To some, the modern American right-wing looks intellectually moribund. Steve Hayward thinks there’s some truth to that, but also powerful minds working on serious issues; people like . . . Jonah Goldberg. The idea that Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism represents one of the peaks of right-of-center political thinking is, I think, a more damning indictment than anything any liberal could possibly come up with.
- David Neiwert on Liberal Fascism:
Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.
The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.
Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."
And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate. ... .... ....
On Saturday, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) discussed the direction of the GOP in an address to the Republican Northeast Conference in Newport, RI. McCotter, who serves as the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the House, chided conservative “ideologues” for controlling the party. McCotter explained that these individuals want to “purge” opponents “all the time…because they’re nuts.” He then clarified that his remarks were directed at radical conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):
MCCOTTER: If the Republican Party wants to become its own antithesis, which is an ideological party, we’re going to continue to have these problems. Remember, ideologues, there’s a reason why they purge all the time — it’s because they’re nuts. Hope the ideologues weren’t listening. If, however, as I said before, we understand that we represent constituencies and America is a vast country full of a variety of opinions and peoples, way of life, then we will get where we need to go. As for the attitude of the Senator from South Carolina that it is better to have fewer friends than more, that’s easier to say in South Carolina than Detroit.Watch it:
Before Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) left the Republican Party, DeMint told a blogger that Specter “cut our knees from under us” and informed Specter personally that he would be supporting his far-right primary opponent. DeMint also told the same right-wing blogger that conservatives in the Senate need to aggressively “go after” other GOP moderates Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
- Steve Benen adds:
Keep in mind, there are a handful of House Republicans one might consider relative "moderates," but McCotter isn't one of them. His voting record puts him in the middle of the House GOP caucus -- which makes him pretty darn conservative.
And even he's lamenting the "ideologues" running his party, and "nuts" like Jim DeMint.
If this starts to generate some media attention, it'll be interesting to see if (and how) McCotter walks this back.
I gotta admit, I didn’t see this coming:DougJ: Speaking my language
Conservative Bible Project From Conservapedia Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:You just can not make this shit up.
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity * lack of precision in modern language * translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one. Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.
Apocalypse talk is catching on!
And on Monday, John Weaver, McCain’s closest political adviser for much of the past decade, said that he was nearly certain that the former governor would never be the Republican nominee and added that, if she was, “it would surely mean a political apocalypse is upon us.”Steve Schmidt goes with the more moderate “catastrophic” in describing a possible Palin nomination.
Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic here, but a Palin presidency and the end of the world are inextricably linked in my mind.
Update. Can you think of some clever word or phrase combining “apocalypse” with the words “Sarah Palin” or words associated with Sarah Palin? You guys are good at this stuff.
- from the comments: Nobody expects the Palin Presidential Rapture.
Benen: JINDAL DECLARES THE END OF THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE...
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who fashions himself something of a health care policy wonk, had an odd op-ed in the Washington Post today, arguing that the debate over reform is over. At first, I was delighted -- I thought Jindal was prepared to concede that Democrats had won.Slajda (TPM): Obama: Those 'Most Supportive' Of Reform Are Doctors And Nurses
Alas, he made the opposite case. "[M]emo to Washington: The debate on health care has moved on," Jindal wrote. "Democratic plans for a government takeover are passe. The people don't want it. Believe the polls, the town halls, the voters."
This line of thinking might make Jindal feel better, but his understanding of public opinion is shaky, at best. Indeed, if policymakers should be expected to listen to the polls and the voters, the public option would be the single most popular health care reform measure in Washington right now.
For that matter, consider this chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation, released last week. What it's research showed was that national support for reform -- far from being "passe" -- improved in September. A majority want reform passed now, and believe the country would be better off if reform proposals become law. As Kevin Drum noted the other day, "Republicans took their best shot at sinking healthcare reform over August, but it turns out that public support for their position was sort of a like a convention bounce: sharp but short-lived. "
What's more, Chris Good reminds us that the polls also show that "Americans think Obama has better ideas on health care than Republicans in Congress: the NY Times/CBS poll showed Obama beating congressional Republicans 52-27 on that question, which probably means the Democratic Party's 'Party of No' attack on the GOP is sticking."
Memo to Jindal: The debate on health care hasn't gone as well as you think it has.
Surrounded by about 150 doctors in white lab coats in the Rose Garden today, President Obama continued his push for health care reform, thanking the doctors for their support.
"What's most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very professionals who know the health care system the best, the doctors and nurses of America," Obama said.
The doctors came from all 50 states and many represented groups, such as Doctors for America, that are campaigning for health reform by writing letters and speaking at town hall meetings. Obama thanked them for that work.
"I want to thank every single doctor who's here, and I especially want to thank you for agreeing to fan out across the country and make the case for why reform is so desperately needed," he said. "Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do."
The doctors broke into applause when he said he wanted doctors to have more time to spend with patients, when he said he was working to get loan forgiveness for doctors who practice in under-served areas, and again when he mentioned fixing the "flawed sustainable growth rate" used to pay for medical services under Medicare. They also cheered when Obama said reform would help doctors stick to the Hippocratic oath.
"Every one of you here today took an oath when you entered the medical profession. It was not an oath that you would spend a lot of time on the phone with insurance companies. It was not an oath that you would have to turn away patients you know could use your help," he said, "and not devote your lives to being bean counters, or paper pushers. You took an oath so you could help people. You did it so you can save lives."
He did not mention the public option.
He did, however, rail against some of his opponents. "We've heard all the arguments on both sides of the aisle," he said. "From the crazy claims about 'death panels' to misleading warnings about a government takeover of the health care system."
- kos But one thing is for sure, despite our era of short-attention span politics, I have no intention on forgetting these health care votes. While I've long been tolerant of Democrats' needs to represent their districts, even if it occasionally contradicts party orthodoxy, health care cuts to the very core of what it means to be a Democrat. And those Democrats who are more concerned with insurance company profits than they are about regular people have fundamentally betrayed what it means to be a Democrat. There is no justification whatsoever for abandoning people in need for monied interests. None.
Ezra Klein: What Betsy McCaughey Knows
Michelle Cottle's take down of professional health-care policy liar Betsy McCaughey is deservedly vicious and unabashedly welcome. In particular, there's something sweet about the profile appearing in the New Republic, the magazine which first published McCaughey's deceptions in 1993 and thus launched her to stardom.
Those of you who are unfamiliar with McCaughey probably aren't unfamiliar with her many, many lies. In 1994, she published the influential article "No Exit," which claimed that Clinton's health-care plan would not allow you to purchase health-care services with your own money. This was debunked in one of the first provisions of the bill, which read, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services.” This year, she's famous for providing the base deceptions that led to the "death panel" nonsense, and for seeding talk radio with the idea that the stimulus bill would put your doctor under the control of the newly-created Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That office turned out to be a George W. Bush creation.
Few deserve to be skewered like McCaughey. In that sense, Cottle's piece is like "Inglourious Basterds" for the health wonk set. But McCaughey is not now, and arguably never was, the point. She was discredited many years ago. Conservative policy wonks like Stuart Butler and Gail Wilensky are no kinder to her deceptions than liberals like Henry Aaron and James Fallows. No editor in the country has an excuse for being unaware that she is a fraud. Yet she keeps getting published, and promoted, and her lies keep finding their target. Why?
The answer, basically, is that McCaughey is useful. She's useful to the New York Post and Fox News and Sarah Palin. She's among the best in the business at the Big Lie: not the dull claim that health-care reform will slightly increase the deficit or trim Medicare Advantage benefits, but the claim that it will result in Death Panels that decide the fate of the elderly, or a new model of medical ethics in which the lives of the old are sacrificed for the good of the young, or a government agency that will review the actions of every doctor. McCaughey isn't just a liar. She's an exciting liar.
That's not very helpful in the policy debate, but it's very useful in the media debate. It's useful first for the conservative outlets who promote it and use it to confirm their audience's biases and make their listeners feel like they're getting the inside scoop, and then for the mainstream outlets-- my paper among them, and my blog among them -- that "cover the controversy," that report on Chuck Grassley talking about "pulling the plug on grandma" and run fact-checks and reaction stories in response to Sarah Palin's looniest claims. McCaughey might be something of a uniquely deceptive individual, but she's taking advantage of a structural weakness in the system. She's figured out the media's thermal exhaust port, and pointed it out to everyone else. And she won't be the last to use it.
Benen: GOP LEADERS TIRE OF STEELE'S 'POLICY' WORK....
In July, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele hosted a press conference to bash health care reform, and effectively read a strategy memo from Alex Castellanos. When asked by reporters about substantive details, Steele declared, "I don't do policy."Kurtz (TPM): Unhinged
The problem, of course, is that Steele tries to do policy all the time, which has proven problematic. For one thing, he doesn't know what he's talking about. For another, he's not in a policymaking position, and can't pursue a substantive agenda, even if he wanted to.
Apparently, leading Republican officials, who actually have policy responsibilities, are getting a little tired of Steele's antics.
GOP leaders, in a private meeting last month, delivered a blunt and at times heated message to RNC Chairman Michael Steele: quit meddling in policy.The comments reportedly came by way of Boehner, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and John Thune. In other words, pretty much the entire Republican leadership told the RNC chairman to focus on his job, not theirs. What's more, they were less than gentle in delivering the message. (Asked if it was a contentious conversation, Thune would only say: "I don't want to get into the details of that.")
The plea was made during what was supposed to be a routine discussion about polling matters and other priorities in House Minority Leader John Boehner's office. But the session devolved into a heated discussion about the roles of congressional leadership and Steele, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting.
The congressional leaders were particularly miffed that Steele had in late August unveiled a seniors' "health care bill of rights" without consulting with them. The statement of health care principles, outlined in a Washington Post op-ed, began with a robust defense of Medicare that puzzled some in a party not known for its attachment to entitlements.
Steele apparently got defensive. It didn't help that he was planning to present even more policy initiatives.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Steele's predicament. He reportedly reminded GOP leaders that he travels the country, and Republican activists ask where the party stands on a range of issues. Since Republican leaders in the House and Senate prefer not to have a policy agenda, Steele is using his post to just fill the vacuum.
The problem, though, is that he's not doing it very well.
When the birther movement was really starting to hit its stride over the summer, lawyer Orly Taitz was on the cable nets presented as a leading figure albeit in a fringe movement. But as the legal cases she's pursued to declare Obama ineligible to be President have fallen apart and I've gotten a chance to see some of the pleadings she's filed, I've started to wonder if her apparent prominence in the birther movement isn't some big joke. Or maybe it just drives home how fringe these folks are.
In either case, her motions read like the whacked out inmate lawsuits I used to come across occasionally when I was practicing. A lot of them were written by hand, describing vast yet inexplicable conspiracies to keep them incarcerated, maybe with a mention of UFOs, and naming dozens if not hundreds of defendants, including most members of Congress. Taitz doesn't go quite that far, but then again she's actually a licensed member of the bar. I've sort of begun to feel sorry for her.
No comments:
Post a Comment