• comment on a post David Plouffe Speaks To The Grassroots over 6 years ago

    I'm a bit disturbed at how his hold has weakened recently in CO and OR.

    I'd like to know who the "you" in this "movement" is and what it's a movement for.  I keep hearing "it's about you" but I don't know what that means.  About you what?

  • comment on a post Al Gore story bogus? over 7 years ago

    "This is actually a frequent habit among journalists--putting words in the mouth of Democrats."

    Reuters is British.  They do that everyone.

    Gore has been giving these non-commital statements for over a year now, I think: "I don't expect to run" or whatever, which has always meant the same thing to me - he'll run if he feels the wind at his back.  That's us.  What are we doing?  Not a lot.

    Gore can't run without active grassroots support, because he knows the usual suspects don't support him (even the ones that used to).  Without heavy netroots and grassroots activism, he's on his own.  He's waiting for the groundswell, and if it doesn't come, he's not running.  So far, he isn't seeing it (he's not blind).

    I'm constantly being barraged by "Draft Obama" mail from a list I did not sign up for.  I see you have photos of lots of people with lots of Obama signs.  

    Have we done or seen any of that for Gore?  (It's no good if I do it here in London - how 'bout you?)

    Basically, it's Sadie Hawkins Day for Gore - he's waiting for the voters to ask him to the dance; he can't go unless we ask.

  • Why is "protectionism" is supposed to be a bad thing?

    Seriously, we used to have protectionism and a healthy economy.  Also, our being protectionist increased the likelihood that in other countries, their workers would try to act to improve their own working conditions (especially in Mexico).

    So why is it bad?  Is this like "liberal" - they just convinced us it's a bad thing to be called?

  • ..."protectionism" is supposed to be a bad thing?

    Seriously, we used to have protectionism and a healthy economy.  Also, our being protectionist increased the likelihood that in other countries, their workers would try to act to improve their own working conditions (especially in Mexico).

    So why is it bad?  Is this like "liberal" - they just convinced us it's a bad thing to be called?

  • It's progressives versus reactionaries, same as it ever was.  

    It crossed generations then, and it does now.  Then we had teenagers, young adults, people in their 30s, people in their 60s.  As we do today.

  • comment on a post Mitt Romney Buys Clear Channel over 7 years ago

    And that's on top of the other news today, about Clear Channel killing their progressive station (which carries Air America) in favor of an all-sports station.

    They know progressive radio is hurting them and are doing what they can to kill them.  And liberals with money, as far as I can tell, are doing precious little to support AAR, which is a terrible, terrible mistake.

    We should be buying radio stations instead of just sitting on the sidelines and watching them suck up all our air.

  • comment on a post Richard Nixon versus Joe Lieberman over 7 years ago

    It wouldn't be so bad except that Nixon was actually better than Lieberman on domestic policies.

    I can't believe I just said something nice-ish about Richard Nixon.

    As for Lamont - he proved that Lieberman can't speak for Democrats, and that's good enough for me.

  • If I were a male president, I think I'd look forward to getting a blow-job in the Oval office.  But I still wouldn't call people hymies (or kikes) or niggers or wops or whatever, because that would actually be bad.

  • comment on a post Is Lieberman Really a Tragic Figure? over 7 years ago

    He was backed by the Republicans, who really wanted to get rid of their own Lowell Weicker because he was too liberal for them.  

    Weicker was a good man and a good Senator but with the backing of people like William F. Buckley, Lieberman could beat him - and did.  

    He's dancing with those that brung him.

  • But that's one of the things about having principles - you keep having them even when you know that some of the people who share them are assholes.

    I could be a liberal or I could be a misanthrope, but if I want to be part of the human race I just have to accept that there is no one among us who isn't a jackass about something, and sometimes we are jackasses about lots of things, but liberalism is still something you can do and be right.

  • The sad part is that if they'd left the "a" out it would be a whole lot better:

    "Vote Democratic for change."

    Not brilliant, but at least it doesn't sound like, "Why don't you stop kicking me for a change?"

  • It'd be better if

    "Vote Democrats.  
    For a change."

    didn't suggest that the audience was presumed never to do so.

  • People believe what liberals say.  The trouble is that there aren't any in the DLC.

  • They can't really defend their policies as policies, since moving to the right is a shit-stupid idea.

    So they are trying to defend their positions in terms of electability.  "We're doing this to win elections" does make more sense than "We're doing this to undercut liberalism and betray the American people."

    See?

  • on a comment on Snake-Oil Antisemitism over 8 years ago

    Although I believe Grand Moff Texan is mistaken in his belief that Juan Cole was the victim of Israel-firsters rather than just part of an attack on someone who is a critic of George Bush (they are more appropriately called Bush-worshippers; not sure Israel really matters one way or the other to them), this error is not anti-semitism.  I cannot tell from the post whether Grand Moff Texan is an anti-semite, but there is certainly nothing anti-semitic about assuming that people who appear to support a Likudnik view are doing so because they really are Israel-firsters.

    Richard Carlucci's point is one I usually hear from Jews, so I don't think it can be based in anti-semitism.  I know quite a number of Jews (mostly American, but a few Brits and several Israelis), and almost none of them would disagree with what Carlucci wrote.  It is hard for me to discern where you find the anti-semitism in these posts.

    FYI, I was born and raised in the United States, spent most of my life just barely outside the Beltway, went to a Jewish school in upstate New York where I was taught and cared for by Holocaust survivors and their families, and only moved to England when I was 33.  But I've been here long enough to know that the criticisms of Israel from the left are criticisms of policy, and not anti-semitism.  

    Since most people assume, because of the way I look, that I am Jewish, I think I'd have some awareness of that.

    The only people who have subjected me to anti-semitism in this country have been on the far right.  Of course, most of them had swastikas tattooed on their knuckles.  The American anti-semitism I've been exposed to back home is usually more polite and subtle, but still hard tro miss.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads