The Shrinking Tent by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Can you define a conservative for us ? How about a neo-con ?

Neo-con is a term co-opted by liberals to describe conservatives as liberals think they are rather then how conservative see themselves. Just as conservatives try to tie liberals to communism, liberals seek to tie conservatives to Nazi fascism. Neither is correct to do so...although you commie-liberals should know better.

The term was invented by socialist Michael Harrington to describe the emerging social conservative movement that began in the mid-1960s and culminated in the rise of the Reagan Conservatives in the '80s and '90s. It was embraced by intellectual conservatives of the time because they were seeking to compare themselves to the New Left (which arose from the Kennedy era and the social movements) as well as distance themselves from the old conservatives of the World War 2 era Right. In the 1980s the term was abandoned in favor of simple Conservatism because the movement had succeeded in its goal of gaining general acceptance (or at least general acknowledgement) likely due mostly to the influence of Ronald Reagan on the American electorate.

Now the term is tossed around as a slur more then anything else, adopted by some, used carelessly by others all to mean different and often derogatory things things. I've found it presently meaningless in any practical sense.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, I'd like to continue the discussion but in another thread since I don't want to hijack this one. If yu agree, start another one, OK?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just want to say 'Hero' your history is a little off. 'Neoconservative' was a self-invented and self-applied label of a group of people. - NOT something that was 'invented' by a 'liberal'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:19 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Now the term is tossed around as a slur more then anything else, adopted by some, used carelessly by others all to mean different and often derogatory things things. I've found it presently meaningless in any practical sense.

The interesting bit is, if you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the neo-cons, they're actually more aligned with traditional liberal values than the old-school, so-called "paleo-conservatives". The paleos were much closer to what we now call libertarian-conservatives, and their strong attachment to individual rights doesn't sit well with the communitarian impulses of the neo-cons.

Sometimes I wonder if the liberals complaining about the neo-cons aren't just jealous, given that the neo-cons have been much better at the 'big-government, social engineering' mode of governing than the liberals ever dreamed possible.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just want to say 'Hero' your history is a little off. 'Neoconservative' was a self-invented and self-applied label of a group of people. - NOT something that was 'invented' by a 'liberal'.

The term was first used by socialist author Michael Harrington in an article about Barry Goldwater and the reinvention of conservatism that began in the early 1960s. Conservative authors took it and used it in the late '60s until the early '80s. After Reagan was elected it fell out of use until the '90s as a slur against the Republican majority.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Neo-con is a term co-opted by liberals to describe conservatives as liberals think they are rather then how conservative see themselves." UUhhh - no. I it was coined and adopted by conservatives to describe themselves.

Jeez 'Hero', if we can't trust you to get a simple historical fact straight - or even your own words just a short scroll up - what can we trust you for ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The interesting bit is, if you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the neo-cons, they're actually more aligned with traditional liberal values than the old-school, so-called "paleo-conservatives". The paleos were much closer to what we now call libertarian-conservatives, and their strong attachment to individual rights doesn't sit well with the communitarian impulses of the neo-cons.

I disagree. What your saying is true to some extent, but the Republicans of the World War 2 era had more in common with the liberal intellectuals in terms of social values. Their differences with the old left came in the form of trade policy, regulation of industry and labor, foriegn relations, military strategy, monetary policy, and like things. Names like Rockafeller, Nixon, and Ford could easily have been Kennedy and Kerry. Heck, some of those fellas were Republicans back in the days prior to the '60s.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2007 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
UUhhh - no. I it was coined and adopted by conservatives to describe themselves.

I would suggest that the first use of the term is by a socialist means he invented it...unless you think he heard it at a party and wrote it down.

I'm not saying he was wrong, the guy may have been a stinking commie...but he was a fine intellectual and it was a very articulate and revealing piece he wrote (I read it in college and it along with Reagan's speeches and some other writings made me a conservative).

I think your confusing the '60s with the '90s. The term was out of common use until the late '90s when it became popular as a slang term used by liberals. I remember hearing it on West Wing, a show notrious for writing Republicans without any real understanding of the people or philosophy. Since then I've heard it in a number of different contexts (including a couple really old conservative thinkers who never stopped using it) most of those negative and most by liberals or radical independent types who throw the word around with no real understanding of the word or the people you are labeling with it. Like yourself.

The term neo-conservative, like conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, progressive, moderate, new left...their meanings have all changed over time. I would suggest that the new-conservatives of today's time are the moderate Republicans like Arnold and Rudy. Neo-liberals...well there are none right now since the whole party changed so quickly after 1999 (you Dems are moving so fast to the left you've pulled the rug right out from under some of the best traditional liberals in your camp, ask Joe Lieberman).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 3, 2007 12:20 PM

The term neo-con has lost for the most part whatever meaning it may have had, largely due to the derogatory way in which it has been employed and the similarity between so-called Neoconservatives and other Conservatives. Most people don’t bother distinguishing between the different political denomination of Conservatism. But if anyone is interested in what Neoconservatism is from the words of those who have been regularly described as Neoconservatives, a good discussion can be found The Neocon Reader, edited by Irwin Stelzer which contains articles by everyone from William Kristol to Margaret Thatcher. If nothing else the Introduction his valuable information dispelling the paranoid, often anti-Semitic, delusion known as the “Neocon Cabal.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 3, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re a Leftist, and a hardcore one.

This is how the Left insulates themselves. To a Leftist, Racism and “theological hatred” means “disagreeing with their particular hatreds.” This is what I mean by creating an acceptable form of bigotry.

But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 3, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?

In what definition of bigotry? And I don’t have any problem with Frem disagreeing with my political views. Bigotry describes someone who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities different from their own. I tolerant Frem far more then many people would consider necessary. Other then his personal hatred of me and others who disagree with him, I don’t have any problem with him for his point of view. I don’t agree with his point of view usually. I think it tends to be paranoid and naïve, but I don’t dislike him, and I actually find his posts interesting. Describing someone as a Leftist is not bigotry, anymore then describing them as Right-wing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 3, 2007 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But couldn't describing 'leftists' in this way be seen as bigotry? Or is it okay to judge someone for not agreeing with your political views, Finn?
In what definition of bigotry? And I don’t have any problem with Frem disagreeing with my political views. Bigotry describes someone who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities different from their own. I tolerant Frem far more then many people would consider necessary. Other then his personal hatred of me and others who disagree with him, I don’t have any problem with him for his point of view. I don’t agree with his point of view usually. I think it tends to be paranoid and naïve, but I don’t dislike him, and I actually find his posts interesting. Describing someone as a Leftist is not bigotry, anymore then describing them as Right-wing.

Where did I mention Frem? Though he is a self professed anarchist, which tends to be considered a rightwing ideal, but theres so many definitions of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' it's pointless to try to make distinctions.

But no, I wasn't talking about Frem, I was talking about your charactisation of leftists as 'racists' who have developed a comfortable bigotry allowing them to hate people they disagree with.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 3, 2007 3:46 PM

SERGEANTX

"Neo-con Cabal"?

Are you perhaps referring to the Project for a New American Century? If so, it's not a cabal. But it is a foreign policy thinktank filled with neo-cons. The ideas of the PNAC, as well as many of its members, dominated the Bush administration and are directly responsible for the current quagmire.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But no, I wasn't talking about Frem, I was talking about your charactisation of leftists as 'racists' who have developed a comfortable bigotry allowing them to hate people they disagree with.

I didn’t characterize the Left as racists. I never even used the term “racist.” The term I used was “ideological bigotry.” And yes, I think there is a very strong trend of ideological bigotry in the current American Left, which unfortunately may be working its way significantly into the Democratic Party.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 12:28 PM

It's interesting, but for 'ideological bigotry' I tend to think of groups generally considered on the far right; fundamentalist Christians who are telling everyone else they have spot in hell reserved, the anti-abortionists who feel justified in attacking abortion clinics and/or workers there.

Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t characterize the Left as racists. I never even used the term “racist.” The term I used was “ideological bigotry.” And yes, I think there is a very strong trend of ideological bigotry in the current American Left, which unfortunately may be working its way significantly into the Democratic Party.

You're right, you used the term racist, but not in refrence to 'leftists', though you seemed to be holding it up as equivelent to racism, which was what I was working from, eh.

But that clears things up significantly, thanks

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?

Michael Moore. MoveOn.org. For starters. These groups are constantly attacking people who don’t agree with them, but what makes them so unsettling to me is that their hatred gets a free pass. These groups can post a full page cut rate ad in the New York Times defaming people they don’t like, and you don’t even notice anything wrong. All you see are the Right-wing hate groups. But fundamentalist Christian groups and the KKK are not take seriously by hardly anyone in the mainstream, so I don’t really care about them - not so with the Left-wing hate groups, their message has influence. And it’s heavily influencing the media and the Democratic Party. Even the more commonly accepted Left-wing groups, euphemistically referred to as the “civil rights organizations” (like GLAAD and NOW), are free from criticism when they do this kind of stuff. A good author to look into is Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian, a liberal pundit and former head of the National Organization of Woman (NOW), so she's been well entrenched in the Left-wing movement in America. She describes how Left-wing hate groups have filled the void in American culture left by right-wing hate groups which have largely lost influence since the fifties. Her book, The New Thought Police, is very telling reading.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:25 PM

Hummm as an outsider I'm not sure that I see what you do. I think the situation is more one of the American left feeling somewhat disenfrancised. Yes they sort of have a place in the Democratic party but they seem to be a minority as far as policy making is concerned. They are there because the Dems want the votes and organising power -- much like the religious right exists within Republican ranks and like the religious right after the votes have been delivered and the polls close they are tossed a bone while the party as a whole gets back to Bidness as Usual.

There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else, the left as such seems to have hardly any influence that makes it though to actual legislation. Witness the last election, I think most people would see the entery of Wesley Clarke into the election as the DLC trying to scupper the "Dean Effect" for fear it might move the party too far to the left and ruin Hillary's chances in '08.

As for Move-on and Michael Moore, I think they do get a pass but not for the reasons you outline. The current Democrats are a "left wing themed" Corporatist party -- kind of like those fake "Irish Pubs" you find in the suburbs they have the trappings of being left wing but aren't really --- I think the real left leaning sorts are getting just a little PO'd with that, they feel they need to send out the attack dogs against the current administration because

1) The Dems dont to it

and

2) As much to distinguish themselves from the Dems as the Reps.

Your thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Is there a particular 'left' group or person you think epitomizes what you have in mind?
Michael Moore. MoveOn.org. For starters. These groups are constantly attacking people who don’t agree with them, but what makes them so unsettling to me is that their hatred gets a free pass. These groups can post a full page cut rate ad in the New York Times defaming people they don’t like, and you don’t even notice anything wrong.

Well, to be fair to me, I give it as much credence as any other full page ad in the New York Times. I'm not a subscriber. I know, shocking, but there it is. If you have any links to the type of material you are referencing, I'm willing to go take a look.

Quote:
All you see are the Right-wing hate groups. But fundamentalist Christian groups and the KKK are not take seriously by hardly anyone in the mainstream, so I don’t really care about them - not so with the Left-wing hate groups, their message has influence. And it’s heavily influencing the media and the Democratic Party. Even the more commonly accepted Left-wing groups, euphemistically referred to as the “civil rights organizations” (like GLAAD and NOW), are free from criticism when they do this kind of stuff. A good author to look into is Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian, a liberal pundit and former head of the National Organization of Woman (NOW), so she's been well entrenched in the Left-wing movement in America. She describes how Left-wing hate groups have filled the void in American culture left by right-wing hate groups which have largely lost influence since the fifties. Her book, The New Thought Police, is very telling reading.

Found an extract of the book on-line; looks interesting, might see if I can check it out from the library.

Back to Moore and Moveon. I'll be honest, I'm not a huge Moore fan; he tends to be obnoxious. Of course, as an individual he has a right to his opinions and ought be able to express them as he sees fit within libel laws, etc. As he's not much my cup of tea, I may well not have seen the material you find crosses the line from a strongly voiced opinion to what you consider 'hate'. I refrained from seeing 'sicko' as the previews lulled me into expecting it to be too biased to be of interest, and I didn't feel like contributing to the films 'success'.

Moveon.org is another beast I haven't spent a lot of time with. Popped over to their website. They clearly want us out of the Iraq war; they clearly don't want us attacking Iran. Ok, wandered a bit. Didn't catch anything worst than a 'No more lies from Bush' sign. Is there some particular instance of attacks you feel cross the line from stating position to characterizing this 'hatred' you speak of?

Edit: You mention the KKK. I suppose they are far right... I guess. I know the far left won't have them. And yes, as far as being a nationally effective group, they are pretty much history (though always happy to throw a bucket of cold water on any embers found, of course). In any case, I consider them their own special interest group outside the realm of any meaningful current political dialog.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:45 PM

Actually, this line got my amused attention...

MoveOn.com Civic Action -- MoveOn and the Christian Coalition?

As Congress prepares to vote, MoveOn and the Christian Coalition are joining forces to show that Internet freedom affects everyone.
http://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html

At least they are able to work with other groups on some issues.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else

Really? And still they can't seem to work together. Amazing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is no left wing party in the US, the Democrats would be considered a slightly right of center party most anyplace else
Really? And still they can't seem to work together. Amazing.

Who?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 4:38 PM

Sorry Fletch.
This would be more clear: "Really? And still the Democrats and Republicans can't seem to work together despite both being right of center 'in the grander scheme of things'. Amazing."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:03 PM

Of course that's why McDonalds and Burger King work so closely together, after all they are both burger companies.... oh.. oh wait they DONT because they are competitors.....

Parties are like any other bidness. Your political parties are just corporate entities in the business of running government, if party X wins then they get to lavish pork on their districts, get the big jobs with the big salary's, become the big cheese with the big house on Pen Avenue. If they lose they get the crumbs from the other guy's table, there wont be as many Jack Abramov's wanting to pay for their golf junkets, there won't be as many consulting jobs when they retire.

So no they don't work together, just like Airbus doesnt give Boeing a hand when they have problems, just like the Red Sox don't spot the Yankies a few points at the beginning of a game because they are having a bad year.

When you are out of power the best and only way to get back in power is to make the other guy's look like idiots, that is the same no matter what the political complexion of the two parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:08 PM

There's other ways of operating, but that does seem to be the most common.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Moveon.org is another beast I haven't spent a lot of time with. Popped over to their website. They clearly want us out of the Iraq war; they clearly don't want us attacking Iran. Ok, wandered a bit. Didn't catch anything worst than a 'No more lies from Bush' sign. Is there some particular instance of attacks you feel cross the line from stating position to characterizing this 'hatred' you speak of?

Last year MoveOn shut down it’s forum after the Anti-Defamation League called them on it, but it was full of stuff that was so vile it could only be compared to the kinds of hate that one would see on a KKK website. There is also the smear campaigns the most recent of which are the attacks against General Patraeus and comparing Bush to Hitler. I find it hard to understand how a political organization would have a fraction of MoveOn’s influence after that kind of hate was found on their website.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:27 PM

I agree that the Democrats are not a Left-wing party. They‘re not a part of the American Left, anyway. I also think you’re right that they buddy up to some of these smear groups because they are afraid of losing votes. They fear that these Left-wing groups will turn on them, which I suspect they would and to some extent already have, but I think they are influencing policy - at least they are complicating it. I’m not as confident that the Democrats will be able to shed the association with these groups after the election. Certainly MoveOn.org isn’t either, since it’s director believes they “own” the Democratic party and they‘ve been able to dictate to some extent who Democratic candidates talk to. They’ve also demonstrated influence with the New York Times, one of the newspaper said to set the news for the nation and Google, the largest Internet search engine. It makes me very uncomfortable that the Democrats may be in power in ‘08 in part because of their association with these groups. None of this may mean anything, but it certainly seems to me that MoveOn and groups like it have considerably more influence then Right-wing political groups in the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 9:53 PM

What you are experiencing is the same kind of reaction that more left leaning folks feel from Dobson, Falwell and the rest of the Christian right.

There was an interesting thing on the radio about what the CR brings to the table for the Republicans and it's not money or preachers telling the faithfull who to vote for. The big selling point is boots on the ground. If you are a Rep that makes the right noises on topics the Christian Right support, you can end up with a few hundred dedicated young Christians on the stump for you in the run up to the election. Folks happy to get wet handing out flyers, knocking on doors and putting out election signs. It's the kind of hard work face-to-face campaigning that you can't buy with money (well you COULD but the cost would be staggering.)

The Christian Right provide the foot soldiers for many Republican campaigns, when they are needed they are courted, the politicos make the right noises, say the right things and I've heard Falwell and Robertson in the past bragging about how big the Reps owe them (not as blatent as "owning" the party but still the same sentiment.)

You know what happens? Zilch, the Reps throw them a bone like stem cells or Partial Birth abortion and then it's back to the Bidness of government. The Christian Right will never get Roe V Wade repealed, it's not in the Rep's interest to have that gone it's too big a motivator.

The Dems and the left is the same deal, the activists --- ie the more left leaning members of the party--- are the folks that believe real hard, they are the ones taht hand out flyers, pound on doors and stuff. Their leaders talk about owning parties and the like and you know what? When the elections over they will get a bone, I dunno, minimum wage rise or something but Universal healthcare? Never happen too good a motivator to be delivered...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 2:52 AM

Two years ago, I probably would have described myself as a firm Democrat. The events of the past two years have made me seriously question the wisdom of an affiliation with either of the two 'big' parties. While I may yet vote for a Democrat, it would be based on the candidate's positions, as opposed to having any faith on the candidate based on party affiliation.

Interestingly enough, it is not because of the Democratic party's influence from such 'left wing' 'hate groups' such as moveon; but rather due to the fact the Democrats as a group don't seem to have the spine to stand up to the poor choices having been made by Bush and the laws and standards put in place by the previous Republican congress (eg: DMCA).

While Finn seems concerned about 'moveon's 'owning' the Democratic party', it seems to be that Fletch is right, at best, they are getting tossed an occasional bone. Democrats have failed to roll back even any of the controversial 'rights reduction legislation,' much less have had an effective stand against the Iraq war. Heck, they are proposing their own 'big brother' legislation now.

Despite the 'big tent', the positions of the Republican party seem to be guided pretty strongly in keeping the religious right from rebelling; and as such will limit the appeal of the party to other segments of society; at least to the extent those segments are not behind such positions.

Take Mitt Romney for instance; seems like a basically honest fellow. One wife, etc. But he's not 'mainline' Christian, and that seems to be a major stopping point for getting past the primaries. Perhaps time will tell otherwise, but it's not convincing me yet that the Republican party has seriously opened that big tent in tolerance as much as they'd like folks to think.

I think Fletch hits the nail pretty squarely with his references to Falwell, et. al. The Christian right has not struck me as accepting of contrary positions; and this lack tolerance has kept me very cautious of the Republican party who continues to press for the Christian right's support.

Finn contends that moveon got a 'free pass' on their past 'hate site' oriented approaches; all I can say is for having gotten such a free pass, they have clearly cleaned up their public face. If anyone can find any 'persisting' hate-oriented material, I'd still like to check it out. Personally, I'll watch for a return to such behavior, and will try to exorcise extra analysis to see if they have only changed their public face. I'm not sure why but something about the site doesn't ring true for me, and moveon.org just isn't catching my interest.

I'm actually more concerned about the Democratic party's attempt to 'out big daddy' the Republican party than I am their pandering to groups such as Moveon.org.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 3:06 AM

Well, the 'obvious' google search finally occurred to me....

A group has hand selected some the more offensive material from MoveOn for reference:
http://www.stentorian.com/MoveOn/sideshow1.html

Some of the material is only offensive to those who find any negative comment on Israel's handling of the West Bank and Gaza an attack on Jews; but much of it is classic anti-semitic raving. The more embarrassing part is that most of it has polls associated to it showing 'majority support'. Generally, very low counts (eg: fewer than 24 folks participating). My guess is the folks who found it repugnant simply started ignoring such posts. Kinda like the way we mostly ignore PN's constant anti-semitic postings.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 4:13 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Since those are Democratic, and not Republican values, why do you ask ?
Really, I thought they were politicians values.

Exactly.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The Dems and the left is the same deal, the activists --- ie the more left leaning members of the party--- are the folks that believe real hard, they are the ones taht hand out flyers, pound on doors and stuff. Their leaders talk about owning parties and the like and you know what? When the elections over they will get a bone, I dunno, minimum wage rise or something but Universal healthcare? Never happen too good a motivator to be delivered...

You could be right. I was sometimes disgusted by the things Falwell had to say, but I don’t think he ever had this kind of influence with the media. I know that no one on the Christian Right would ever have gotten a full page ad in the New York Times at a cut rate, and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have gotten such a thing in the WSJ or any other major newspaper either. So I’m pretty sure the media was never as sympathetic to the Christian Right as they appear to be to some of the Left-wing groups. Could Falwell have dictated who Republican candidates spoke to? Would a Republican candidate cancel an interview with NBC news because Falwell complained? I don’t think so. I think the Left-wing groups have considerably more influence. As to how much that influence will translate into actual policy in Congress, you’re probably right that the Democrats aren’t going to want to give them anything big, however if the New York Times runs a few dozen front-page articles on MoveOn's point of view, the Democrats could feel a lot more pressure then the Republicans would from the Christian Coalition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 6:22 AM

I think it's a horses for courses deal. I'm sure if you are on the left you probably see Clearchannel, Fox News and talk radio as having far more influence than they do. I think one of the interesting things I've noticed is that both sides seem completely convinced that the other has a lock on the media somehow. The right seems paranoid about "liberal bias" while the left tried to create their own talk radio network to try and redress what they see as "bias."

In the UK there are traditionally 2 tabloids and a single broadsheet newspaper with an identifiable left wing bias. There is one other broadsheet that is essentially neutral and the rest have varrying degrees of acknowledged right wing bias. It has been that way for as long as anyone remembers and it is that way because the politics of the owner dictates the politics of the paper.

Coming from that environment I can tell you that by comparison US media has less bias. Both mainstream political parties tailor their message to a relatively narrow demographic -- essentially the suburban middle class voter whose swing vote determines elections --- the same demographic that US advertisers crave and by association US publishers and broadcasters target. Consequently both party's messages fall within the narrow political spectrum pushed out by the MSM anything outside of that to the right or left gets the bum rush. ---If it wasn't for CSPAN I wouldn't have known that the US had either a socialist or a libertarian party they get so little main stream exposure.

As an aside ten years or so ago Rupert Murdock switched the alliance of his UK newspapers from the Tories to Labour and may have won Tony Blair that election. This was not a "road to Demascus" kind of a deal, the Tories wanted out of Europe at a time when Murdock needed someone to push satellite TV deregulation through the European Parliament. Labour wanted to do that and so for business reasons he switched horses. If Democrats could offer News Corp something that the Reps couldn't I'm sure Hillary would be having a nice friendly chat with Bill O'Reilly inside a week.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 9:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I stand by my ice-cubes analogy, as it has come pretty clear by the words of other folk that those very voting blocs are the root of the problem, removing the needful check and balance of actually having to answer to ones own constituents as a whole.

This allows them to do as they please, so long as they stop short of completely alienating those dependable blocs... and who gives a damn what the constituents (aka suckers) think because they were stupid enough to take their marching orders from someone else at the voting booth instead of properly seeking their own interests.

And both sides are equally guilty of that, not to mention gerrymandering to stack the blocs more effectively.

Be a snowflake, not an ice cube.

-Frem

PS. Leadb, before you get too invested in Romney, you might wanna do some research into him and his upper echelons involvement in "behavior modification" facilities.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 10:45 AM

First, thanks to Fletch2 for your insights. Its helpful to get a perspective that is somewhat removed.

Frem, Ok, I'll dig if I have a chance. Romney is sufficiently deviant on policy issues wrt to mine I would not be likely to vote for him myself... but he 'struck me' at least as an 'honorable opposition' if you know what I mean. If there's serious reason to not support his candidacy, I won't be terribly shocked. Given our deviation of position, I simply hadn't dug into him that deeply.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the UK there are traditionally 2 tabloids and a single broadsheet newspaper with an identifiable left wing bias.

Which? I'd say the Independent, but not sure about the tabloids. I've heard the Sun was an ardent Labour supporter in the 70's (?), but it's always struck me as more right-leaning.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:40 AM

Well bear in mind here that I've been out of the country for a while but when I was there, Labour supporting Daily's were

Daily Mirror, Daily Star --- Tabloids
Guardian -- Broadsheet (ok technically the Gruniad is a tabloid too but calling it a broadsheet is better than sounding elitist by saying "real newspaper.")

The Independent was.... er independent

The blatantly Tory papers where

Times, Mail, Express, Telegraph (Torygraph) and in London the Standard.

Has that changed? I stopped reading the online editions a while ago so I dont know if there has been a sea change. Back in the day, I would read the Guardian and the Telegraph online editions and know the truth lived somewhere in between.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well bear in mind here that I've been out of the country for a while but when I was there, Labour supporting Daily's were

Daily Mirror, Daily Star --- Tabloids
Guardian -- Broadsheet (ok technically the Gruniad is a tabloid too but calling it a broadsheet is better than sounding elitist by saying "real newspaper.")

The Independent was.... er independent

The blatantly Tory papers where

Times, Mail, Express, Telegraph (Torygraph) and in London the Standard.

Has that changed? I stopped reading the online editions a while ago so I dont know if there has been a sea change. Back in the day, I would read the Guardian and the Telegraph online editions and know the truth lived somewhere in between.

Well the Independent has always struck me as having a left slant, not that it's biased toward the leftwing parties though. I was taking left wing slant as and idelogical slant, rather than a political affilliation.

To be honest I don't read the papers as much anymore, though the Mail is basically the "royalty news", shoe-horning news of the royal familly into everything. Tidal wave in Asia, heres what Prince Charles has to say. They give away a bunch free now, Metro, London Paper etc, but I tend to go on-line more these days.

To be honest, not much has changed, though I'm not sure the Mirror is all that supportive of Labour, and I'm sorry but the Star is not a newspaper, newspapers contain news, the star is a daily gossip mag with a page 3.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA

HA!

We all know the truth anyway - that the only paper in the whole UK worth the effort of reading is The Register.

ALL HAIL SIMON, DEATH TO THE (L)USERS !

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:14 PM

I remembered the Independent as being probably closer to the LibDems than Labour thought I know it targeted the Guardian when it first came out. I don't think I ever bought one and the only time I've ever read it was found copies on the train(used to live in Surrey and after a while you'll read anything to relieve the boredom of the run into central London.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I remembered the Independent as being probably closer to the LibDems than Labour thought I know it targeted the Guardian when it first came out. I don't think I ever bought one and the only time I've ever read it was found copies on the train(used to live in Surrey and after a while you'll read anything to relieve the boredom of the run into central London.)

I used to live in Surrey, (Banstead, halfway between Croydon and Epsom). But since buying a place I've moved to East Grinstead, somewhat further away.

I miss the London commute from Surrey is all I can say. Though since work has given me an internet enabled PDA it has helped, I can at least download news emails and so on.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:28 PM

I had a friend lived in Banstead, shared this tiny, tiny little house there but he was a civil servant so he couldnt afford anything bigger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:36 PM

I was down the road in Woodmansterne, but the whole area is ridiculously expensive.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 1:02 PM