24 PM Bernie…The Fraternity is not happy…crop circles…you will be stopped…Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton…you must not reveal The Conspiracy…Rasmussen’s Sat. poll is correct…no need to worry.
Posted by Trip Williams on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:24 PM What a delightful reading…Thank you Garrison and everyone who spoke out here ... It has renewed my faith that there are others who think and believe as I do.
As Susan B. Anthony fought for women’s rights so should we for our American rights…and denounce GW…His future America is NOT mine.
Sandy
Posted by Sandy on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:40 PM Truly a moronic and passing silly piece from the man who often brightens up my Sunday afternoons. (I listen to the 1-3 replay of Saturday night.)
Garrison is so off the mark here it is painful and I know that so many of you think “gee whiz, this is great…”, it’s not; its moronic (to use my word again) and representative of someone who isn’t keeping his head on straight or, for that matter, his facts.
Posted by Walter Funk on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:43 PM Just to be clear to Samuel: while I know you boys have difficulty counting anything other than money and brewskis, the daily Rasmussen poll I referred to shows that the Presidential race—both at the national level and in the 16 battleground states—is within the margin of error. And that’s a statistical concept, not a short-hand description of the Repub-liban platform.
So contrary to the desire by the Repub-libans to call the race today (their motto for the past five years seems to be: “Why vote?”), I think there is much to be encouraged about today, after a full week of the Fraternity’s frothy, lie-filled incantations in Madison Square. But there’s certainly no time for complacency (so Trip, you’re trippin’)—let’s leave that to the Kountry Klub Kowboys and their model of Repub-liban tolerance, Allan Keyes.
If Dick (“what, me enlist? Don’t be silly—I had too many other important things to do”) Cheney were truly a loving father to his lesbian daughter who was apparently uninvited (or frightened) to share the stage with her family on Wednesday, he would kick Mr. Keyes’ sanctimonious ass all the way back to Maryland. And I expect that there would be a large and growing number of embarrassed Republicans in Illinois who would be more than happy to share that task with him. What a bigot. Mr. Keyes, go procreate yourself!!
Now to the hayfields. And then back to doing the other steady and important work of electing John Kerry and John Edwards.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:46 PM Anna wrote: “Or is it the Right’s silly, transparent attempt to divide the country into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ ‘us’ being the righteous, ‘love-it-or-leave-it,’ flag-waving citizen-patriots, and ‘them’ being those effete, book-reading (sometimes even in French! Mon Dieu!), tree-hugging, latte-drinking ‘elites’?”
Keillor did a pretty good job himself of dividing people up in his self-satisfied essay (“hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles….”), doncha think? Unless only taxpayer-enriched icons like Keillor are allowed to make gross generalizations of people with which they disagree politically.
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:48 PM Thank you, Garrison, for expressing so clearly the thinking of sane people.
Juan Cole has an interesting take on Bush’s presidency too.The CEO Test for Bush
Bush’s basic characteristic is not steadfastness, as the convention attempted to argue, but rashness. He is a gambler who goes for the big bang. He loses his temper easily, and makes hasty and uninformed decisions about important matters. No corporation would keep on a CEO that took risks the way Bush has, if the gambles so often resulted in huge losses.
Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let’s say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You’re on the Board of Directors and the CEO’s term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That’s what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.”
If that doesn’t get through to the greedy, selfish version of Republicans running around these days, nothing else will.
Posted by CC on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:49 PM Clay, I do believe that there is a distinction to be made between an opinion piece or an editorial (which this is) and official party positions repeated over and over again through OFFICIAL channels, such as party conventions and party literature, doncha think?
It is the medium, as well as the message.
Posted by Anna on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:54 PM “This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.” Exactly. Which is why the party of Michael Moore, Gary Keillor, Howard Dean, Moveon.org and JFK Lite will fail in November. You sound like whiny, foolish hysterics.
Mr. Keillor you are a wonderful story teller and artist. I admire your ability to spin wonderful human stories about Lake W. year in and year out.
But your commentary amounted to no more than “Nyah, nyah, nyah” sung to your choir. Winston Churchill once said, “If you weren’t a socialist when you were twenty, you have no heart. If you’re still a socialist when you’re 40, you have no brain.” Substitute bleeding heart liberal and the point is the same.
As one who outgrew Liberalism many years ago, let me say it’s a good feeling to mature.
Posted by Jim Bass on Sep 5, 2004 at 7:59 PM Gosh, you’re smart Bernie…have you ever read about the flawed methodology of polling on Saturday? But you just keep right on making hay on today’s Rasmussen poll. Oh, and “Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton!!!!”
By the way, Sandy, Susan B. Anthony was a Republican and very anti-abortion—before we had ultrasound!
And CC, did you miss 9/11? the corporate scandals? the recession?
Posted by Trip Williams on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:03 PM Keillor is a genius - this is an excellent analysis of the Bush administration.
I’m old enough to remember and to have voted for Eisenhower - in fact, he was the last Republican I voted for. I too can remember when the majority of Republicans were honorable - their policies included balancing the federal budget, and, unless attacked, isolationism. Also, as for civil rights, the Republicans were still the party of Lincoln - the time when the South switched and became Republican territory because of the new civil rights position of the Democratic party had not yet reared its ugly head.
Posted by Dorothy M. Ligon on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:06 PM Normally C.C. you would be right that a company would fire a CEO that had run the company into the ground,but now a days the CEO gets a golden parachute to the tune of 20 or 30 millinon dollars and goes on his way.Alas the poor bastards that work for the company lose their pensions,401k’s,and their health plans,as well as their jobs. Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:08 PM We have viewed the Republicans, especially the Neo-Conservatives, as immoral and evil people. It is my contention here that in their own minds they are righteous, moral and true. They are defending the Christian and National moral imperative in the only ways they know to be right. Their doctrines are founded upon two pillars: Calvinism - Fundamentalist Christianity, and Manifest Destiny.
This country looks proudly upon the Puritans who escaped England for religious freedom. What we fail to remember is that once their colonies were established any other religious expression was not tolerated within their boundaries. Their way was the Only Way.
The Puritans were followers of John Calvin (1509 - 1564) and many of his principles formed the basis for the founding of our nation. Two of his most important teachings were the total depravity of mankind due to “Original Sin” and a Predestined Elect, that is only a limited number of people were predestined to be “saved”. His brand of Protestantism can be seen to this day. Calvinism had many profound social implications—in particular, that thrift, industry, and hard work are forms of moral virtue and that business success is an evidence of God’s grace. These views created a climate favorable to commerce, Calvinism played a role in the establishment of capitalism. The corollary to this attitude is that those people who are poor and indigent are lazy and lacking in God’s grace. They are not of the elect and no matter how we try to help them they will persist in their sinfulness. Nothing can be done to save them and they are unworthy of any efforts made in their behalf.
The doctrine of Compassionate Conservatism is based on Calvinist principles. The view is that the less fortunate poor are weak. To coddle them with programs or handouts only facilitates their weakness. It is therefore much kinder to force them to stand on their own feet and rise above their inadequacies. The worthy poor will succeed. The ones who do not are persistent in their laziness and it is unreasonable to expect the rest of society to pay for their laziness. Throwing federal tax dollars at these social programs will only weaken the recipients by making them dependent upon outside aid and not their own personal responsibility. It is immoral to facilitate the laziness and immorality of others so it is right and good to eliminate these immoral programs.
Western expansion in the 19th Century built America. Today we are in the era of Globalization. This principle is clearly discussed by Michael T. Lubragge*:“The notion of Manifest Destiny had many components, each serving people in different ways. Manifest Destiny reflected both the prides that characterized American Nationalism in the mid 19th century, and the idealistic vision of social perfection through God and the church. Both fueled much of the reform energy of the time. Individually, the components created separate reasons to conquer new land. Together they exemplified Americas ideological need to dominate from pole to pole.
“The Religious Influence
To some, the Manifest Destiny Doctrine was based on the idea that America had a divine providence. It had a future that was destined by God to expand its borders, with no limit to area or country. All the traveling and expansion were part of the spirit of Manifest Destiny, a belief that it was God’s will that Americans spread over the entire continent, and to control and populate the country as they see fit. Many expansionists conceived God as having the power to sustain and guide human destiny. “It was white man’s burden to conquer and christianize the land” (Demkin, Chapter 8). For example, the idea that the Puritan notion of establishing a “city on a hill” was eventually secularized into Manifest Destiny—a sort of materialistic, religious, utopian destiny.
‘God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Tectonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns… He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savages and senile peoples.’ (Sen. Albert Beveridge in a speech to the Senate in 1899)* http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/manifest/manifxx.htm
How many times has this administration said that it is our duty to protect and spread our version of democracy and freedom? As Manifest Destiny fueled the American expansion “from sea to shining sea” in the 1800’s so today Global Manifest Destiny fuels the American drive to sow our brand of democracy and economics in every part of the world. It is our “Moral Imperative.”
When seen from this point of view it is easy to understand how they can rationalize such seemingly exclusionary points of view as the “Right to Life” ban on abortion and assisted suicide decreeing that “all life is sacred” with support of the death sentence and the horrors of civilian casualties and use of torture in war. It is moral to use any means to combat immorality.
Perhaps this is much more frightening than if these were truly evil people. The Islamic extremists feel the same way. History is rife with moralists creating terrible consequences in the crusade to protect their beliefs: The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, the Cultural Revolution. . .
“By their fruits shall you know them. . .” Matthew vii 20
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:23 PM “Keillor is a genius”
If measured against the intellectual ability of other leftists, I think you’re right. If measured against the intellectual ability of a monkey, I think you’re wrong.
Posted by Trippin on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:30 PM Isn’t ironic that Mr. Keillor has made his name and money sucking off the teet of taxpayers? Lets end corporate welfare and also NPR!!!!!
Posted by Rob Schwartz on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:42 PM I’m afraid that half the people in this country don’t even realize that they are getting flim-flamed. Here in Texas we got flimed by GWB and his Dad, for 6 years. In my estimation the most nothing Governor, next to Bill Clements, who was another Republican Oil Baron from Texas. You know the Republicans downgrade John Kerry, for his seemingly no experience in Congress. How much experience in Congress did George Bush have!! If you think these past 4 years have been bad, you ain’t seen nothin yet, if we get another 4 years of Cheney/Bush..
If you think they screwed up Medicare, wait and see what they want to do with Social Security.
He’s already said thats on the agenda….It pains me to see someone buy the presidency of the US. Just think how many people could put some of that money to good use for their children, or for no child left behind that Bush said that he wasn’t going to leave behind. Texas is what..47th in the nation behind on Education!! Even if we were only 15th, thats still too far down on the totem pole for Texas. What a great legacy our former Governor left behind…
Posted by David Nault on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:43 PM The supportive comments on this string nicely typify the problem for today’s Democratic Party. No fresh policy ideas worth considering, a condescending attitude towards the rest of the country, and a blinding hatred of the man who won every Florida recount ever done.
The Democrats have nominated a pacifist thinking they can fool the country into believing he’s as strong on foreign policy matters as Bush, but the country is getting wise, thanks to the Swift Vets, Zell Miller and others. He supported the Communists in Viet Nam and contributed to the North’s takeover of the South, and the slaughter of innocents that followed. He was wrong when he testified to the Senate in 1971 that 2,000 or 3,000 people might suffer if the communists took over - it was in fact hugely more. (Remember those boat people, desperate to escape? Remember the Khmer Rouge and their slaughter of millions?) The country, thank God, isn’t as stupid or self-centered as he is or as many of the posters in this string appear to be.
Bush takes his job seriously but pokes fun at himself. Kerry hasn’t made a serious description of what he would do as president, but certainly takes himself seriously (“no one dare criticize ME or my [four months’] service in Viet Name,” he says, after having opened his campaign by dwelling on nothing else and inviting a “bring it on” debate about it). What are open-minded voters supposed to think about this strange man?
The Democratic Party needs the blow-out I hope the voters will deliver to it this fall, to flush out the crazies and get it back in the mainstream of American politics. The Republicans turned themselves around after the Goldwater debacle in 1964, and that’s what the Dems need today. Until it happens, they will continue to slide into irrelevance and cling to whiny columns like Mr. Keillor’s.
Best wishes.
Posted by Bob on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:46 PM I used to like and respect you, Garrison.
Just know that the more you and the rest of the deranged left spew your hatred of our president, the more Republicans will be elected to the Senate and House on November 2nd. Your shot at the White House was lost when you selected John Kerry.
Posted by Matthew Cromer on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:50 PM How ironic! What a wonderful job of making fun of the left. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Ken Winter on Sep 5, 2004 at 8:55 PM How nice that the Left has these little online support groups, dedicated to what strikes me as nothing more than name calling. “Hairy backed swamp developers” and “brownshirts in pinstripes,” indeed.
Portraying your political adversaries as caricatures may feel good—I’ll have to take your word for it—but just maybe a little attention to logical arguments is in support of your positions in order. I’m sure you can do it, although one would scarcely know it from these posts.
And while I can excuse Mr. Keillor’s predictable fatuity, as a fellow Lutheran I must take strong exception to his assertion that Bush lacks a feeling “Christian obligation to the poor,” and that Republicans are “Christians of convenience.” Who is any one of us, really, to judge the sincerity of other people’s faith?
Posted by Mark Hammitt on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:06 PM I am just amazed by the lackluster talking points that most conservatives here subscribe to, the first (and most common) of which amounts to calling Democrats (or anyone smelling of “liberalism,” however construed), “whiny.” Since when is a tough, critical (and yes, potentially offensive to some) piece of editorializing “whiny,” unless the meaning of the term has been changed by some Republican decree to which I was not privy?
If Democrats can be accused of being “condescending,” it might be at least partially because those attacking us are deserving of it — and in this group, I am NOT INCLUDING all Republcans or conservatives. There are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful people on all sides to carry on with a national debate on who we are as a people, and what matters to us (or what ought to matter to us, in any case). I am addressing only the ones who are satisfied with cheap pot-shots (for example, “flip-flop,” etc.), and poorly-employed characterizations of viewpoints with which they do not happen to agree.
Posted by Anna on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:07 PM Michael—Your history review explains Winston’s Churchill’s vow upon learning of Japanese military atrocities—to exterminate ALL the Japanese people—men, women, and children.
So a continuation of the concept of manifest destiny allows us to put the boot to Palestinians, Iraqis, and any other of those non-Christian peoples who stand in our way. The Muslim people, and the Chinese people (currently purchasing vast areas of American land) have their own tribal wisdom, and thanks to our historical arrogance and that of the current President, they have begun to tell it to us in earnest.
Posted by barbara on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:10 PM OK Anna. I agree. “Whiny” is a lazy term, and I don’t need to characterize Mr. Keillor’s column anyway.
Let’s get “thoughtful and intelligent,” and stop the name-calling back and forth. For starters,
1. What is your party’s solution to Social Security?
2. What is your party’s solution to Islamic terror?
3. Do you trust the U.N. to keep us safe from Islamic terror?
Best wishes.
Posted by Bob on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:14 PM RE:
When seen from this point of view it is easy to understand how they can
rationalize such seemingly exclusionary points of view as the “Right to
Life” ban on abortion and assisted suicide decreeing that “all life is
sacred” with support of the death sentence and the horrors of civilian
casualties and use of torture in war. It is moral to use any means to
combat immorality.-o-
Baloney.
It is immoral to take life without due process - without justice. Abortion and euthanasia do exactly that. And the death penalty represents society’s condemnation of certain terrible crimes. Once again - due process and justice.
War cannot be fought without civilian casualties and torture, two reasons that war should be avoided. Armies are very blunt tools, however, and some problems require blunt solutions. Fortunately there are not more of these problems than there are. But military decision-making has been decentralized and put primarily into the hands of commanders on the ground in theater. And these people are not the ones calling for an end to the war at this point.
The moral ambiguity of the ref’d excerpt causes concern. It represents an ends-justifies-the-means mentality with little thought about the means (i.e. justice), which is basically the moral compass of sociopath.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:17 PM What an impressive piece of nonsense. Has Keillor’s Moore-like bile has risen so high even his colossal ego can’t choke it down? What a display.
But it’s more interesting how the morally-superior Left has gleefully endured Keillor’s twenty years of irresponsibly burning taxpayer dollars with such an obviously enraged, bigoted view. Whether the mild anti-Christian Prairie sendup or the all-out and wildly irrational screed, this character should bear a far more critical eye than the Leftist lemmings are evidently willing to give him.
Another Left-leaning hero, devoid of meaning but expert at polarizing and playing to rage and fear. So the Party of Lincoln has a problem rooting out mass murdering child-killers? When did the self-impressed Left stop advocating for the repressed and turn into this clucking, insulated band of clowns? Literally, my dog is more rational.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:20 PM Anna wrote: “Clay, I do believe that there is a distinction to be made between an opinion piece or an editorial (which this is) and official party positions repeated over and over again through OFFICIAL channels, such as party conventions and party literature, doncha think? It is the medium, as well as the message.”
Well, I don’t remember the Bush campaign’s “love-it-or-leave-it” press release, but I’m willing to accept that at some point a Bush campaign official may have called John Kerry/Democrats/liberals in general “elitist.”
And judging by the smug, condescending tone of many of the leftwing posters here, I imagine they would privately embrace the description of “elitist,” because it matches their self image: Sophisticated people with an appreciation of nuance, morally and intellectually superior to right-wing troglodytes, who use their liberal political views to call attention to their moral virtue.
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:22 PM We’re in that weird state where each side duplicates the broadsides of the other side without comment, because it seems to each side that the other side’s rhetoric is self-damning.
So you have NRO linking here without comment, for instance.
This effect, as far as I know, was first noticed between students and faculty at the University of Chicago, in the 60s. That ended, as I recall, in hard feelings.
Thurber had a piece ``What the Leftists are Saying’’ but it’s fairly dated. As far as I can remember, he didn’t do anything on groups ‘round the bend.
Posted by Ron Hardin on Sep 5, 2004 at 9:57 PM Garrison,
You siced your lawyers on a friend of mine, who comes from small town Minnesota, when he had the nerve to write a letter to the editor describing you as someone who hated small town culture enough to present snide parodies of it on the radio, and all in the name of ‘honoring’ the people you ridiculed.
You are the mean spirited one, and your end of the cultural spectra is the one truly eroding our heritage, with your narcissistic rewrite of history, and your veiled hatred of the ‘Lake Wobegon’ you didn’t fit into, and by necessity ran away from.
You really don’t have any business pretending to represent a culture you abandoned, and one that saw enough of you and ejected you. Go smoke some more dope on Nicollet Island and pretend you’re a downhome boy. And stay out of politics.
Posted by Al Benfor on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:01 PM Michael makes an incorrect presumption, one, sadly, at the root of the Left’s ritual stereotyping of the Right…or what they think they see as the Right. It’s Hollywood thinking:
“The corollary to this [Calvinist] attitude is that those people who are poor and indigent are lazy and lacking in God’s grace. They are not of the elect and no matter how we try to help them they will persist in their sinfulness. Nothing can be done to save them and they are unworthy of any efforts made in their behalf.”
Victimizing rubbish. As is so often the case, strawman arguments abound simply because Leftists leave out critical facts.
In this case, the missing ingredient (in the Leftist’s myopic selection between only (1) benevolent Government largesse and (2) horrificly oppressive Puritan moralist conscription) is the standard of truly functional charity for hundreds of years: The private sector with it’s obvious historical ability and, it should be argued, it’s legitimacy in the role.
Government is a negative force; it sets up borders and law enforcement and military protections. Which is, mysteriously, why the Left universally chooses it and only it for the role of seeing to the less fortunate.
There is no Moral Destiny running the Bush Administration. It’s an attractive myth for the Keillor’s of the world. There is no Calvinist sensibility preventing the poor a decent meal and shelter. That’s just one of the wormy old Hollywood theories (that’s seen still in the shoddiest flicks.)
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:05 PM We are not thinking of seeing the inner most thoughts of G.W.,just following the paper trail and his past efforts to turn over OUR country to the corporations. Putting his people into key appeals courts,pushing past barriers to protect the environment,basically selling the country and it’s future for the almighty dollar. Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:19 PM I am very afraid. Though I am old and tired and sick, I love my country. But through a barrage of misinformation and macho posturing by a press not dedicated to the survival of the Union, many people that I know really believe the nonsense that the Bush the Younger is spouting. I do not want to finish my life in a country where we calculate pints (of blood) per gallon (of SUV fuel)to determine an acceptable ratio. I do not want my child and grandchildren to live in a country where civil liberties are routinely denied. Thank you Garrison for expressing the situation much better than it has been expressed before. The vital issue is now, how do we get rid of the Bushes before the locusts and pestilence win.
Posted by Margaret Bonds on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:21 PM Bob, good idea.
On Social Security: Social Security will be solvent until the year 2042. This means that for the next thirty-eight years, the seniors are covered (unless Bush privatizes the system, in which case all bets are off). However, this is not good enough — we have to work on ensuring that Social Security will be solvent beyond the immediate future. So here is the choice: Bush, on the one hand, wants to protect benefits by changing the structure of the Social Security program (that is, by privatizing it, and placing seniors at the mercy of the market, where their social security checks are no longer guaranteed). Kerry, on the other hand, wants to protect benefits by generating a faster GDP growth rate —by expanding the economy, thus making it possible for more money to go into the system (and at the same time, eliminating our record deficit), so more money could actually stay in the Social Security fund. Is this perfect? Of course not. But it is much better than the casino-like gamble that the Bush administration wants to enbark on.
As far as our national security, the first thing that Kerry wants to do is to strengthen and renew our old alliances — yes, those with “old Europe.” You know, the “old Europe” that along with the United States, defeated Hitler and the USSR. We cannot be strong if we are supported only halfheartedly by nations such as Australia and the UK (we should face it— most of the expense and lives lost in Iraq are American ones)and by El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, and the like (nothing against those countries, but geopolitical realities dictate that we also want Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc. on our side as well). Given what is happnening in Russia lately, their support would also be quite useful.
Moreover, to be well-protected, we need to compensate those that protect us. This means not empty rhetoric about “values” or “heroes,” but a higher pay for our troops, and dignity and respect when they return as veterans — this means a policy that is different from Bush’s cutting of VA funds, as a result closing hospitals and clinics that serve our veterans. This is much less glamorous than speechifying about supporting our troops. This is acutally supporting them. No one serving this nation should ever have to be homeless or rely on food stamps, and under this administration, too many do. Kerry’s plan is to fund our military in a way that it deserves….There is more, but I will stop here.
Finally, the UN. I think that your premise is wrong: The UN was never meant to replace our national forces — and Kerry never suggested that it should. What the UN does is create oversight — and I hope that no nation ever believes itself to be beyond reproach or counsel. I suppose one way that the UN could “keep us safe from Islamic terror” is by facilitating dialogue between oursleves and other nations (or groups), and stepping in when those negotiations break down — recall that a major step toward the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was taken when the Soviets were exposed on the floor of the UN in 1962.
I apologize for the length of this, but there is much to say….
Posted by Anna on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:22 PM How can a guy who is so dumb make such a fools of all of you. It must just drive all you “smart” people crazy. At every turn he outsmarts you. Oh that’s right, it must be because half of the population is just as dumb. ELITISTS!
Posted by Jay - MN on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:26 PM Hey A.Atkins.I am a vietnam vet myself and I can understand that Kerry would feel demeaned by the government that he was used for a false purpose.I felt the same way.It took me about three months to see that we were not trying to win the war,maybe to just make money for the military/industrial comples.I did not throw my medals away.I did not demonstrate.I just kept my thoughts and feelings to myself and my family and circle of friends.But from that point on I did not trust the government to be acting in good faith with the american people.I see that same attitude in Bush.He isn’t acting on the behalf of the good of the american people. His actions seem to be to just make a bundle of money for him and his cronies and of course to project the powerful cowboy image that he seems to crave. He is no George Washington,nor Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan. Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:33 PM To Trip (or Trippin’) and the rest of your ilk:
Sorry to take so long to respond to your earlier post. And at the risk of continuing my “smug, condescending tone” here (though you should know that it comes from a recently registered Republican), I would suggest that you bother to visit the link I provided you earlier on the Rasmussen poll before criticizing it. Rather than using one day poll numbers, here is how Rasmussen reports its methodology: “This data is based upon interviews conducted over the three nights ending September 3. Every night, Rasmussen Reports interviews 1,000 Likely Voters across the nation to create a three-day rolling average based upon 3,000 Likely Voters. Roughly one-third of all voters live in the sixteen Battleground States.”
So their poll—showing that Bush holds a slightly more than 1% lead over Kerry nationwide after the Madison Square Garden Klavern concluded—is not as trivial as you would suggest. While I am well aware of the limitations of polling, at least I take the time to read about a poll’s methodology before criticizing it. You might try that in the future.
My bottom line is that this is still a very close race, and no one should think otherwise. And that also includes the few die-hard Greenies, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and Nadir-ites left; who might consider casting a meaningful vote for Kerry this time in line with their deeply held pro-environment, personal freedom-loving, Bill of Rights-respecting and corporate accountability-demanding beliefs.
In any case, this thread has gotten deep into the name-calling trough today, so it’s good that my earlier (missing) post never made it to the thread. I guess I had gotten fired up myself this morning and had modeled my earlier missing post after ole “now you see him, now you don’t” Zell’s very congenial and respectful diatribe. Boy, I’d pay to watch a spitball duel between him and “Hardball” Matthews anyday, though from the spittle-flecked chin that Zell showed all of us on TV, he might come to that fight much better armed.
So rather than calling anyone names today, I’d prefer to refer the readers to another very revealing link in Salon this week entitled “George W. Bush’s Missing Year”. This story (which, Trip, you should actually read before commenting on) describes both what Duh-bya was doing in Alabama in the early 70s and why he had been banished there by his Dad. And no liberals contributed as primary sources for this piece: only former Bush family friends and still proud Republicans. So if you folks want to continue to tell lies about Kerry’s honorable Vietnam service and his support for his “band of brothers” before, during and after his own tour of duty “in-country”; you should at least be aware of the truth about how your leader “served” his country. (From the Salon article, it appears that his service was primarily two-fisted, and at happy hours.) Read it and weep.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index_np.html
As for all of the rest of us who want change in this country NOW, we need to do something every day for the next 58 days to help revive our democracy. Unlike the Repub-libans who have joined us in Izod-clad and lacquer-haired droves on this thread today (darn, I just can’t help myself), we know that there are not only liberal Democrats but also moderate and conservative ones as well (plus moderate and conservative Republicans who still support what their party used to stand for, and could stand for again) who want to make Duh-bya an un(elected) term President.
Just today, I got six other country stores and cafes to become voter registration places in my little portion of God’s Country here in middle Tennessee. No store owner I spoke to turned me down. A few of them asked me which political party I supported and when I told them the one that wanted to encourage everyone to vote and then wanted to count each and every one of those votes, none of them guessed I was a Repub-liban.
I hope that all the other “remove our current unelected leaders for the sake of the country” readers of this thread will also deputize every sympathetic country (or city or suburban) store and cafe owner in their areas to encourage massive voter registration and participation. In most states, folks have at least another month to register, and the process takes just a minute. For me, I’ve decided that getting my neighbors to vote in droves may not be enough, so I’ll be making a six hour round-trip to Atlanta on Wednesday to learn more about possibly relocating to one of the sixteen battleground states for the remainder of the race as a field organizer for Kerry.
I hope to convince the people I’ll be meeting with that Tennessee should be added to the list of “battleground” states, because we are (according to our state’s own recent polling numbers.) But while I would hate to miss another colorful fall on my farm, I know that New Mexico and Wisconsin will also be beautiful for the next 58 days. And if all of us do what we can as actively engaged citizens from now until November, we can make our homes, our farms, our parks and our country safe again from the anti-clean air and water crowd and the clear-cutting “compassionate conservationists” in their shark-skin suits, knocking on our doors at night and whispering “Uh ...Candygram! Uh ... Orange Alert!”.
So do whatever it takes (including calling THEM what they are, to their faces and on this thread). Keep working hard and long every day to win back America. Elect John Kerry and John Edwards.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:48 PM Why do we continue to call them Republicans? They are Recorporcans. Re-cor-por-cans. It really is easy to say. Pratice it and use it.
Since they care little for the public, and everything for large corporations, who can buy or have bought their way out of the USA, they are Recorporcans. Please use the term widely, especially in Recorporcan circles.
The Republican Party is co-opted and smothered; dead of the disease “polite conservatism.” Don’t let Recorporcans kill and exile the Democratic Party.
Recorporcans want a one-party state with corpoate totalitarianism. And they’ve almost got it. Look at the kids. They think that to buy is to be a good citizen and they tend not to give a damn about politics.
And read W.H.Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen.” Read it to every “Republican” and young person you can persuade to listen.
Posted by Daniel W. Brickley on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:56 PM Napple - If you had taken the time to read this thread from the beginning you would know I don’t suffer fools gladly. I said moderate Republicans.
Don’t waste my time projecting your negativity on me. Find another target.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 5, 2004 at 10:59 PM Orange ALERT!!!!!
Love it.
Bernie I don’t care what or who you are. YOU ARE A-OK and thank you for your truth. Same to you Ann and Ed and anyone else who is interested in becoming better educated about the elections.
Orange ALERT!!!!! Pass it on. Quick everyone scared run to your bunkers and hide. Bush will save you.
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:02 PM So, Miss Overbearing Joanne,
If I disgree with you, I am “negative”, and should shut up?
Hypocrite.
Posted by Napple on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:05 PM This article is pure ignorant drivel!
First of all, I served in the U.S. Navy. There are legitimate questions about John Kerry’s service. President Bush served and opened his records for scrutiny. John Kerry has not released the majority of his records. President Bush has explained and answered question to my satisfaction regarding his past. In fact I look up to him as a person who has gained my highest respect.
It amazes me that the media does not ask Kerry the tough questions. Oh, he doesn’t put himself in a position to be asked any serious questions! Appearing on a comedy news show, which is scripted, is not answering the questions.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and his administration will sit down with the media and conduct a discourse on the tough questions. Why is it, that Senator Kerry does not do this to address his past? He should put it on the record and it would go away. Here are some of my questions that should be asked in a no spin zone:
Was he (Kerry) still in the Naval Reserves when he met with the Communists in Paris? Kerry says that he volunteered for military duty - were there any deferments (hint – Paris)? You (Kerry) promised to release your records, but only released 6 documents out of hundreds? Kerry says he committed atrocities (War Crimes) in Vietnam, come clean, what were they and when? Did you attend a meeting of the VVAW where assassination of U.S Senators was discussed or coordination with the enemy? Did you report this to the authorities? As Commander and Chief, what would Kerry say to those in the military who were afraid to go into combat to protect our boarders? You threw your medals over the fence in Washington, what do you say to a veteran who wears his medals proudly and asks you about this? Will your wife release her records? Name one bill that you authored that you are proud of and supports your platform for this election? Since Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson are working with your campaign, what would Kerry say to them about their coordination with the protestors? Does this remind Kerry of the protest days during his VVAW days? Kerry and Edwards claim that they will implement reform to the medical liability and malpractice litigation. Since Edwards is part of the Lawyers that created this problem, what will they propose and promise to do, specifics? Kerry authored a book, The New Soldier, why did he pick the cover and explain the meaning of the flag being represented upside-down? Explain why you (Kerry) think that flying a fighter plane is cowardly and how your attempt to avoid combat by joining the NAVY is different?
The real hypocrisy - meeting with the Vietnamese in Paris, 1971, while still serving in the military - Then in 2004 says he supports the soldiers fighting abroad and votes against funding equipment and supplies for the troops. Championing the poor, but living like a king. To Preach to an environmental group that they don’t own an SUV, but to a union group list a Suburban as being “in the family”. Groups that say SUVs are an environmental problem, but own and commute in Gulf Stream jets.
Posted by Jack on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:06 PM Oplas was right.
The rest of you know it but can’t accept it.
Get real and get used to it.
Posted by Graham Smith on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:08 PM Boy, just love the litany of Eisenhower “accomplishments,” particularly the part about how he “gave us a period of peace and prosperity.”
The reason I love it is that it reveals, yet again, the way leftists such as Keillor instinctively view the government in general, and the president in particular. While he sits and bemoans the “bark” being stripped off the Constitution, he doesn’t even realize that his understanding of the United States is utterly wrong, on a very basic, fundamental level.
American presidents are not kings. They were never intended to be. They are not responsible for “giving us” peace and prosperity. They are not meant to be “the CEOs of the American economy.” They are not meant to have, and in fact largely do not have, the kind of power to which Keillor likes to assign them.
In the very same sentence where Keillor laments bark being stripped from the Constitution, he laments federal agencies being “eviscerated.” His misunderstanding of the Constitution is so entrenched that he doesn’t even catch the incompatibility of the two notions.
Has President Bush upheld his oath to defend the Constitution? Of course not. No president in decades has done so. What it boils down to is that Keillor and other leftists simply don’t like Bush’s particular brand of oath-breaking. FDR helped eviscerate the Constitution more than any president in the history of the United States. Yet I suspect Keillor won’t be scolding him any time soon. Keillor is of the mind that a U.S. president is supposed to be a king. And so it’s just a matter of finding the right sort of king, the kind who rules the people with dictates Keillor personally likes.
Finally, Keillor talks of bequeathing to our grandchildren a country that’s in better shape than we found it. That’s a fine idea. But it’s worth noting that we ourselves are the grandchildren of people who bequeathed to us a country whose principles, and whose Constitution, they helped destroy.
If we want to leave a better America to the future, we’d be wise to skip back and rediscover the past, to remember the America that was actually intended. That’s the America where we don’t argue about “tax cuts,” because taxes aren’t an issue to begin with. That’s the America where the president isn’t upheld as a king to whom we give blame or credit for natural economic cycles. And that’s the America where the Constitution is held sacred, without fear that it will be “eviscerated” by anyone of any political stripe—Bush, FDR or otherwise.
Posted by Nat on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:23 PM Sorry GK, your show and my contributions to the local NPR station just went off dial.
Posted by Don Allen on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:33 PM Snapple- Far from telling you to shut up, I encouraged you to say something substantive about why you support Bush. How about reference to some of his accomplishments in office? Like Jack, you just pop off these little meaningless comments, sound bites, tidbits laden with paranoia that fail to conceal your martry complex. Come on, discuss.
And Jack, you obviously have all the answers to the rhetorical questions you posed, so why don’t you share them with us, including links to the sources of your information? I’m pretty sure we can find all the links on the MedaiMatters, Annenburg, and ConWebWatch sites, but go ahead and share all the inside poop with us. We’re just salivating over the prospect.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:43 PM Joanne-
News flash -
I don’t support Bush, or Kerry.
Miss Cleo is calling, and wants her job back.
Posted by Napple on Sep 5, 2004 at 11:50 PM Cripes! I was under the assumption that Garrison was a proponent of civil political discourse. It’s unfortunate, in a way, that the mass murderers of 9/11 were for the most part wealthy Saudis. Their poisonous ideology can probably be rationalized in his world.
Now on the other hand, if the plane had been flown by evil Republicans, I am sure Garrison would favor preemptive war. Republican ideology must certainly be more of a threat to civilization in his enormous Democratic brain.
Posted by helen on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:08 AM “This is a great country, and it wasn?t made so by angry people.”
My gosh, what a mess of intemperate invective. Mr. Keillor, a master of gentle nostalgia, should stay away from politics, especially when he’s had one to many martinis.
It’s really not possible to respond in detail because of the large number of issues raised, and also because it’s rather obvious that the effort would be wasted. However, let me mention a couple of things:
Sen. Kerry was one of only two senators who were unwilling to commit to a vote on the prescription drugs for seniors legislation. If you want to be credible, you have to take a stand when it counts. I guess he wanted to keep his options open.
If you want to move the country in the opposite direction for awhile, you need to have candidates who can provide real leadership.
9/11 was a “lapse of security”? No, it was the culmination of decades, even centuries, of events. All the security in the world will not prevent terror strikes by Islamic jihadists.
The critical issue is to keep the nukes out of the hands of the jihadists. Mr. Keillor probably thinks that Saddam would not have acquired them, but that dope Khadafi almost did, so you can be sure that Saddam would have succeeded fairly soon. And if we had not gone after Iraq, they’d both have had them.
If you treat these issues as a “lapse of security”, you can expect to die at the hands of the Islamists.
Mr. Keillor appears to be unaware that 60% of the people in the USA pay no income taxes (well, they do pay 3% of them). Or that the proportion of taxes paid by the top 10% went *up* after the tax cut. This is the group that creates and operates the small businesses in this country, which provide most of the jobs.
The increase in the gap between the rich and the poor is real, but the correct policies to reduce it are open for debate. It’s not necessarily tax increases to be reapportioned to some “entitlement”.
Enron is a 20 year product of extremes which came to fruition in the Clinton era and were eclipsed in the Bush era. I’d agree that big corporations are as bad as big government and need to be closely monitored and regulated.
We can all have a dialog on how best to govern and strengthen the republic, but it isn’t possible in the face of such vituperation and distortion.
It’s like saying that Bush isn’t legitimate because he didn’t win the popular vote, when any knowledgeable person knows that all campaigns are designed to win the electoral college votes. Or continuing to insist that Bush lost Florida while the post-election analysis of the results confirmed that he won. If we can’t agree on objective fact, how can we have a dialog?
Personally, I like to see the country go back and forth between the two parties. It keeps everyone honest.
I could do without Ashcroft. I could do without security theatre. But the Democrats haven’t offered a credible candidate. It wasn’t Dean, and it surely isn’t Kerry.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:15 AM It’s too bad that Mr. Keillor doesn’t stick to his radio program. Unlike his writing—and the dreadful Writer’s Almanac bit he does on NPR—PHC can be entertaining.
Stop the hysterics, Mr. Keillor. You’ve gone way overboard.
Perhaps you should consider moving back to Europe when Bush wins again in November.
Doug
Posted by Doug on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:18 AM Helen, first, I am not sure where you get the facts to draw the kinds of conclusions that you do. Yes, Garrison Keillor clearly does not like the current Republican administration (or the direction that coservative politics have taken generally). What is unclear is how this fact makes you jump to the entirely unreasonable conclusion that he supports mass murderers — a bit of a hyperbole, perhaps? Second, the rest of your comments also do not rise much above an ad hominem attack.
Perhaps we ought to stop deifying or demonizing that which rubs us the wrong way.
Posted by Anna on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:21 AM Who’s Garrison Keillor? Is he, like, Michael Moore without the moving pictures? Shouldn’t he be able to afford Lithium salts—-even without the seniors prescription drug benefit?
And why slam Etch-a-Sketches? They’re cool and fun. Is this Keillor guy trying to say that Republicans are cool and fun, too? Because most of his piece seems to say they’re not cool and fun any more.
Posted by SumpPump on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:27 AM Wow. I’ll be the first to admit that Mr. Keillor’s column is entertaining, but, well, as regards facts…Keillor apparently is following the maxim, “the less said [about facts], the better”. Now, this isn’t all bad; it is, after all, an opinion piece. It’s just that the wild fawning over Mr. Keillor’s column has nothing to do with facts or reasoned debate—he has merely smartly verbalized the sentiments of some folks, many of whom are largely frustrated or even fearful because of their lack of understanding of what’s going on. Given that clearly most of the respondents here are literate, I’d encourage all to employ a bit more critical thinking—WHY does one feel that a re-election of Bush would be the “end of the republic”? WHAT has he or his administration done to warrant such comments? WHO are the persons complaining most loudly, and WHY? WHEN did the problems we’re now dealing with arise—during the Bush presidency or before? WHAT are their causes? HOW do Bush and Kerry propose dealing with these issues? WHERE do the terrorists attacking our very ideals come from? WHAT should be done about protecting our nation? And please, just like in history class, remember that higher marks will be awarded for those with clear and specific data supporting their answers. A claim of “Bush lied”, or damning by weak association [Bush and Enron], or a statement outrageous, unsupported and incontrovertible because of its sheer ridiculousness [“computerized-no-paper-trail voting machines”] will NOT yield a passing grade.
I have not drunk too much Kool-Aid, I have not been lied to any more than any other person listening to politicians in general, and I fail to see the basis for any doomsday scenario on the basis of a Bush re-election.
As for the 2000 election, give it up. It’s over. The (left-leaning, and inherently activist) SCOTUS made its decision—the only one having any chance at being interpreted as reasonable in the pages of history—and, like Nixon in 1960, Gore lost. Now, the fact that Gore proceeded to show less class than did Nixon, the only man ever forced to resign from the Oval Office, suggests that the best decision was made.
I’ve not met the president, but my impression of him is that he is a man of honor and integrity, striving to do what he thinks best for the country. Most intelligent politician? Nope. But, as Zell Miller said, he’s the same man on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning, and that’s rare enough to earn consideration right there. More importantly, he’s done the job, and well. Can it be done better? I believe so. By Senator Kerry? Not a chance, even though he’s got better hair. Kerry’s not presidential material, though he might be able to play one on TV.
Posted by Perry Clark on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:29 AM Senator Kerry is a war hero with three purple hearts and a Bronze Star with the “V” valor award. Only low-class people would criticize a war hero. He served honorably in Vietnam for two tours of duty and rescued a fellow member from certain death by an act of courage in returning to the field of battle. It’s time to stop criticizing his duty and to look to the real facts about what George Bush has done to this country. His goons are so low-class they BOOED when Bushie announced that Clinton was in the hospital.
Kerry has more class than that and would never say negative things about anyone on the Repukes side. Kerry Cares. That’s all that matters.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:41 AM Garrison,
I saw your show once at Town Hall in NY, I had good seats, up close to the stage. You have the physical countenance of a gibbering idiot. I would picture that who wrote what you just did would have that look.
Your historical revisionism is staggering. Since when did you ever think of Eisenhower or the fifties as anything other than worthy of your ridicule?
Face it Garrison old boy GWB is a political genius and is at least 100 steps ahead of you and probably 150 steps ahead of the braintrusts running kerry’s campaign and apparently 200 steps ahead of Kerry himself.
Kerry and the Dems are (French) Toast. and no amount of revisionism will make it go away.
Go back to your make-believe Lake Woebegone where all the voters are democrats and all the thinking is socialist and everybody agrees with you.
Posted by thedaddy on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:52 AM Absolutely brilliant!! This is one of the most well thought-out, funniest, most sobering, and truest things I’ve read in a very long time.
Posted by Willow Polson on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:54 AM Listen to the audio from the incident that ‘steve miller’ describes. No boos.
link to story: http://instapundit.com/archives/017589.php
or link to audio: http://tinyurl.com/6yfug
More lies from the liberal media. We are not surprised.
Posted by Joey on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:55 AM The boos are there. They’ve been edited out of your copies.
AP clearly reported the boos, and so has MSNBC and my local paper.
You’re just letting your biases towards King George get in the way of the TRUTH.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:58 AM Homegrown democrat indeed. I would be considered a conservative thinker by most. This rant is so typical and dull. I would have expected more coming from Mr. Keillor.
Posted by Tom Racine on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:02 AM Steve, old boy!
You are quoting AP and MSNBC as sources! LOL! Bastions of unbiased, fact-checking!
Posted by bizarro Steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:03 AM Hmmm, yeah….It is much better if we listen to FOX, that repository of wisdom and truth. We distort, you recline….
Posted by Anna on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:07 AM It’s humiliating to have the rest of the world believe that a nutjob like Keillor is representative of the great state of Minnesota. This fantasy/column represents the final unhinging of what was only - at its peak - a mediocre mind.
Your party is losing becaues it has no philosophy, no campaign based on anything but name-calling and paranoia. You offer nothing to America but fear and decline, and then act surprised when the voters reject you in ever-bigger numbers. Enjoy the swirl into the Keillor/Moore/Krugman sewer pipe.
Posted by Tim on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:07 AM I quote AP and MSNBC because _they had the reporters there_.
I’m sure it’s obvious that you have to go on facts.
The facts are, John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and received three purlpe hearts. He received a Bronze Star with a “V” for valor and a sliver Star. The attempts by the right-wing to smear John Kerry are DISGUSTING and will not SUCEED!
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:07 AM “This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.”
How ironic after an entire article fueled by anger.
The whole Democratic Party is motivated by anger. They have no platform, except for frivolous lawsuits.
Posted by Ross on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:08 AM Of course the Dems are ANGRY! They’ve had to endure FOUR YEARS of Bushie! He STOLE the election. And he has the CORRPUT Cheney who is still working for Halliburton and Enron.
It amazes me how little the average American thinks.They just get their news spoonfed from FOX and never investigate the FACTS.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:11 AM Brian wrote “Garrison Keillor makes me proud again to be a Minnesotan and an American! My favorite quote from the article has to be ‘Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight!’ “
Let’s see. Keillor writes a column with more name-calling in it than I’ve seen in a long time. And Brian’s favorite line contain the phrase “cat turds”? He’s *proud* of this? Great taste, Brian.
Someone should write an article entitled “How did the party of John F. Kennedy mutate into a bunch of sophomoric idiots?” That question has been on my mind for some time and I can’t begin to imagine how the party which has painted itself as morally superior has sunk to such abysmal and worthless depths.
Sheesh, people. Get a grip. Don’t you have any idea how you look to people who don’t already agree with you? Stuff like this will not win you votes. This among other things has driven me away from the Dems.
Let’s see if this site is tolerant of dissent and doesn’t delete my post.
Posted by Jim C. on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:13 AM The name-calling started with the Repukes.
And unfortunately, it has WORKED so far. John Kerry has been forced to deal with the mud thrown at him from the Repukes when he could be focused on the real issues. It is saddening when the media plays lapdog to the lies of the right.
I can’t wait until Carville and Sassos join Kerry’s team so they can SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT and counter the lies from the right. It’s gotten so bad I can’t even bear to turn on the TV. And the radio is becomeing bad, too - I can’t even depend upon NPR anymore, which is PUBLIC radio and should reflect teh PUBLIC opinion!
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:19 AM And Garrison Keillor is teh BEST voice in radio! He knows what’s really going on in America. I trust him more than the FOXES.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:20 AM It’s too bad the Repukes have seen fit to question Kerry’s heroism under fire. BY now, his acts in Vietname should be beyond question. Remember, he earned THREE purple hearts. That’s THREE more than Bushie ever earned in Alabama!
All you have to know about Kerry is that he reported for duty in 1968, and in 2004 he is reporting for duty again!
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:23 AM Sad to see that Keillor has let his venom and bile fill his body to the point where he can’t see out of his eyes.
Note to the left: look at the hundreds of children that Islamic “rebels” just killed in Russia. Those kids aren’t American. It wasn’t their fault. The people we’re scared of (when we say the rest of the world, we mean, the Islamic terrorists) don’t hate us because we have a president who doesn’t speech French. They hate us because of the society we have. Don’t want to live under Sharia (Muslim law)? Think women should have rights? Etc.? Etc.? Then no matter how erudite or nuanced or cynical or French or post-modern or consciously self-parodizing or whatever a president we have, they will want to kill us. Will it take attacks on our own kids for liberals to wake up to reality? (Or will they even then blame the gun industry, the explosive/fertilizer industry, ourselves, Halliburton, etc. for the loss of innocent life.)
Don’t vote for Bush, lampoon him for his verbal maladies, etc., but try to wake up to what is happening in the world.
And the Republican party as the party of anger? Did Keillor watch the Democratic convention? Has he heard Michael Moore, who sat with Jimmy Carter(!) at the DNC?
As for school prayer, if Western civilization loses the fight with radical Islam, do you think we’ll be arguing in court over plastic nativity scenes (hint: the Anti-Creche Lawyers Union will not be allowed to exist)?
Perhaps the most fitting story of the week is that Green activist the Dave Matthews Band (led by a man so precious that he is simply called Dave, much like Cher), which talks about the environment, and electing Democrats, etc., etc., showered a hundred people on a boat with human waste—illegally dumping the tour bus van’s contents (which is really bad for the environment, by the way). Nothing like hypocrites, showering us with loads of waste. Which brings me back to why I had to respond . . . .
Posted by Eric on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:42 AM Does anyone know what night the new “Joey” sitcom will be on? Thanks.
Posted by Chuck on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:43 AM Joanne, at first I thought you were a person of some substance, but then I read:
“Edwards spent more time with the crowd than he did on the stage. I spoke with him briefly and I gotta tell you, he’s life size in every positive way. He looks you right in the eye, and he doesn’t just blow you off with some canned line. He listens and responds. I came away checking myself carefully for any signs of hero-worship. Negatory. Just a genuine okey-dokey from the bullshit detector. This guy is the real deal.
I hale from North Carolina and I know about Edwards. He made 39 Million in the last decade. How did he make it – trial attorney. Law students used to cram into court just to hear him smooze a jury. He came up with this method (junk science) of suing OBGYNs for causing birth defects. Since then, many of the OBGYNs have stopped practicing in North Carolina. The cost of the average birth has sky-rocketed. You wonder why he can look you in the eyes and keep going. Let’s see, he really wants to champion the average person? He wasn’t going to get re-elected as a Senator, so he ran for President. These are the people you want to initiate health care reform? What has Edwards or Kerry done in the last decade or two???
On the other hand – Bush has lowered our (my) taxes. He has turned the economy around. Responded to terrorists like no other President (I feel safer). Made changes to prescription drugs for seniors (not something I supported). He got rid of Janet Reno. He stood up to the corrupt U.N. He is consistent and brought respectability, accountability back to the office of the President.
Four years ago, I was thinking that the economy was going down the tubes, in which the government was failing us. A conservative friend reminded me that all I needed to do was follow my beliefs, hone my job skills and get out there and make something happen. I have had to turn work down ever since. It is the liberal ideal that the government should be creating / giving jobs out rather letting the free market run. In my opinion, Kerry and Edward (Kennedy Liberals) are the ones who want to create a two class society. Bush is trying to provide the opportunities to succeed, not meddle. I am not saying that our political system is perfect, but Bush is a better choice to go in the right direction.
Posted by Jack on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:45 AM OH plueeze! The Russians are to blame for the seige. If they had not gone into Chechnya, this wound not have happened! It’s exactly like Iraq.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:45 AM Steve Miller,
You should know by now that the report of “booing” following Bush’s announcement of Clinton’s heart problem was entirely bogus and a fabrication by the Associated Press stringer. The sentence was deleted from a later version of the wire.
I heard the clip of Bush’s speech myself on the NBC evening news and I assure you that the crowd was sympathetic and clapped appreciatively. I was pleased that they made that response.
Unfortunately, the damage was done and the story appeared uncorrected in many places, including (to my personal knowledge) the Boston Herald and Salon.
It’s unfortunate that whoever propagated this falsehood is intentionally contributing to the divisiveness of this election.
For more information and audio clips:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.phpWe are not the enemy. The jihadists are the enemy. If Sen. Kerry wins, we will be the loyal opposition in January.
p.s. When Bush fell off his bike, I remember Sen. Kerry’s response was (approx) “What happened, the training wheels fell off?” Sounds negative to me.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:46 AM I heard with my own ears the booing on the radio. You can CLEARLY hear the boos just before the cheering.
It’s just another attempt to change history.
YOu should get used to saying “President JOhn Kerry.” He served honorably in Vietnam and will serve honorably in the presidentcy.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:49 AM I’ll not be listening to prairie home companion any more. It has become too thick.
Posted by Hugh Jorgan on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:49 AM Colorful comments, but partisan hackery at its worst.
I was saddened (although not entirely suprised) by these downright mean and dated comments by a once literary genius.
As a Lake Wobegonian I lament that Mr Keilor has cashed in his skills and his class to demote himself to the role of political hack for the Dems. You are no longer an artist, no longer a statesman, no longer a human of consequence, Garison. You are just another bitter and defeated Minnesota liberal. Like so many others in the entertainment community, you’ve smeared mud across your own art by your actions as a thoughtless stooge for a politician. You have become a politician yourself, and that is a shameful profession; not worthy of the artist you once were.
Sad. Mean. Minnesota’s own Garrison Keilor, a BS vendor. Sad.
Ladies and gentlemen, Lake Wobegon is most certainly dead.
Posted by Timm on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:49 AM Suppose everyone who takes the time to vote does so conscientiously and with the research and understanding of the issues facing them at the time. Bush would have to pull some democrats over to win. Would all these people be idiots or uninformed? That’s a stretch.
I got to this article via a link from the national review online, and to be honest I found it full of more insulting language than fact. subsequent comment on it has been even worse. One man does not destroy America nor can one man save it. The president has limited powers and is not responsible for the minutia of daily living. We also have a congress and governors and state legislators who all have a chance to have a greater effect on local conditions than the president.
The “failure” of 9/11 (if there was one) would also lie at the feet of the various commitees that oversee the inteligence community. The are presented with the same information as the president and were either very inept like Bush is being accused or they lied to us as well for the same nefarious purposes. This includes democrats, Kerry being one of them.
Bush bashing will not win this election. Kerry has yet to present a coherent strategy to protect us from further attacks. In fact I hear very little coherent anything from him.
Posted by dale b on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:53 AM I found these statements aoubt booing:
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/3/135203.html (PROOF!!!!)
http://www.wnem.com/global/story.asp?s=2257936&ClientType=PrintableIt’s obvious that the file you’re referring to was cut off to edit out the booing.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:55 AM What, no dissent in these posts? You all must be in the choir. I fear that this board has been editorially sanitized of dissenting opinion. And a standard criticism of Bush’s term in office concerns a perceived cheapening of free expression? Please, don’t be so naive, folks. This rhetoric is impassioned, but hardly rational.
Posted by Mark on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:56 AM Just like any other blog, this one has degenerated into name calling and the respondees have the tolerance of a pig in heat!
Good bye.
Posted by Larry on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:58 AM “As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts. In Vietnam, John Kerry saw the lives of his fellow soldiers put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/This is the truth.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:58 AM Can’t stand the heat eh?
John Kerry is a proven leader with 19 years in the Senate and a heroic past in Vietnam.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:00 AM What a bunch of self-serving, self-important, delusional, hyper-partisan crap.
Garrison, you’ve lost it. Your hate for one man and one party have overwhelmed you and blinded you to reason and fact. Bush went to war in Iraq for his personal satisfaction? Do you people really believe such nonsense? Such a ridiculous statement makes it impossible for sensible people to even consider anything that was written before or after.
Get a grip people. And, Garrison, you need to spend more time in the heartland, in Lake Wobegon as it were, and less time with your elitist out-of-touch friends in New York and Hollywood. Maybe you’d then realize how extremist your opinions really are.
Posted by John on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:01 AM You accuse the Republicans of fear mongering. Exactly how do you people deal with the electorate . You frighten seniors, children, minorities with the hyperbole that they will lose all their benefitsand be thrown into the streets Go see what is happening in Europe today, in France and Germany under the leadership of Kerry’s beloved role models Chirac and Schmidt. Their economy is increasingly in shambles, the Socialists in Germany are losing by - election after byelection and those are the bankrupt policies you advocate here. What is the level of unemployment in statist economies and what is it here?
I also don’t understand the allegation that this administratiion is suppressing free speech. How many anti- Bush books have been written in the last four years. Has there been any effort to suppress them? How did Kerry react to an ad that challenged his version of his behaviour in Viet Nam? He unleashed lawyers to try to prevent its proliferation? How did he react when the book questioning him came out? He sought to suppress it. How many demonstrations have you seen carried on by rabid fascist right wingers aimed at suppressing CBS, CNN, ABC et al? How many people in NY rant and raved against FOX and demanded it stop expressing itself.
Howmany black people have achieved the level of prominence under Democratic administrations as opposed to Republican ones. A Supreme Court judge was appointed by Republicans, a Secretary of State snd a National Security Advisor. If this is tokenism it sure beats Ron Brown, Clionton’s Commerce secretary. Where are the blacks in prominent political position under the Democrats?While the Enron scandal broke during Bush’s term, the events leading up to it happened during Clinton’s. Martha Stewart is a democratic supporter and so is / was the chairman of Imclone? ( I don’t remember the name of the company. I’m just a stupid anti- Democrat). How much money did Mcauliffe make from Global Crossings? What was his relationship with the chairman? The economy was already crumbling in the Clinton days. Corporate corruption, tech bubble all of these took place under Clinton. What were the numbers of poor and uninsured under Clinton? Did or did not Kerry vote for free trade? What impact did it have on the exporting of jobs? Did Paul Krugman serve on the board of Enron? Please, you are a group of intellectual miscreants who are out of touch with reality. Please explain to me how you can glorify a participant in a war that you and your ilk imposed? Where are the Democrats on Darfur? You want to work through the UN? You have no soul. You care nothing about the right of individuals to live dignified lives. Your only interest is an abstraction called humanity and by giving humanity priority over individuals you demonstrate that the individual has no value. This is the premise which enabled Stalin to kill 30,0000,000 people while your leftist forbearers sat in silent approval and people like Walter Duranty covered up the crime for the “benefit of
mankind” because Stalin’s intentions are noble. You people celebrate a culture of death, intellectual homoginization, disrespect for the views of others and no tolerance for dissent. If Democrats come to power, they will seek to stifle free speech by suppressing talk radio and Fox News.
How many shows on ABC Radio and Fox News have bioth Liberal and Conservative hosts debating each other . How many on CNN, ABC et al. ?
Kerry lied about Cambodia. His campaign admitted it and this is not fit to print in the newspaper of record? Bush may have served in the National Guard and if his lack of service in Viet Nam makes him unfit for the Presidency as so many of your peers insist, why was there no peep against
Clinton? And when Bob Kerry, a fellow traveller, raised Clinton’s lack of militairy experience, did not John Kerry object and argue that militairy service is not a pre-requisite for the Presidency?
Was U.S. Grant a great soldier? Did this qualify him for the Presidency? Why is Kerry’s campaign suppressing the New Soldier? Why doesn’t Kerry release all his militairy records? His medical records?
Democrats exclaim in rage that Zell Miler was angry? Does being angry preclude telling the truth? How many speeches did Howard Dean and Al Gore and Ted Kennedy ( at least Bush never murdered an innocent passnger in his car) where they begame overwrought and screamed at Bush. Double standards are the hallmark of modern day Democrats, the party of Sen. Byrd, who was a card carrying KKK member. The party of segregation. Your party is no more connected to real liberalism than I am to leftist ideology. You are even ashamed to call youselves liberals because it is only through mendacity that you hope to fool the people.Your party accuses the Republicans of presenting moderates at their convention. Did the Democrats not do the same at their convention, with demands that the anti-Bush rhetoric be minimized. What were Carter and Sharpton if not angry. It is not a coincidence that both these peoiple are moral failures. These are the people that your party puts forth as moderate exemplars. Bitter, power hungry individuals who were incapable of foisting their agendas on the larger populace. President Bush may have been wrong on Iraq, but at least he was trying to build something ( if the war was about oil, he could have invaded Canada. It’s easier)
a vision of a better world. All you people want to do is keep the dependent dependent, the uneducated ignorant and the wealthiest people in the country wealthy.
I read recently that your beloved Mrs. Kerry, using tax loopholes only pays 15% marginal tax rates. She can pay more. No one is forcing her to use loopholes. Is her husband planning on cliosing those loopholes or merely raising taxes on the wrking rich, not the investor class. The ambulence chaser, your party chose as its VP candidate, who exploited his clientele and got rich of other peoples suffering only pays about 10% of his income because he takes it out as a dividend or something ( the arcanea is beyond the intellectual capabilities of someone who is not a
Democrat.)
You accept support from Soros. As a currency speculator, did his wealth gathering activities impact negatively on tens of thousands of working families around the globe, increasing poverty and misery when their economies collapsed?
These are the people that you look to for moral leadership? As Lee Harris said in his book Civilization and its Enemies, you are victims of of a “fantasy ideology”.
John F. Kennedy would be a Republican if were alive today. And no one could blame him.
I’m not editing this piece. Sorry for typos. Chaim Klein
Posted by chaim klein on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:05 AM I have a question for all of you. Would you have been just as upset if we had lost 1000 of our soldiers in 1935 destroying the Nazis?
And you are right if your reaction is that the Islamic Fascists are not the same as the Nazis and obviously not all Islamic people are Fascists.
Not all Germans started out as Nazis.
How many Islamic groups do you hear protesting terrorism. The silence is deafening.
The reason is the loyalty to the religion is greater than loyalty to where they live.
There are more than 10 times the number of people in the Islam religion as there were Germans.
Even if a small percentage follow the evil perversion of this “peaceful” religion, it could be catastrophic in that it will not be contained in a specified country but spread throughout the world.
You have to kill the source of the evil.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Posted by Jay - MN on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:06 AM Stop trying to change the subject. With Bush and Ashcroft in office, our civil rights are in peril. Only John Kerry can save us from the facism of the right.
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:08 AM Hey Garrison Keillor! Nice of you to make that snide remark about Ronald Reagan making movies during WWII.Reagan was also a life guard in his late teens,saved a number of people from drowning. Mr Keillor, in looking for ugliness, you also displayed it. Your exceptional facility with words written and spoken perhaps makes your hatred more palatable.
Posted by david53 on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:12 AM Perry, very good piece, I agree with you!
Steve, Steve, Steve - The military does not award the “V” with Bronze or Silver, it is redundant. I am a Vet and I respect those that were awarded medals, but you gotta admit there are some questions as to the validity of Kerry’s medals. He should release his records and diary rather than counter attack. The truth is – he has gotten himself in a trap. If he admits he was in Cambodia, his own accounts and other records put him somewhere else. If he says he wasn’t in Cambodia, he lied several times in hearings. When you lie or embellish the true, it gets bigger and bigger. He could come out and explain himself and apologize. They did not boo the Clinton announcement – That was the media reporter trying to twist a story – He retracted his statement. I won’t even touch the class item…
Posted by Jack on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:16 AM “Stop trying to change the subject. With Bush and Ashcroft in office, our civil rights are in peril. Only John Kerry can save us from the facism of the right”
Give me one example or save this crap.
Posted by Jay - MN on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:17 AM I am embarrassed that Keillor is from Minnesota.
Please leave the state as we have seen the light and will be going for W this year!
Posted by Jay - MN on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:23 AM When you are gone we are going to change Wobegon to LAKE REAGAN.
Has a nice ring to it.
Posted by Jay - MN on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:26 AM This was a pretty good thread until today. If you read back, there was quite a bit of serious conversation going on, not that anyone was changing hearts and minds, but at least there was an attempt on both sides to discuss the reasons for their positions. I’m disappointed with the general if not total lack of content today.
It’s interesting that those who find Garrison Keillor’s statements the most irritating are so eager to attribute them in their entirety to every person on here who does not wholeheartedly support Bush. Perhaps it is because we’re in the middle of a holiday weekend, and the most well-rounded members of the populace are out having wholesome fun with friends and family.
I know it’s not realistic to expect all you newcomers who joined us today to read back over 20+ long pages of commentary, but it would help. If you did, you would undertand, for example, that far from being wackos and nutjobs, many of us who are opposed to the current administration are solid middle class citizens. A number of us are basically pretty conservative on the fiscal side, and socially lean liberal. This has been translated by some posters as ‘hedonists’, which I discovered today is the party line being touted by Alan Keyes. Nice to know you all are picking right up on your party slogans!
As for myself, I am a middle-aged married woman, born and raised in the upper Midwest. I am college educated, and have been an entrepreneur for my entire adult life. I worked my way through college, and then pursued a number of freelance careers. I have always paid my own way in life, paid my taxes, and been a good citizen in every way. When I was 30, I started a business, which I operated for 16 years. I employed 12 people on average, and paid them above average wages and provided excellent benefits. My reward for this was loyalty, high productivity and low turnover. I eventually sold the business and semi-retired, which in my case meant learning to drive a semi truck and going on the road with my husband to see this great country for nearly a year.
I own a home, give to charity, volunteer, and am involved in my community. I’ve been on the board of directors of several organizations, including Big Brothers/Big Sisters and the League of Women Voters.
I’m only telling you all this so that some of the Repubicans who have felt it was OK to start right off the bat identifying me as the sub-human species you call ‘liberal’ will understand why patience wears thin.
Joining us in this discussion more or less on the liberal side have been a farmer, public heath professional, teacher or two, and many people who have not elected to share any personal information. We’ve also heard from more than one combat veteran.
One thing that strikes me is the lack of comprehension on the part of so many that these are matters for debate and it is appropriate that we have disagreements. That’s the way our system works. Now, I have to tell you that I have a problem with people who imply that nobody should disagree with the Republican Party, and it just floors me when someone like Jim C. would think that his post would be deleted because…well, I don’t know what he could have been thinking. There are over 20 pages here and other than glitches with the server, I don’t think any posts have been lost yet.
It’s been hard cheese for Democrats, knowing that their candidate won the popular vote, but not the office. And surely the party that came out on top can acknowledge that the fact that the winner’s brother was governor of the state that had the most issues with it’s voting procedures; that the secretary of state there was a Bush campaign operative, and that the Supreme Court made an unprecedented decision to intervene - all of these circumstances have made the legitimacy of the Bush presidency weaker than any in recent history. Just as you say that we need to accept that we ‘lost’ the election, you need to accept the real questions about the legitimacy of this administration.
If I were a Republican, and a good politician, I would have made it my mission to try to work with the opposition in every way that I could in order to strengthen my party and the nation. I think I would have realized that my tenure was tenuous, given that over half of the voters had not endorsed my candidacy. This has not occurred. Quite the contrary, in fact. It seems that the President and his extremely partisan supporters are determined to further polarize the people of this country. Say what you will about Kerry, he is not (yet) President. This was part of Bush’s mission over the past 3+ years, and he has failed at it.
After 9/11, everyone was willing to cut Bush a lot of slack, from Democrats in Congress to people like me. But slack wasn’t what was asked. License woud perhaps be a better term. License to completely shut the opposition party out of the governing process of this nation is what was not asked, but taken. Once again, bear in mind that party represents over half the voters. The electoral college does not represent any voters directly, but that does not mean that voters can or should be disregarded as if there was no linkage. That’s just wishful thinking.
It always amuses me to see that Republicans think that it is a good strategy to brand over half the voting population as unpatriotic morons who are incapable of having a single good idea to contribute to the ongoing evolution of this country. It’s laughable. I have come to see that while Republicans tend to stay in their own media loop with Rush and Bill and Fox News, they don’t seem to realize that non-Republicans also partake occasionally, just to see what’s going on with the other half of the country. What do we experience? Insults, insults and more insults on an hourly basis 24/7. You apparently support this, and then you howl with rage when a relatively obscure entertainer from public radio has the nerve to engage in a little name-calling in a book excerpt on an even more obscure liberal magazine web site. This is what he means by cat turds shining in the moonlight.
So, I hope some of the more angry individuals of the right wing persuasion will give what I’ve said a little time to percolate. I’ve traveled many places in this world, and I can guarantee you that we all have far more in common that what divides us. I am deeply committed to peace, and I have the patience and perseverance to keep working for it. I don’t believe our current administration is leading us to peace, but rather into decades of war which will exhaust the world and destroy untold numbers of lives. This belief is based on my observations and research into the background, experience, and public statements of top officials and advisors to this president. I am old enough, and know enough history, to know that we will never have anything resembling peace, security, or economic justice in this world as long as these people are in charge. That is why I’m working for regime change in America.
Please don’t bother telling me that peace is a dream, that people are trying to kill us all, and that I should put a pacifier in my mouth and shut up. You would be wasting your time. I have faith that we can make peace with our enemies. There is no such thing as a war to end all wars, as human history clearly shows. If you don’t think we can do better, then you are probably wearing golf pants.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:32 AM Get Well, Bubba
I think Chrenkoff said it well:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/09/get-well-bubba.html
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:44 AM Oh, and one last thing. I have a very good friend who attended the rally in West Allis. They booed. The media accounts were altered after the fact. My friend was so shocked and appalled by this behavior that he emailed me immediately after the rally.
I’m not saying Bush was responsible, but he did not say a word or make any gesture to stop this disgraceful behavior. That would have demonstrated an ability to lead that would have been out of character.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:53 AM “I’m only telling you all this so that some of the Repubicans who have felt it was OK to start right off the bat identifying me as the sub-human species you call ‘liberal’ will understand why patience wears thin.”
You argue for “regime change”—but you’re offended that someone calls you a liberal? Hmm.
Of course, if the Democratic-dominated Florida SC hadn’t intervened in an unprecedented manner on the side of Al Gore, there would have been no need for the Supreme Court to intervene in the first place.
“I have come to see that while Republicans tend to stay in their own media loop with Rush and Bill and Fox News, they don’t seem to realize that non-Republicans also partake occasionally, just to see what’s going on with the other half of the country.”
My experience is just the opposite: Republicans are more curious about how their opponents are thinking than vice versa. Some liberals literally refuse to read the Weekly Standard. And remember the hissy fit Nation readers put on when the Standard advertised in the magazine? I find conservatives far more tolerant of liberal ideas than vice versa.
Besides, if we only keep to our own kind, then why are we here flooding this pace with comments?
I wonder what Kerry would do to “make peace with our enemies.”
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:53 AM Would both Jay-MN and Steve Miller take a valium and log back on in the morning, please. Both of you have filled our in-boxes over and over this evening with snide one liners that are not in the spirit or the practice of this ten day old blog. Take some time to formulate an intelligent, multi-dimensional response to a series of issues, document your position if you can (with links if possible) and then respond. At least, share more than one thought with us at a time. And “nyah, nyah” is not a thought, just a noise. Just a suggestion. Thanks.
As far as Clinton’s health condition being booed, we had an eye-witness report emailed from someone who was at the Bush rally that appeared earlier today on this blog (a message shared by our Wisconsin friend and my nominee for Lake Wobegon Homecoming Queen, Joanne). Again, an eye-witness account, not one from an AP reporter. Look it up.
And by the way, how many times do newbys to this thread have to be encouraged to read what has come before? IMO, I think there has been a wealth of cogent argumentation—of all political persuasions—shared among us on this blog. I am pleased to have been able to hear from so many different Americans, from all over the country and all over the political map, in the past ten days by reading this thread. (Garrison, I hope you’ve been keeping abreast of the intellectual tornado your article has wrought. Thanks again, BTW.) So, newbys, take some time to read what came before. That way, you can get ten day’s worth of commentary to balance your own comments, rather than us having to hear your opinions based on ten minutes worth of exposure to the blog, repeated ad nauseum.
I want to end my comments this evening reporting on an amazing experience those of us who watched “Meet The Press” had this morning. Pat Buchanan, who no one on the right would call a “liberal”, I don’t think, and many people on the left would call a “xenophobic Nazi”, said that the Arab world hates America not for our ideals or our beliefs, but because of our failed policies and practices, our imperialistic and arrogant continued presence in their countries, our ham-handed implementation of our military activities in and against their countries, our disrespect for their cultures and for the lives of their people. I am only paraphrasing and before writing this, I did look for the actual transcript of his comments and couldn’t find them, because they WERE remarkable. I will try again tomorrow to get the transcript of his actual remarks and post them, because I don’t want to misrepresent his comments.
But when I hear something (anything) that Pat Buchanan and I agree on, it says to me that there are some fundamental truths that transcend political labels. Like peace, liberty and justice for all—something that a rotund conservative Bush voter and I agreed on early in this thread. Kind of reaffirming, in a democratic sort of way. Night, all.
PS Thanks to the poster who said that a link to this article had appeared in National Review today. That explains the strong smell of “crude” oil and industrial-strength hairspray I’ve been noticing all day on the thread.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:00 AM In regard to the Florida courts Clay, they have historically often intervened in Florida elections because they have chronic problems down there with their elections. Gore was entitled to a recount procedure. Read Alan Dershowitz’s book. He’s an experienced constitutional lawyer and he explains the anomaly that this entire case represents in very clear language. Face it. The election was a probem, on it’s face. It does no good to berate Gore for exercising his right to contest the vote and he would have been insane not to do so considering how close it was. What is your point here?
I’m not in charge of the Nation, and I can say with confidence that many, many more liberal readers of The Nation thought it was a hoot that the WS dollars were actually being spent in such a poor ad buy, from a marketing standpoint - which supports your point, but not in the way you intended.
Good question - why are you flooding this place with comments instead of engaging in substantive discussion of real issues? I’m starting to feel like a broken record.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:02 AM A nutty screed, but at least not anti-American like so many of his ilk
Posted by Fred on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:06 AM Bernie, if you are only now learning that Pat Buchanan is anti-war and not a fan of Israel, you’re not as well-informed as you seem to think you are.
Joanne, they didn’t boo. They cheered. AP had to retract their story. Hear it for yourself: http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bloggers-bust-ap-no-booing-at-bush.htm ml
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:10 AM Clay,
Neither Pat nor I said anything about Israel, I don’t think. Which blog are you reading? And given how prone the American right is to warmongering and military misadventures (whether pre-emptive or clandestine) and how much you folks worship the “Might makes right” concept, hearing anything that smacks of restraint, reason and respect for any foreign culture—and most especially Arab culture—from Buchanan was surprising. Maybe all neo-con-derthals don’t think alike. But then I already knew that, because I’ve been here from the beginning. Night (again), ya’ll. Nyah, nyah.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:18 AM Right, Clay. I have a personal friend, who was there, but I’m going to believe that a story that was filed, then withdrawn, then refiled replacing the word “boo” with the word “ooh”, and now there are audio files proving that the AP reporter, who evidently thought the crowd reaction was newsworthy to begin with….was mistaken. And you think I’m naive? LOL
And you expect me to believe that a crowded hall of Republicans, who hate Clinton to this day with an unabated passion, cheered when Bush said he was praying for his speedy recovery? LOL
What a comedian!
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:20 AM I can understand Mr. Keiler’s desperate love for big government; he has, after all, been made rich and famous by a totally redundant public media/leftwing propaganda network, and therefore is dependent for his livelihood on the government being allowed to steal other people’s money and give it to him. So much for altruism. Marx would have a field day with this.
Nonetheless, one would think that being the among he country’s wealthiest welfare cases would give Mr. Keiler ample to time to sit down and actually read the works of, say, Hayek, Burke, Kirk, Freidman, or the other architects of the ideology he despises and about which he clearly knows nothing whatsoever.
He could also, one thinks, to have found the time to mention a few other factors in our present upheavels. Radical Islam, perhaps. The collapse of political and military courage among the intellectual elites of Europe and America. The empirical failure of the statist economic model. Or even the hundred million people slaughtered by leftwing tyranny over the last century. Of course, that might prompt some measure of self-reflection, self-criticism, perhaps even the acknowledgement that one’s ideology is not the sole repository of truth and decency in the world.
Best to just blame the Republicans
Posted by benjamin on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:20 AM Joanne Roush,
And here are two eyewitness accounts which say there was no booing:http://instapundit.com/archives/017600.php
As for me, as I said, I heard it on Brokaw. I heard what Bush said, and I heard the crowd react very positively. NBC had no reason to edit that video, and did not.
I suppose it’s possible that someone in the back booed and it didn’t register on the mike. Or that some ‘oohs’ were registered by your eyewitness as ‘boos’.
But the point is that the overall (by far) reaction was sympathetic and very civil. This fact should not be distorted. There was nothing for Bush to stop.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:26 AM Benjamin, I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we just try to narrow things down a little. How about you tell us how you propose to deal with Radical Islam? We can discuss the collapse of the intellectual elites (I think we may be seeing that embodied by Wolfowitz right now), and the empirical failure of the statist economic model
(and the imperial failure of the Bush economic model we are currently witnessing), later. Then maybe we can do a head count of all the slaughtered innocents over the last 75 years, starting with the death toll attibutabe to the various Fascist movements around the world.If you’d like to season your remarks with self-reflection, self-criticism, etc., I’m sure we’d love to hear that from you. Perhaps your wife could give you a hand with that.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:29 AM “In regard to the Florida courts Clay, they have historically often intervened in Florida elections because they have chronic problems down there with their elections.”
Since you say the problems are chronic, I assume you reject any ideas of a Republican conspiracy to steal the election in 2000, but simply see the problems as just the latest chapter of historical incompetence?
“Gore was entitled to a recount procedure. Read Alan Dershowitz’s book. He’s an experienced constitutional lawyer and he explains the anomaly that this entire case represents in very clear language.”
He’s also a liberal, of course (though an admittedly unpredictable one—pro-Israel and pro-Paula Jones).
“Face it. The election was a probem, on it’s face. It does no good to berate Gore for exercising his right to contest the vote and he would have been insane not to do so considering how close it was. What is your point here?”
My point is that the Dem-dominated FL SC abritrarily changed the certification deadline and didn’t apply consistent standards for counting votes for every county. Also Gore contested the vote in only four counties (belying his rhetoric to “count all the votes”), asking for a manual recount in those Dem leaning counties that would risk letting biased recounters to manufacture votes for their preferred candidate. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:30 AM Joanne,
Here’s a kooky idea: Listen to the audio yourself.
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bloggers-bust t-ap-no-booing-at-bush.html
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:38 AM Accuracyinmedia.com for another view!
I spent the first 27 years of my life in Minnesota and thank God He led me from that Socialist hole. G.K., I thought you were a little bent when I lived there…things haven’t changed much. Hey, if you stick to semi-imaginative humor about the idiotic scandanavians of Lake We-b-gone, I may keep listening, but your political views are pretty scary. By the way, I’m a Democrat who is looking for a good one to vote for, but the Kerry/Edwards ticket is far from good! These guys just won’t save our country and I don’t feel all warm and fuzzy about multi-millionare socialists who say they can relate to me.. the poor white man. Come on, who is Mr. Kerry kidding? President Bush may have money, but I discern he is a lot more in touch with people of all classes and ethnicity. As for Mr. Edwards ...trial lawyers are not exactly the most trustworthy citizens.. but he is supposed to be?!? Oh Btw, the current VP and his ties to a major corp which starts with an H, (I have to use code because of the dark secrective society)..H employs over 40,000 US citizens…thats right over 40,000 American jobs…and the next contractor in line for those big government contracts, Schlumberger, is a French company. Think about that one all you patriots.
What ever happened to the Food For Oil scandal, Sandy Berger’s borrowing documents, etc…hmmm that stuff doesn’t matter!?!
I can see that on this message board I may be in the minority, but I’m going to give the Texan a second term and my wife is right there with me. She’s from Minnesota too! Lib’s and we haven’t even been Hannitized, just can’t stand to see the commander-in-chief get beat up on when we are at war!!! With 85-90% of the U.S. media(self proclaimed anti-Bush) constantly ripping into our President it’s no wonder why he drops in the ratings and the so called “rest of the world” hates him! BTW, 10 out of 10 Islamic terrorists polled say, “Anyone but Bush!”...and not suprisingly the intellectual elite in Hollywood have a similar dislike for W.
Best regards,
TT
Posted by T. Taylor on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:38 AM Clay, it may sound hypocritical to you, but that’s not a sound basis to dispute what I’m telling you. I don’t have the time to lay it out for you in detail, which is necessary to understand what occurred from a constitutional standpoint. If you don’t want to read Dershowitz’s book, don’t trouble yourself, but don’t try to understand the issues based on some theory you’ve pulled out of thin air or the press. They didn’t understand it either, which was a large part of the probem.
Bernie and I have both been clear and polite in asking people to please be open to discuss but to try to acknowledge that they may not have all the answers to everything. I have not tried to dispute opposing points of view without any information, except when I am defending my opinion or questioning the basis for another participant’s views. At least that is what I’ve tried to do.
Do you feel that the election in 2000 was without controversy? Do you have any basis for your opinion that Gore behaved improperly in some manner? Again, read Dershowitz’s book, which includes the legal opinions of numerous conservative legal scholars who were very disturbed by the intervention of SOCUS in this matter and believe it was not only one of the worst decisions ever made, but constitutionally baseless and endangered the credibility of the court for years to come. But don’t take my word for it. Read the book.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:41 AM Bernie said: “...hearing anything that smacks of restraint, reason and respect for any foreign culture—and most especially Arab culture—from Buchanan was surprising. Maybe all neo-con-derthals don’t think alike. But then I already knew that, because I’ve been here from the beginning. Night (again), ya’ll. Nyah, nyah.”
Geez. If you think Pat Buchanan has ever been a neo-con, you really are uninformed! Or is “neo-con” just your dirty word for “con”?
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:42 AM Joanne said: “Bernie and I have both been clear and polite in asking people to please be open to discuss but to try to acknowledge that they may not have all the answers to everything…”
Yep, Bernie’s real polite: “warmongering…you folks worship the ‘Might makes right’ concept, hearing anything that smacks of restraint…neo-con-derthals don’t think alike…Nyah, nyah.”
Here’s a deal: I’ll read Dershowitz if you’ll listen to the link to the Bush speech I provided. It’s maybe 15 seconds long. It won’t hurt.
Posted by Clay Waters on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:46 AM Hey, Margo, send me a postcard from New Zeland.
I’ll post it next to that one Alex Balwin sent from Paris.
Posted by Stephen Umscheid on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:47 AM Joanne,
It is possible that a few people in the audience said or did something other than applause. That is wrong – the overwhelming majority of all Americans do not wish anyone ill and that includes Clinton. The story made it sound like it was an overwhelming boo. The reporter did retract his statement. The story could have said that a few idiots (which I don’t normal go for calling people names) booed and Bush did not appear to correct them. We shouldn’t forget it was Bush’s words respecting and offering his prayers.
There has been too much name calling and attacks, but I see that primarily from the Kerry camp. I recommend that everyone read the transcripts of today’s radio address. Does Bush attack Kerry – does he mention his name? Does Kerry attack Bush – does he twist figures and figures of speech (better, bigger, warmed-over policies, new direction). He paints this picture that the majority of us are on the street. Making people believe they are on the street will not put food on the table and his plans are vague and general. He goes after / twists Bush’s statement that he wanted to study a national sales tax vs. reduced income tax. What Bush said in his speech on Thursday was, simplify the tax laws / codes (flat tax).
Peace – You need to understand the history and background of the Arabs and Muslims in the middle-east. There is a large population of illiterate people being guided by the religious hardliners that want us dead. This is nothing new – This was the way it was when I was in the NAVY (1981-1986). I was in the Persian Gulf and saw the writing on the walls saying death to America. This situation has festered for years and came to a head on 9/11. I firmly believe that President Bush is doing the right thing and it will allow for a longer-term peace. Look at France; they didn’t support the Iraq War. The Muslims have said that they will not be satisfied until we are all Muslim or dead. There will not be peace until the Muslim leaders denounce violence of any kind. What would Kerry do? He now says that he would do many things different. It’s great to be a Monday quarterback, but his actions and history would support something totally different.
Posted by Jack on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:55 AM Gee I only left Minnesota coz it was too cold for me. Wow I didn’t realize it was such a socialist hole. I am sure glad you adn your wife are safe somewhere else. I gotta go back and get my son outa there coz he is a Rad Con and he must be about to explode by now.
I do have one other question for you T. Taylor and that is where did you arrive at the 85-90% figure for the press being anti Bush? It’s just an honest question I have. I don’t need a Zell Miller reaction just some idea of where you got the figures from.
Thanks
Posted by Lyle Shargent on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:59 AM Gore - I invented the Internet - The world is coming to an end
I remember the “D” going to Florida telling voters that they really didn’t vote that way - they meant to vote for Gore. That people weren’t responsible enough to read the instructions and if they thought there was a problem with there ballot to go the monitor, right there. No one did…. Unfortunely, we have to rely on the averages for these systems.
Posted by Jack on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:09 AM I’m having a heck of a fun time watching you lithium-deprived liberals implode.
You’re all pretty much like John Kerry. He puffs out his chest and in false bravado yells “Bring it on!”. And then, when it is “brought on”, he starts whining like a 12 year old girl whose mom won’t let her go to the mall until she finishes cleaning her room. (Whaaaa…..make them stop. Those Swift Boat Vets are being mean to me….Whaaaaa!
He’s going to lose, and so are you.
Quit blaming your problems on George Bush. It’s not the President’s job to give you a problem-free life. It’s not the government’s purpose to insulate you from the realities of life. If you want to blame someone, blame yourself, losers! That’s why the Democratic party is the party of people who can’t take responsibility for themselves.
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:13 AM “This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger.”
Thank you, Mr. Keillor. First, for giving me the best laugh I’ve had in weeks. Secondly, for proving you are a funny man. I’d never seen any evidence of it before.
By the way, when we sub-human Republicans whup your French-looking combat vet’s tail in November, you have our permission to get angry. In fact, we encourage it.
Losers
Posted by Stephen M. St. Onge on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:41 AM Okay, look…
On September 11 2001 the first thing I thought after learning of the terrorist attacks on America was “man, it’s a good thing Al Gore isn’t president right now.” Because like many Americans I was thoroughly apathetic about the 2000 election, and felt that both candidates were poor choices and that one wouldn’t really differ from the other.
In fact, the first time I ever really sat down and listened to a George W Bush speech was that very evening. I was unimpressed with him personally but at least, I felt, he and the party to which he belonged would pursue a course of action both justifiable and pursuant to the best interests of America and its people. When American forces toppled the Taliban, a radical government that openly instigated the conflict, I felt we were being led down the right path. Taking out the power base of the terror organization responsible for attacking us and undermining their network infrastructure seemed a sound strategy.
But somewhere along the line the pursuit of justice and the attempt to bring peace and security to America (and, ostensibly, the world) has been tragically derailed and perverted. The blatant and repeated lies by every major Bush administration official concerning the justification for attacking Iraq, saddling the country with an additional $131+ Billion, have absolutely exceeded every single disgrace ever committed by a president in office or his administration. Yes, Bill Clinton was cavalier and unprofessional and a disgrace to his office. Yes, president Reagan supported clandestine efforts to topple foreign governments and pioneered a “drugs-for-guns” program, and armed the very same radical militant muslims who would one day take responsibility for toppling the world trade center. You’ve got Nixon and the Watergate fiasco. None of them have ever lied to the American people and so callously used the lives of Americans as disposable tools to carve out new Spheres of Influence to grant massively pork-bellied contracts to corrupt and connected corporations. Never before have we seen such massive manipulation of the media, such brazen feats of electioneering as happened in Flordia in 2000, the use of fear as a political tool on a scale never before imagined.
Americans are bombarded with ‘scare tactics’ on a daily basis - the color-coded Terror Warning System, news of possible security breaches and vague warnings based on out-of-date intelligence, and the brutal assault of Neocon rhetoric that assails us from so many media outlets and is repeated and repeated until you forget where you heard it from, you just ‘know’ that Saddam Hussein was pursuing the development of “nukular” weapons.
Which is a nice segue into one of my major, personal gripes with President Bush. This guy is allegedly a college graduate, yet he comes off on TV as a 13-year-old white trash trailer park bully in a man’s body, unsure of how to conduct himself and operating on a very childlike sense of right and wrong. He makes grammatical errors that would warrant a failing grade in a seventh grade class on a regular basis. When confronted with difficult questions he freezes up and puts on the most bewildered expression I’ve ever seen on a president. It’s like we’ve got Nelson from the Simpsons sitting in the oval office running the most powerful nation in the world.
Unfortunatley, there are just legions and legions of Americans out there who want to be led around like sheep and for whom the safety and comfort of a leader who is blunt and combative and who panders to their need for security even though he has may not have any intention of acting in the interest of their security. The truth is that there is a vast number of people out there who are perfectly content to be ignorant and be deceived so long as they FEEL safe and secure.
I do not and never will understand who anyone can in good conscience, vote for a man so clearly unqualified for the most powerful electable position in the world, who has pursued the most aggressive campaign of deceit and misdirection EVER waged against the American people, who has launched the first “preemptive” war in American history at tremendous expense to the United States and in the same act greatly reduced our standing on the world stage, as George W Bush. I fear that the majority of Americans are simply ignorant of the situation of the world and the nation today, and that they vote based on the minimal amount of information with the heavy dose of spin that you receive from the news media these days. The real question is, how far is the envelope going to be pushed? Would a second term of George Bush see book burnings and Newspeak and Victory Gin and a new Krystallnacht targeted at muslim Americans? Or will America wake up and realize the extent of the manipulation and the fearmongering going on, and take back control of its government?
Here’s hoping for the latter. I urge everybody in the strongest possible terms to get out there and vote and Re-Defeat Bush in November!
Posted by John_B on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:52 AM Garrison,
‘The Tollerude’s New Baby’ and similar vignettes are wonderful. Your politics aren’t.
You have the right to think and say what you wish, but don’t expect me to take your views as anything more than one liberal’s musings just because you tell wonderful stories.
Sorry.Bob Harper
Posted by Bob Harper on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:02 AM I just want to thank Garrison Keillor. It is a noble thing to speak out when it means risking losing some of your customers/audience. I hope this article makes it beyond the choir to newspapers and magazines where it might awaken some of those who have been taken in by the hype!
It made me cry, but I also was heartened to see it written so clearly, what I feel so strongly.
Posted by Judith on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:10 AM You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs—victory in spite of all terrors—victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
—Winston Churchill to the House of Commons, May 13, 1940
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to the Nation, December 8, 1941
We must do all we can to spare her from the ravages of any future breach of the peace. That is why, though the United States wants no territory or profit or selfish advantage out of this war, we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete protection of our interests and of world peace….—Harry S. Truman, Radio Address to the Nation, August 9, 1945.
Please don’t bother telling me that peace is a dream, that people are trying to kill us all, and that I should put a pacifier in my mouth and shut up. You would be wasting your time. I have faith that we can make peace with our enemies. There is no such thing as a war to end all wars, as human history clearly shows. If you don’t think we can do better, then you are probably wearing golf pants.—Joanne Roush immediately prior to conjuring a squeaky fart.
Posted by Gurn Blanstone on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:25 AM “I have a very good friend who attended the rally in West Allis. They booed. The media accounts were altered after the fact.”
A friend in Canada had e-mailed me this: “Have been reading about Bill Clinton and came across these lines –
President George W Bush, campaigning in Wisconsin, wished Clinton “best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery.” “He’s is in our thoughts and prayers,” Bush said. Bush’s audience of thousands booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.”
I turned on the news and saw bush at the rally giving best wishes…and cut…it was the same on every channel. I guess you have to be in Canada to get the full picture of what’s going on here.
Posted by Judith on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:32 AM Astounding, Fantastic…..
This is the best bit of satire yet…...
Posted by Kirk on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:44 AM Ohhh. Ohhhh! Grasping, reaching, flowerly, moaning, wallowing, ohhhh, Garrison!
Your weakness is, well, not exactly inspiring, but it is so… commiserating!
How dare they—ohhh—how dare does anyone—have the naked balls o’presumption to do anything but roll complacently in self-absorbed adjectives?
Ohhh those Republicans and that Bush with all their talk of action in this time of great feeling. They must be stopped and so must the perpetrators of 9/11 and both in the same way… softly.
Soft and gentle. Faux-learned self-aggrandizing words of descriptive power. That’s the ticket, sure!
Garrison, you rule the Earth. No, really!
Posted by TrueTrue on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:51 AM Garrison is getting pathetically shrill. I stopped listening to him about six months ago - Couldn’t take the whining. Its sad to tell an old man to grow up.
Posted by Christopher on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:02 AM Ah, the ironies of an elitist homegrown Democrat.
Liberals are becoming ever more desperate as it becomes apparent that their ideas are not widely accepted among the electorate. And so, they tell us that democracy itself is under seige. Why? Because democratic institutions are not producing the ends they find desirable.
We are told that we are sheep, but instead of being inspired to follow no one, we are told: “don’t follow them, follow us”. Why? Because the Democratic Party represents my true need for more officious, distant government. Because I’m stupid for not being on some form of welfare, even though I don’t know it. In other words, I have a “false consciousness” about political reality, and Keillor is here to wake me up.
Where is Keillor’s substantive proof that the welfare state did what it intended to do? It’s as if Keillor has been living in a cave for the past 30 years, or he is a cheap intellectual bigot, deliberately unaware of the mass of research on the deleterious unintended consequences of indiscriminate state action on behalf of our “Christian obligation toward the poor”.
Posted by arbaba on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:42 AM After reading this, the thought occurred to me that the sadness I feel about the notion that this country appears very, very ready to re-elect George Bush is akin to shaking one’s head in utter now-what-did-he-want-to-do-that-for disbelief upon hearing the news that someone shot himself in the head.
Posted by patrick on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:48 AM Will no one answer my question? What night is “Joey” on? The TV supplement did not come with the Sunday paper and I do not get the daily paper. While Joey was not my favorite on Friends, I’m still interested in seeing what the show is about. I hear it has the girl from the Sopranos on it. Unless I miss my guess, that’s a real NY accent. Nothing against that though. Ha. Ha. I’m not much into those CSI shows though. Too bloody. Anyone out there like Survivor? The ads say there will be a real twist this year. Chuck
Posted by Chuck on Sep 6, 2004 at 12:45 PM Some numbers on political control since 1960 when Eisenhower left office:
Presidency - Republicans 24 years, Democrats 20 years
House - Democrats 34 years, Republicans 10 years
Senate - Democrats 36 years, Republicans 8 years
So tell me again, why everything is the fault of the Republicans????
Posted by pilsener on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:26 PM Keilor mentions the “Christian obligation towards the poor”.
Excuse me, but speaking as a Christian, I think you need to know that Christian charity is a PRIVATE matter, not one for the government to concern itself with.
And what about a HUMAN obligation towards the innocent unborn children that are vacumed from the wombs of their mothers by the hundreds on a daily basis in this country. In what way specifically does ardent support of infanticide make the liberal agenda a righteous one?
Posted by Scottt on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:30 PM Mr. Keillor, if you want to see real hatred, denigration, abuse, and slander, look in the mirror while reading your own article. Giving free vent to your inner demons of partisan hatred may have been satisfying to you in some primal chest-thumping sort of way, but it also laid naked the bilious core of a man who became famous (and very rich) painting himself in the traditional virtues and morality of Midwestern America. Your cry for civility while heaping such hate on others over mere political differences, even stooping to deriding your opponents as sub-human, exposes you for the holier-than-thou hypocrite that you are. If you are truly bothered by hatred, start by recognizing and curbing your own.
Posted by Wil on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:34 PM > So tell me again, why everything is the fault of the Republicans????
Because they never swallowed the progressive’s new deal hook, line and sinker like a Minnesota lunker.Because without someone to blame the left would have to look in the mirror at their own failed policies.
Because the republicans have been an easy target. The left appeals to greed, avarice, prejudice, and class divisions. They blame poverty, disease, pestilence, war and even their own dialectic dualities on the right. Then they head for the hills when reality begins to creep into their worldview and never discover the real truth content of their own allegations. Republicans, on the other hand, are cur dogs when it comes to real cause and effect. They get hold of a concept and work it until there’s no meat left on the bone and they’ve digested the whole thing. The left tosses them more bones. It’s a vicious cycle.
The way republicans can break the cycle is to refute without emotion. This is most important. Deny the left the capacity to irritate you and you force them to respond reasonability or withdraw. Usually they do the latter.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:48 PM Back to you, Clay - I have listened to the audio and viewed the video, so now you have your reading assignment for the week. I think you’ll actually like Dershowitz’s book. My final word on the booing, and I’m not going to address this again: I could point you to many web sites where amateurs have edited video, photos, and audio in ways unflattering to Bush. They’re funny, sometimes, but AP doesn’t post stories on them. Again, I have a personal relationship with an individual who was there. He did not read it in the paper or see it on the news. In fact, he was outraged and emailed me saying his next action was to search to see if the media would even cover that aspect of the event. I will concede that the crowd was not unanimous in their behavior - when that happens we should be really concerned, eh? I don’t remember which poster tut-tutted about how no Republican wishes ill upon Bill Clinton. That is the most absurd statement. Republicans have wished ill on Bill Clinton for 15 years, right up until today, and have included his wife and daughter in their unseemly and often inexcuasble personal attacks.
Let me tell you something. I’ve been an observer, and a voter only, since the end of the Viet Nam war and Nixon’s resignation. That’s the last time I was politically active. I think there’s plenty of tar and feathers to go around on both political parties. But I am not one of the 37% of people in this country who think everything is hunky-dory and going in the right direction. In fact, I have concluded that this country is so alarmingly off track that it’s time to jump in again.
Jack, I respect your service in the military. I have not travelled to the Middle East, but I have travelled to several European capitals and have seen anti-American graffitti every time I’ve stepped off the beaten tourist path, and even in many places frequented by tourists. There are extremists everywhere, malcontents on every block. But I think it is very dangerous and even a little paranoid to think that all Muslims share these extremist sentiments. Even Bush has cautioned us against such attitudes, to his credit. And I don’t think that we can expect the leaders of any other nations or groups to forswear violence when we continue to rely so heavily upon it to solve everything from our domestic crises to our international relations. From the battering spouse, to the schoolyard bully, to discussions at the top levels of our government as to whether we need honor the Geneva Conventions, we exhibit violent pathologies that frighten our neighbors and convince them beyond anything we say that we are very dangerous people. Sorry if that sounds like Blame America First. I don’t blame America for the ills of the world, but I do reaize that we are not blameless either.
War provides a convenient escape from personal responsibility for one’s attitudes and beliefs. When the nation, or the world, is at war, there is a tacit understanding shared by otherwise sane people that certain brutalities are to be expected and accepted. That is the dangerous spiral in which we find ourselves. Chris Hedges discusses this in depth in his book, ‘War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning’. I recommend it highly to everyone on all sides of the issues being discussed here.
Finally, to Gurn Blanstone - thank you for proving my point perfectly. Every quote implies that victory will mean peace, but history shows that not to be the case. I am an optimist. I believe we can do better by searching with every fiber of our beings for alternatives to violent resolution of conflict. Increased sophistication of weaponry has not brought us peace, though the expenditures have been enormous. Read up on the miitary/industrial complex which so concerned Eisenhower that his last major speech warned us of what was coming.
Oh, alright, one last thing. I have to laugh when I read someone here accusing Garrison Keillor of sucking on the government teat and getting wealthy. I’d hazard a guess that his show is a net contributor to the fortunes of NPR, which probably will gall you all the more. The man works for a living after all. He’s by no means on welfare. I’d like every person who posts here to have the guts to honestly tell the rest of us what they do for a living. Since the federal and state governments combined are a bigger employer than Walmart, I would propose that a large percentage of you are in fact sucking on the government teat. I personally have no probem with that. I am willing to pay taxes for services that I think my government can provide in a more efficient manner than the private sector. And before you launch off on that with a rant, read my earlier posts about my history as a small business owner. If you are not one, please don’t start in on me.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 1:52 PM > I personally have no probem with that. I am willing to pay taxes for services that I think my government can provide in a more efficient manner than the private sector.
In services for which there are both governmental and private actors, name ONE instance where the government alternative is performed more efficiently than the private alternative.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:04 PM Brooks, you are the laziest man! Why don’t you name examples where the private sector is more efficient. You have consistently refused to do any real heavy lifting and frankly, I’m not responding to you anymore. Maybe someone else will play with you today.
Here is a post to my personal email account, which should have been sent here for discussion and comment. My reply is at the top as this is copied directly from my email. As a courtesy to this creep, I have deleted his email address. This reminded me of nothing more than a crank call when I found it in my mailbox.
________________From: JOANNE ROUSH Date: Mon Sep 6, 2004 8:25:53 AM US/Central
Subject: Re: Regarding G. van den BoschFirst of all, did you post this reply on the board? I don’t have time to look right now, but if you post it there I will provide my usual intelligent response. And shame on you if you’re using a pseudonym. And shame on you for making fun of my name, Frank. What was the point of adding “-san” to the end? Please explain yourself publicly if you’re so confident of your beliefs.
That’s Ms. Roush to you.
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, at 11:37 PM, S -Bh- wrote:http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article_rss/were_not_in_lake_wobegon_an nymore/P280/
“I have read your list twice and have tried to see how these things would lead you to support President Bush. The Republican Party does not seem to me to be offering anything you seem to be looking for in your life. I’ve been watching them develop their platform for the convention. Have you had time to catch any of this on CSpan? I don’t expect you to change your mind, and it was brave of you to reveal so much of yourself, but I still don’t get it. What are the Republicans offering you that makes you want to keep them in power?”
Roush-san,
Far be it for me to speak for van den Bosch, but as a former liberal myself, perhaps I can make a reasonable speculation? It’s not so much the platform of the party at the moment, rather than making a stand, and voting with like minded people, that’s important. The hope would be, that sooner rather than later, the platform of the party will conform better to the core’s beliefs.
As it is, there are inherent problems with any democratic system. Here in Canada, a political party can form a majority government with about 35% of the popular vote because there have been five major parties splitting the votes the past few elections (until this year’s). In the two-party system of the US, each party must try and appeal to the one other major party’s voters, so neither party can be ideologically pure, or totally reflect the worldview of the base of it’s party.
Personally, I’d rather live in a federated system, where power is spead out, and local politics have a big say. Both liberals and conservatives can co-exist. The price would be that “progressives” - both left-wing and right-wing - would become extinct. Socialists of all major parties have been pushing for centralization of power, and that is a dangerous thing for us in general, regardless of the circumstances that lead to these encroachments in the first place.
Yours,
The Frank Talker_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=103 34&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:10 PM Joanne,
You made the assertion; I just challenged you to back it up. Did I not say two minutes ago that when people respond reasonably to the left they usually withdraw? Are you paying attention Joanne? Get out of your head girl. Happy Labor Day. Later man.RE:
Brooks, you are the laziest man! Why don’t you name examples where the
private sector is more efficient. You have consistently refused to do any
real heavy lifting and frankly, I’m not responding to you anymore.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:17 PM Thank you Garrison Keillor,you made my day!!!!! VOTE KERRY!
Posted by william hanley on Sep 6, 2004 at 2:59 PM Garrison is one of my favorite authors…..however becoming a whining liberal does not become him. I’m afraid he’s going to lose his intellectual vitality when Kerry loses. Or, after reading this perhaps it’s already gone.
Posted by Wallace on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:08 PM My dear friends of the Left. If I might make a suggestion, you would be better served by a little more reading and a little less ranting.
Are you really interested in understanding the conservative movement that has taken hold of so much of the Republican Party? Perhaps it might be useful to listen in on the way they understand themselves and the history that they have helped to form. If you have the imagination and courage to willingly suspend the Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that so often substitute for honest thought and seeking on your side of things (conservatives have their own, very different, intellectual shortcuts), and just listen to your “enemies,” I believe you will be surprised.
You may still despise and oppose us but you will be so much more effective at it because you will know what makes us tick. You will know what our goals are, you will be able to see where compromise is possible and where our principles are so at odds that compromise would be betrayal of your own ultimate personal commitments.
As I see it, your only alternative is to continue, along with Mssrs. Keillor and Moore, raving blindly and ineffectually against a caricature; hardly a picture of hope.
For those who would learn the history and mind of the conservative movement from the inside, let me recommend three books: 1)The Conservative Revolution by Lee Edwards, 2)The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George H. Nash, and 3)The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order 1964-1980 by Steven Hayward.
Read. Read and think. Open your minds. Allow yourself to ask questions. For example: Is there some intrinsic reason why word-based media (book publishing, talk radio) should be so conservative while image-based media (movies, television, popular music) should be so overwhelmingly liberal?
As for Mr. Keillor, if I might be so bold, perhaps you should also reread Dante or at least find an editor who has. It would make it easier for me to cling to my silly prejudiced view of you and all liberals as “embittered academics” if you cited sources more accurately.
Incidentally, I quite enjoy your radio show. Though I don’t make any special effort to tune in, it is always a pleasant surprise when I find myself in the car at the right time on Saturday.
Posted by Rob Corzine on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:23 PM Garrison, it’s a pity, a darn shame. But you’ve lost all sense of responsibility. You were an important figure that many people admired for your insight, imagination, humor, and sense of what is fair. Now it seems that you are just a bitter, myopic, old leftie who wants to keep his head under the covers. Denial is not going to make the world safer. Appeasement is not going to make the world safer. Standing up for the true priniciples of liberty for all (the world’s people) is the only way to make this world safer. Please wake up! Put your bitter, petty back stabbing of America aside! Be part of the solution!
Posted by BillW on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:51 PM Hello,
I posted a rather extensive number of reflections on the coming election on page 16 of this forum. I want to thank Bernie for his kind words regarding some of my points.
Basically, as I explained in my piece, I started out as undecided, but am now leaning toward Kerry. That might change.
My reasoning, as explained in the piece, is based on various contingencies related to how many of the industrialized democracies can eventually be brought round to join us proactively in the war with Al Qaeda. Thus, if the picture with respect to the number of industrialized democracies joining this struggle were to change significantly, I might take a second look at Bush.
The preceding paragraph is a rather crude summary of thoughts developed at some length by yours truly, one who may still be open to further persuasion on one side or the other.
I’m sorry that only a Kerry supporter responded to my thoughts so far, because I am honestly interested in any thoughts from the other side of the political divide concerning my reflections on page 16.
Please, if anyone who is possibly leaning toward Bush, or who has definitely made up his mind for Bush, or who is still undecided altogether, as I was once and may be again, would turn to page 16 on this forum and plough through what I wrote (it comes to approximately five printed pages as hard copy <ducking>), I’d be very grateful.
Just a few words, if I may, to Joanne Roush. Honestly, I saw the clip of Bush’s remarks on Clinton’s hospitalization on Friday on the afternoon news (either CNN or MSNBC, wish I could remember which), practically the very hour after the rally at West Allis(sp.?) took place. There was pretty normal applause after his Get-Well line, and I heard no booing. Mind you, it cut away after about four or five seconds, so there may have been some booing after the cut-away.
It was after that that I read, here on this forum, the troubling report from your friend. I was immediately puzzled since I had heard no booing on the Friday afternoon newscast. I wrote to my brother, who works at NBC news, and who arguably takes a dimmer view of Bush than I do! I told him what I had heard on the Friday newscast, and I told him of your friend’s disturbing report.
My brother indicated that he might be able to take a look at NBC’s raw footage some time Monday (today).
The clip Clay has directed us to seems to stop off at about the same point that it did in the Friday afternoon newscast I saw. So that doesn’t answer the question as to whether or not there may not have been a relatively slow groundswell of booing after that point. Usually, though, booing tends to be from the gut and immediate (I’ve attended enough opera performances, so I should know;-).
My own hunch is that there was some booing in one area of the “hall”, but that it was not general enough to be picked up on mike. That may mean it was not general enough for anyone on the dais, President Bush included, to hear it either. That being so, perhaps the President had no way of stopping it if he did not hear it.
As I say, just a hunch. We’ll see what my brother finds out. Even if he should not come across any booing, it may not necessarily mean there was none. But it may mean that we can let President Bush off the hook, if it seems possible that he heard none of it after all, since the mikes “heard” none either.
Again, as one who is leaning toward Kerry, I’d just like to say I am genuinely interested in hearing from anyone who has not made up his mind yet or who is leaning towards Bush. Please, if you have the time, I’d be sincerely grateful if you might peruse the roughly-five-page posting on Page 16 and get back with any comments.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 6, 2004 at 3:57 PM Garrison-
Such eloquent name calling. You could have taught Spiro Agnew’s writers a thing or two. You fell short of deifying Mr. Moore - perhaps that will come in a future installment. Isn’t it amazing how “gifted” we are at identifying bigotry and greedy promotion of self-interest in those with whom we disagree? And of course, “I’m not a bigot” is the first sentence issued by the most confirmed of the intolerant.
Some things will probably never change. I’ll still enjoy Lake Wobegon where all the children are ‘above average’- like the readership.Be well.
RPG
Posted by RPG on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:01 PM Bravo, Garrison!
This should be on the editorial page of every honest newspaper in the country, but we all know better, don’t we? Just where WERE the electronic and print media prior to the 2000 election, when Bush was merely one of many candidates competing for the nomination? Why weren’t they screaming, collectively, “Are you KIDDING?”, or the equivalent of “The Emperor has no clothes!” Now, to our great misfortune, he IS the Emperor, and acts accordingly.
How many times has a variation of the word “terror” been used to frighten gullible Americans? George Orwell’s “1984” should be required reading!
Tell the same lie often enough and soon it’ll be believed by gullible people who are now convinced that we can be saved from the terrorists under our beds only by Big Brother Bush!
And all this coming from a swaggering zealot, who was probably the least qualified candidate for the Presidency in my lifetime. He, who wraps himself in the flag, who wears assorted bits of various military garb, who delights in referring to himself as our Commander-In-Chief, but doesn’t have what it takes to honorably complete his own term of military service, just because he knew he didn’t have to. There has always been somebody around to sweep-up after him. He has people to heap filth on his opponents, using them to trash John McCain in South Carolina, Max Cleland in Georgia, and now to question John Kerry’s accomplishments in Viet Nam. After which, he, like Miss Piggy, stands back and innocently says, “Moi?”
We should remember the words of Samuel Johnson, who reminded us, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Posted by Phil Werntz on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:35 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Garrison Keillor
- A Foul Tragedy
Democrats fled in the face of danger - We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
