Democrats & Liberals Archives

Open Letter to KOS

KOS (of DailyKOS), you run the most prolific liberal blog website on the Internet. I read it almost daily and sometimes I post an article on the site. You did a terrific job pumping up the various campaigns for the past mid-term elections. There were times when you revived my optimism that Democrats would win. You deserve a lot of credit for the Democratic victory. However, the campaign is over. It’s time to switch from a negative campaign mode to a positive promotion mode.

Here is what you said about Lieberman yesterday:

So I fully expect him to jump to the dark side. It's what his voters want, it's what his financiers want, it's what his strategists want. You get elected with Republican voters, money and advice, you sort of end up indebted to the other side.

I know you hate what Lieberman did, and you hate the fact that he won. But the campaign is over and Lieberman is part of the Democratic caucus. It's time to stop criticizing Lieberman or any other Democrat who does not agree with you on everything. If you must criticize, criticize Republicans. Better still, do not criticize anyone. Use your blog to promote Democratic values.

I'm not holding a brief for Lieberman. Like you, I thought beating Lieberman with Lamont would be a good thing. I was wrong. You were wrong. We could have used all that money and effort devoted to tearing down Lieberman, to building up other Democratic candidates and perhaps we would have won one or 2 more seats.

At any rate, Lieberman is in and we must deal with the situation as it is.

When Democrats were out of power, we needed to provide lots of criticism. This is normal. This is healthy. Now that Democrats are in power, the other side, the Republicans, are set to criticize us. Our job is to come up with solutions to problems people have - so that Republican criticisms fall flat.

That's the Democratic task now. You, I and other liberal bloggers must now devote our energy to promoting and advancing the Democratic legislative agenda.

Stop campaigning. Stop criticizing. Drop the vinegar. Substitute honey. Start promoting the Democratic agenda that serves the needs of all of us, not just those of the elite and rich. Start building a foundation to enable a Democratic candidate to become president in 2008.

Posted by Paul Siegel at November 15, 2006 4:59 PM
Comments
Comment #195223

Kos should listen to John Murtha, who has announced that the Democrats should be obeyed even when what they propose, in his view, is “total crap.”

Of course, now that Democrats are going to be held to greater ethics scrutiny, Murtha himself may not be around for long.

Harry Reid is now being fingered by Abramoff.

Nancy Pelosi’s choice to head the intelligence commitee is a former judge who was impeached for bribery.

Talk about a culture of corruption. “Dropping the vinegar” and “substituting honey” is still not going to help Kos or anyone else sweeten this turd. Why shouldn’t they fight, argue, and backstab? It’s what they do best, after all.

The Democratic house of cards is already falling apart and they haven’t even assumed power yet.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 15, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #195225

To here some one who is from either side of the spectrum say:

[It’s time to stop criticizing]

is an amazing thing brother.

For too long we have dwindle politics down to childish ‘nit-picking’. I agree it is time we started looking at solving the problems Americans have rather than pointing fingers at those who try and fail. Pointing fingers may get a person out of office, but it still leaves the problem ‘not-fixed’.

So I applaud you on not only believing, but also promoting what I consider REAL politics. The politics that our fonding fathers created in an attempt to give the people the opportunity to live free of Tyranny and oppression.

So if no other Libertarian/Republican has ever shown support for your beliefs, then I am honored to be the first.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 15, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #195233

Well, Paul, it is complicated.

KOS represents the liberal, netroots wing of the Democratic party. Lieberman has spent the past years voting to impeach Clinton, making numerous appearances on FAUX News, yukking it up with Sean Hannity, and supporting Bush on Iraq. He lost the primary, yet bolted the party and ran anyway, defeating a KOS candidate in the process.

Having said that, as a purely practical matter, the Dems need Lieberman to protect their Senate majority. He is liberal on social issues.

So I agree with you. Time to bury the knives, and let bygones be bygones- for now. When the time comes, we will go after Lieberman again.

Neo-con Pilsner,
Murtha said the fact that there was even a need for such a thing as an “ethics law” was “total crap.” It was not a repudiation of ethics.

But he is at risk for all that pork. He has a lot of company.

And Reid could be among a handful of Democrats tainted by Abramoff. If so, he will join the dozens of Republicans implicated.

If Murtha or Reid are guilty, they will pay the price. Liberals will insist the Democrats throw those guys under the bus. Corruption is intolerable.

And that, Neo-con Pilsner, is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will not stand for corruption. Conservatives thrive in a corrupt culture because it is consistent with the philosophical principles of conservatism. It is a problem inherent in corporatism, and inherent in business; when free of governmental regulation and oversight, the profit motive knows no restraints.

Posted by: phx8 at November 15, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #195244

phx8

“And that, Neo-con Pilsner, is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will not stand for corruption. Conservatives thrive in a corrupt culture because it is consistent with the philosophical principles of conservatism. It is a problem inherent in corporatism, and inherent in business; when free of governmental regulation and oversight, the profit motive knows no restraints.”

That’s pretty funny.

Can you show me any facts to back that up.

Posted by: Keith at November 15, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #195250

Keith,
You must be kidding. Read a history book. Read about “corporatism” or the Savings and Loan debacle after deregulation, or the Great Depression, or why an American president once said “the business of America is business.” Or, simply open your eyes and look around.

“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words — will save not only Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.”
From “Wall Street”

The speech is ficitonal, but based upon a commencement speech by Ivan Boesky, and upon other speeches by Carl Icahn.

“… that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.”

Only a conservative would be capable of seeing the US government as a corporation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 15, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #195264

Neo Con - Personally, I am not inclined to believe
things coming from places were the sun don’t shine, until I see the Feds, start legal action
against Democrats or Republicans. I would love to
have positive discussions on how to better resolve
the problems confronting both parties at this time
of strife, and uneasiness of the past few years.
I know we can all be more positive an help America,
grow in a more civilized direction.

Posted by: -DAVID- at November 15, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #195272

phx8,

“Conservatives thrive in a corrupt culture because it is consistent with the philosophical principles of conservatism.”

this is absolutely ridiculous. an expansive government is just as prone to corruption as a minimalist one. going too far in either direction is a mistake.

i, for one, certainly support heavy regulations on large corporations. rights are for individuals, not for massive conglomerates.
conservatives propose that the best government is the one which is smallest, least instrusive - and yet functionality is of the utmost imortance. you sound smart enough - do i really have to explain this to you?

“Liberals will not stand for corruption.”

really? i guess they usually take it sitting down (like murtha).

Posted by: Diogenes at November 15, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #195282

I think they should remain in negative mode, toward the crap the Democrats are saying and doing. When the candidate for a major leadership role, Murtha, says ethics reform is crap, but, he will go along because Pelosi wants it, Daily Kos should stay on the negative to avoid partisan hypocrisy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 15, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #195283
And that, Neo-con Pilsner, is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will not stand for corruption.

Really? And how does that square with Harry Reid, who has refused to even answer questions about shady real estate deals, leading the Senate? And this was even before we found about his involvement with Abramoff.

Why is Pelosi so set on making sure that a former judge who was impeached for bribery heads the intelligence committee?

How is William Jefferson, the Democratic congressman with his freezer stuffed with cash, doing these days?

One might also ask why Pelosi herself saw to it that WestStart-CALSTART, who gave thousands of dollars to Pelosi-associated political action groups and who sent one of her advisors on a $4,475 trip to Spain and Germany, issued a press release thanking Pelosi for her help in getting them 3 million dollars of federal money.

The Democrats not standing for corruption? Hardly.

It would be more accurate to say that they’re falling all over each other to get their snouts in the trough.

Don’t be fooled. I’m sure that there are plenty of honest Democratic Congressmen out there. But almost the entire LEADERSHIP is not only tainted but hopelessly corrupt.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 15, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #195288

Neo-con: “The Democratic house of cards is already falling apart and they haven’t even assumed power yet”. Is that the neo-con version of “Keep hope alive,Keep hope alive”

Apologies but you seemed to have missed the point of the election. This country faces serious issues. It is a time for serious debate among serious people. The days of Rovian jingoism is done. If you cannot keep up perhaps a new hobby would help.

Posted by: BillS at November 15, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #195290

BillS, dissent is patriotic. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, stop trying to smash dissent, stop trying to villify your enemies, etc, etc.

You know the routine.

Your side has been playing that tune for six years now. But win ONE election, and suddenly the tune changes to the “The people have spoken,” let’s sit around and engage in “serious debate”—which means one thing, Republican capitulation and signing up for a Democratic agenda.

But sorry, those who have never been capable of or willing to engage in serious debate before don’t get to call the tune we dance to now.

If Democrats want serious debate, fine. Let’s have it. And let’s pay heed to the “point of this election” and flush out the corrupt politicians, including the entire Democratic leadership.

But back to Daily Kos, the far-left Democratic activist who has a cozy little thing going where he writes positive articles about politicians, some of whom give him and his associates fat checks for so-called political “consulting.” Blogging for dollars? Looks that way to me.

Just how deep does the rot go in the liberal establishment?

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 15, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #195292

PHX8:

Blue Horseshoe loves Blue Star Airlines.

I think Lieberman will be very interesting to watch. He has no loyalties to the Democratic Party anymore. They abandoned him.

Lieberman is truly free to vote his conscious, he doesn’t have to fear from party reprisals anymore, he actually beat the system and came out on top.

You may disagree with him on the war, but I thought this election was about shedding party loyalties. At least that is what all the Democrats in Illinois were running on. They all said they will stand for what is right, not for what the party always says.

And that is exactly what Lieberman did.

Posted by: RedStapler at November 15, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #195295

Diogenes,
“Conservatives propose that the best government is the one which is smallest, least instrusive…”

That is true. It is usually considered a basic tenet of conservatism. The problem is that favoring small government contradicts another basic tenet of conservatism: the rejection of regulation, the glorification of the pursuit of profit, and the advocacy of capitalism. As Reagan said, government itself is the problem. Where a liberal sees government as a tool to be used for the common good, a conservative sees government as an impediment to personal freedom; and the pursuit of personal freedom allows satisfaction of greed at the expense of the common good.

If you “support heavy regulations on large corporations (and that) rights are for individuals, not for massive conglomerates,”
then you not a traditional conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Neo-con Pilsner,
The corruption of an individual Democrat like Jefferson is despicable. However, when his corruption was revealed, Jefferson was roundly condemned by KOS and liberals in general. He lost his positions of power in Congress, and lost his bid for re-election.

Yet his example represents the venality of an individual, not the corruption of a political philosophy.

When examples of corruption of Republican conservatives have come to light, the corruption has been endemic. It reflects a systemic corruption. Instead of condemning the corruption, Republicans and conservatives have been nearly silent, even when faced with the most egregious ethical violations.

The K Street Project continues.

Is Reid corrupt? Pelosi? Then their days are numbered. KOS and the liberals will not stay on board. It is out of the question. Liberals are philosophically motivated to see government used as a tool for the common good. Accepting Lieberman back into the Democratic fold is tough to swallow, but that does not constitute hypocrisy; it is a recognition of a very unpleasant political necessity, so as Paul suggests in his article, it is best bury the hatchet for now.

But the hatchet is ready should Democratic political leaders prove guilty. If the Democrats cannot keep it clean, the liberals will be gone.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #195301

Paul:
“It’s time to switch from a negative campaign mode to a positive promotion mode.”

Paul, I can’t agree. Promotion isn’t the job of a Liberal Netroots blogger. In fact, Markos’ (and the other writers at Kos’) job, and ours, is to keep up the pressure on our party to actually DO well, not merely promote well. After all, is that not one of the most detestable things about the Neocons — that all they and their followers ever do is promote themselves, even while everything they’ve done has been a complete disaster?
No, since it is very clear that we have no mainstream media interested in telling the truth in favor of cozily sucking up to power (in order to keep/gain better access), honest internet bloggers and independent investigative journalists airing sincere viewpoints and demanding honesty and integrity from politicians is vitally important.

IMO, the power of internet punditry is strong, and will only grow with time. And while most of us wish for it to work for the collective good of our party and our country, clearly it can also bring us bad, terrible, and evil things as well. As recently demonstrated by the pathetic 39 year-old Free Republic blogger who sent fake anthrax letters to high profile Liberals. This nut still lived at home with his parents and spent a good part of his time on rightwing blogs talking violent trash about liberals and displaying his hero worship for the deranged likes of Coulter, Malkin, and Ingraham (who might now be thought of as The Weird Sisters of the GOP) to the point where he began taking their fascistic and violent rhetoric as a personal call to arms.

With Freepers out there like this nut being purposefully whipped into a frenzy by all these hatemeisters, Kos being brutally honest in opinions directed toward Democratic leadership really seems like the last thing we should be worried about.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #195302

Paul:
“It’s time to switch from a negative campaign mode to a positive promotion mode.”

Paul, I can’t agree. Promotion isn’t the job of a Liberal Netroots blogger. In fact, Markos’ (and the other writers at Kos’) job, and ours, is to keep up the pressure on our party to actually DO well, not merely promote well. After all, is that not one of the most detestable things about the Neocons — that all they and their followers ever do is promote themselves, even while everything they’ve done has been a complete disaster?
No, since it is very clear that we have no mainstream media interested in telling the truth in favor of cozily sucking up to power (in order to keep/gain better access), honest internet bloggers and independent investigative journalists airing sincere viewpoints and demanding honesty and integrity from politicians is vitally important.

IMO, the power of internet punditry is strong, and will only grow with time. And while most of us wish for it to work for the collective good of our party and our country, clearly it can also bring us bad, terrible, and evil things as well. As recently demonstrated by the pathetic 39 year-old Free Republic blogger who sent fake anthrax letters to high profile Liberals. This nut still lived at home with his parents and spent a good part of his time on rightwing blogs talking violent trash about liberals and displaying his hero worship for the deranged likes of Coulter, Malkin, and Ingraham (who might now be thought of as The Weird Sisters of the GOP) to the point where he began taking their fascistic and violent rhetoric as a personal call to arms.

With Freepers out there like this nut being purposefully whipped into a frenzy by all these hatemeisters, Kos being brutally honest in opinions directed toward Democratic leadership really seems like the last thing we should be worried about.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #195304

Ahhh,Neo-con,Again you have missed the whole point of the article. Try this.” There is a fresh wind blowing in Wasington. Lets hope it helps to bring us back together as a nation.We are stronger when united. If the Democrats,working with the Republicans succeed is adressing our pressing problems then my country succeeds. If they fail then my country fails.I have grave doubts but I wish them the best for all our sakes.”

This is opposed to atack, attack, attack and hope something sticks.Do you really think millions of dollars spent investigating Whitewater ad nausium made our country stronger? Swift boating will not work any longer. It took a too long but Americans have wised up.
Sure lets stop corruption. When the new leadership introduces the ethics bill how about your party going them one better? For example ,it is expected that the new bill will call for a two year waiting period before a retired congressman can go to work for a lobbyist. Have your reps introduce an amendment making it five years and include working for a defense contractor.
Lets discuss public financeing of campaigns or contribution limits that actually work. Maybe we can find some common ground there. Broadcasters lease the airwaves. Maybe part of the lease agreement could involve giving air time to qualified candidates. The reason we see so many attack adds is because that delivers the most bang for the buck. If the buck was not a factor we might even get intelligent policy discussions. These are just some examples of how we might work together. There are plenty more. How about the best way to get to oil independance from the middle east. As you know our addiction is financeing the terrorist we are fighting. We can come together and accomplish much but instead what we get attack,attack, attack.Interesting happening about attack adds. Americans have seen so many of them that a great many just tune them out. They have become less affective. You are not helping your Party or your country. Of course you have that right but the American people also have the right to ignore you.

Posted by: BillS at November 16, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #195306

phx8,

thanks for the lesson. i did not require it, but thanks anyway, you provocateur. it is amusing that you would define a conservative in this manner; no wonder you view conservatives with such antagonism and disdain.

seriously though, you believe that?
…’cuz it is common knowledge that all liberals that ever existed were for infinitely increasing the size and role of government. the big-brother state is just the beginning for a liberal. if you are not a communist, then you are not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

now, doesn’t that sound silly?

being conservative doesn’t mean i’m insane. you try what works. what doesn’t work (or fails miserably), you change. try it sometime.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 16, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #195307

“you try what works….”

…you get the gist of it…

Posted by: Diogenes at November 16, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #195309

…and again, rights are for individuals…not corporate entities. or are the two deserving the same status, in your estimation? perhaps you should consult your constitution.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 16, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #195311

one more, and i’ll let this go for the night (barring any insulting statements, in your behalf).

qualifying your previous opprobrious description which you extended to *all* conservatives by appending the modifier ‘traditional,’ does not lessen the the impact of your original description… but i’ll tell you what;

i believe in defending the rights guaranteed us by the constition (that includes guns), yet i also believe in regulating such amoral entities as corporations, which are not explicitly granted these same rights, therein; and yet i believe in severely limiting the federal government in favor of states’ rights…(all this, as well as a plethora of other sometimes conflicting ideas…)

…so, you tell me. what am i?

some kind of confused or hybrid, non-corruption-loving conservative? or is it inconsistent with your own philosophical liberal principles that such a thing could exist?

‘night.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 16, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #195314


I believe that states should have hardly any rights. States rights gave us the Civil War. States rights gave us George Bush in 2000.

Posted by: jlw at November 16, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #195318

jlw,

Just because you believe states should have “hardly any rights”, doesn’t make it so. Read the Constitution if you get a chance. It may enlighten you.
The 10th amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

keith

Posted by: keith at November 16, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #195320
Like you, I thought beating Lieberman with Lamont would be a good thing. I was wrong. You were wrong. We could have used all that money and effort devoted to tearing down Lieberman, to building up other Democratic candidates and perhaps we would have won one or 2 more seats.

I don’t think Lamont supporters need to beat themselves up. It wasn’t really a missed opportunity. Lamont basically paid his own way. Even if he were willing to spend the same amount of money on a couple of other candidates, it would have been illegal to give it to them directly.

In hindsight, I’m sure the GOP leaders wish they could have spent their money a little differently.

One scenario I read a couple of places after Lamont won the primary (notably from Michael Barone) was that the Lamont supporters were going lose the House for the Democrats because they were going to increase Republican turnout in Connecticut. As we now know, not only did the Dems take the House by a comfortable margin, but we gained two House seats in Connecticut.

I think the whole “Lieberman unchained” theory (to coin a phrase) is pretty overblown too. He was hardly a loyal little soldier before the election, either.

What I am saying here is that with people trying so hard to blame you for things, you don’t really need to beat yourselves up.

Neo-Con Pilsner,

It is mostly the people from your side who are now calling for civility and bipartisanship. Which makes sense, since they don’t have the votes…

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2006 8:18 AM
Comment #195339

Bush calls for bipartisanship (does he actually know the meaning of that terminology?), yet tries to stuff 5 judicial nominations already rejected, down our throats…bipartisanship would mean working together to arrive at mutually agreeable nominees who would be presented and then voted into office…somehow the man thinks bipartisanship is us voting “yes” on his every proposal…”working together” is NOT is Bush’s vocabulary!

Posted by: Lynne at November 16, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #195352

jlw

10th Amendment

phx8

As an American conservative I believe in dispersed markets over central planning, authority being located as close as possible to responsibility and staying out of people’s business as much as possible. That means that I tolerate inequality and do not have a problem with some people getting rich, as long as the markets are functioning within the rule of law. It does not mean I glorify profits or inequality, I just think they are unavoidable and - within reason - beneficial.

Fredrich Hayek defined the free market broadly to include societies where prices contain infromation that bureaucratic socialism would obscure. If prices contain information, it follows that you will have profit and inequality as people act on it.

Conservatives also understand that an ideal society is not possible and that most utopian reforms lead to unhappiness and often serious bloodshed. There is a certain randomness in life that cannot be overcome by planning and people certainly are not perfectable.

The liberals have won the war of words. They manage to call anyone they do not like conservative. When the ex-communists in E. Europe faced the admirers of Ronald Reagan, the news media called the commies conservatives. Revolutionary socialist regimes, such as Nazis, who wanted to change almost everything in society and run it from the top, were called conservatives. The casual use of the term might be the source of your confusion. Maybe we just need a new term. The continum in the U.S. runs more or less from lighter government to heavier government types. It is complicated by the influence of traditional religion, which makes it a 3D diagram.

Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #195354

Paul,

A sincere congratulations on the idea of rolling up your sleeves and actually trying to get something done within your Democratic Party. I predict your frustration in this regard will only grow however.

Subject: Irony in today’s headlines


Dow Jones hits record high:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061114/D8LD36IG3.html

Inflation drops by record amount:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/D8LCSCI02.html

U.S. unemployment rate falls to 5-1/2 yr low
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-11- 03T134528Z_01_N02314481_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-US-INSTANT.xml&src=instant

Dean Outlines Agenda for a New Direction
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=16603

Posted by: NobleNation at November 16, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #195376

jlw-

“I believe that states should have hardly any rights. States rights gave us the Civil War. States rights gave us George Bush in 2000.”

So you don’t believe in the constitution? Our system of government is based on the idea of federalism.

And just because that system happened to produce an election result you didn’t like is not good enough reason to do away with it. Federalism, which you blindly bash (and not even a good reason…would you rather the federal government was in control of all vote counting? Talk about leaving room for corruption), has fostered the greatest and fastest advancement of a civilization in recorded history. Your willingness to cut it loose for one mostly unrelated and selfish reason (2000 election recount) provides a perfect example of why the framers never wanted popular democracy, but instead sought to insulate government from the unresearched whims of public opinion.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 16, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #195392

Jack:

“As an American conservative I believe in dispersed markets over central planning…”

I really don’t think you’re giving the central planning of our corporate-run government enough credit. It has been doing a stellar job of planning for the plutocracy, the investment classes, and the Defense contractors. What’s even more remarkable is that the powers that be have convinced the great unwashed that it’s free marketism at it’s finest—‘natural, unvarnished and inevitable.’ This, IMO, is great planning.

Unless, of course, you work for a living, and have made some “poor choices” regarding the economic Darwinianism that has run rampant these past 25 years— namely, that you don’t have a stock portfolio and a house in the Hamptons.

“Here’s your pink slip. Try night school.”

…authority being located as close as possible to responsibility and staying out of people’s business as much as possible.

Uh hunh. Iraq, New Orleans, Medicare doughnut hole, nine trillion dollar debt along with a $600 billion trade deficit, zero—as in ZERO moves towards energy independence, total denial of climatic global changes, signing statements, thumbing nose at transparency of government in a cloud of paranoid hubris… well, you get the idea.

Staying out of people’s business? Two words. Terri Schiavo.

“That means that I tolerate inequality and do not have a problem with some people getting rich, as long as the markets are functioning within the rule of law.”

The people in charge now, (whom, I would assume, you would agree are conservatives—or at least more conservative than libertarian) don’t tolerate inequality. They celebrate it. As Ted Turner says, and I’m sure the Bushites would agree, money is a great way to keep track of who’s winning. Thus the increasing poverty and enourmous gap between the haves and the have nots.

…and do not have a problem with some people getting rich, as long as the markets are functioning within the rule of law.

This statement is pretty funny. Two points. When you’re conservative buddies are dismantling government with cronyism, incompetence and out-and-out corruption,slicing and dicing what’s left of any kind of oversight any federal agency has, who do you think is keeping an eye “on the markets” to make sure “they are functioning within the rule of law”, hmm? And who do you think is concocting these laws to begin with, Jack? You and me, and the great unwashed? As the neo-cons and their patron saint Leo Strauss have emphasized, democracy is much too serious a business [sic] to be left to the people. The morons.

“Fredrich Hayek defined the free market broadly to include societies where prices contain information that bureaucratic socialism would obscure.”

Obviously, Mr. Hayek hasn’t witnessed the obscuring of information that monopolistic capitalism affords. As an example, say, oh… oil.

“Conservatives also understand that an ideal society is not possible …”

This is absolututely true, Jack, and the best part of this realization by conservatives? It absolves them of even trying to ameliorate the apparent vicissitudes their caveman economic policies.

“If prices contain information, it follows that you will have profit and inequality as people act on it. “

Boy, ain’t that the truth! Most of this aforesaid price ‘information’ is of the “we-got-you-by-the-balls-now-give-us-your-cash” variety. Virtually every industry worthy of the name has had a dwindling of competition and governmental oversight. It was all accomplished by central planning—not by gray, overweight apparatchiks who vacation on the Black Sea to be sure, but rather by Gucci-loafered corporate raiders and profiteers with their Congressional lapdogs and go-fers in tow, who vacation on the Riviera or some remote island in Indonesia. Because it’s trendy.

“There is a certain randomness in life that cannot be overcome by planning and people certainly are not perfectable. “

These obvious assertions on your part are a perfect cover for the status quo, and indeed that is what conservatism is. We got ours, now everybody else, please, sit down and shut up. (Oh, and don’t forget night school. Even though we refuse to pay for it by cutting student loans and education.) Conservatism obscures, obfuscates, diddles, obstructs, drags its feet, denies, retracts, rescinds, dawdles, stands still, backslides, and generally wishes that everything would just stop—so it could be yesterday. All in the name of greed.

“The liberals have won the war of words. “

Too bad it’s not about a war of words. This is a war for a fair and decent society that includes everybody. As FDR said, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” I think it is obvious that the Bush administration and conservatives in general, are failing that test.

As a general observation about the efficacy of either small or large government, I am reminded of the scene in the “Witches of Eastwick”, when, in their conjuring of a lover, the Cher/Sarandon/Pfeiffer triumverate were discussing whether to make him well-endowed or not, and they couldn’t agree. Cher said, “Well, let’s just get one that works.” I don’t care whether government is large or small: I want one that works. For all of us.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 16, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #195418


Tim: Great job.

Kind of reminds me of the latest from Faux News. Faux made a terrible assumption. They assumed that all of their employees were politically immoral and without news integrity. Their internal memo on how to manipulate the news, what their talking heads were to say, when and how to say it was exposed by one of their employees.

Posted by: jlw at November 16, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #195421

jlw-

re: faux news memo

I hear that many more memos will be forthcoming in the near future. I, personally, cannot wait to find out just how much of their “news” was delivered straight from John Moody’s head.

Seriously though, was there anyone surprised by this “revelation”? Also, does anyone know where I can find a study that was supposedly done that compares people’s knowledge of facts relating to current events and the correlations to what news channel they claim to watch? Supposedly, and not surprisingly, those who mentioned FoxNews as their primary source rated lowest. I’d love to read that study if anyone can find it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 16, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #195527

—Tim Crow— An Exceptionally good Post -DAVID-

-

Posted by: DAVID at November 17, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #195529

-Paul Siegel- After six years, I would be a very angry
person if the Democratic party fell to all these
naysayers. I say, give Nancy Pelosi an Company at
least six months to get a foot hold, an then we
should give them a grade card(hopefully not the
sort kids get from school)Then we can begin our
helpful input.

Posted by: DAVID at November 17, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #195550

Ah yes the eternal struggle between those who want the government to make everything right (or at least try) and those who want the government to stay out of the way while a free market economy makes everything right. Lets face it. The government cannot possibly make things fair. On the other hand, the people in charge of free market economies (CEOs) don’t care about fairness unless it will increase the size of their pocketbooks and retirement accounts. Since neither extreme works, we must work to find common ground. I suggest greater tax breaks for charitable giving or volunteer activity. There is a place for government in making sure things are fair but it is not the sole arbiter of equality.

Posted by: Silima at November 18, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #195584

Paul Siegel,

It will be impossible for someone like Kos to drop the hateful rhetoric for several reasons. First, he is simply a mean spirited and vicious person. Second, the Democrats can never try any of the crack-pot liberal schemes he favors and expect to maintain the majority. Third, even if they somehow tried, they would fail and then he would have to blame the evil, monopoly capitalist Republicans.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 18, 2006 2:01 PM
Post a comment