Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I disagree.

I think Fascism is depicted as "on the right" or, rather, "way off to the right" because it generally includes as a matter of core philosophy strong elements of jingoistic nationalism and xenophobia. Its economic policies, etc. were also infused with a corporatist/statist mix of the state supporting large industry.
S_A_M

But, as it pertains to modern American politics, who is more jingoistically nationalistic and xenophobic (aside from the criminal right KKK/skinheads) than the unions. It was the perceived "Right" that supported NAFTA over the objections of numerous Democratic (or "Left") constituencies.

Also, though I didn't make it clear before, I don't see any real distinction between the state being the big industry and the state "supporting" large industry (presumably to the detriment of someone, sometimes the someone being the large industries). Lord knows, the state support of large industries is only a caricature of the Right in the eyes of unions and the Democratic party. The Right would never blindly support an industry in a way that is partial to or against the industry (except when the G has a very legitimate reason like during war).

Don't get me wrong, the caricature is embodied in numerous modern "Republicans" and self-described "conservatives", but its exactly why I think the labels are meaningless unless we hold people to their principles. Otherwise, people seem to appropriate whatever labels they can as cover for their own skewed views. And the appropriation is only magnified when others let them and adopt the appropriated cover to include the self-describing misappropriator's skewed views.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Fascism has nothing of the class-based "universal brotherhood of man" model essential to socialist and communist theory. It also generally doesn't centralize and redistribute property.
S_A_M

The theory was beautiful, but no actual "Leftist" system every really took too much of that universal brotherhood stuff to heart either. Further, all command-and-control economic models are centralized, including the National Socialists (I'm going to have to go and reread a few chapters of my German history book though). Finally, the redistribution of property was there. I'm not sure how it got there, but it was there. The Soviets just targeted selected wealthy people, while the Germans just targeted selected distinguishable sub-groups of society on other bases.

In any case, there is no way that the German model was truly hands-off (i.e., "Right). It couldn't have been if it wanted to what-with the massive armanents programs they began almost immediately in the early '30s.

All I'm saying is that these characterizations (Nazi=Right versus Soviets=Left) are meaningless. Pat Buchanan is just as wrong as the unions for fearing Mexicans.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Kentucky's largest newspaper is now calling on Sen. Bunning to answer questions about his mental health. Bunning's campaign responds that the Senator is as fit as when he pitched a perfect game in 1964 for the Philadelphia Phillies. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...dc_3&printer=1

And now Sen. Bunning does not even bother showing up to the debate. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...ydebate20.html Even more strange, his campaign didn't say why the candidate did not choose to attend the debate.

This is sad. It looks like the old man has just lost it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And now Sen. Bunning does not even bother showing up to the debate. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...ydebate20.html Even more strange, his campaign didn't say why the candidate did not choose to attend the debate.

This is sad. It looks like the old man has just lost it.

He needs to get checked in somewhere and have someone close to him make a sympathy plea.

The model for this kind of election was in Missouri.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And now Sen. Bunning does not even bother showing up to the debate. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...ydebate20.html Even more strange, his campaign didn't say why the candidate did not choose to attend the debate.

This is sad. It looks like the old man has just lost it.

Does anyone have a handle on how the Senate is going to pan out? I assume that the Rs in Kentukey thought that this race was a lock until the last few weeks. South Dakota also looks tighter than the Dems expected. I've heard that the Pennsylvania, Colorado and Oklahoma races are pretty tight, and that Obama is so far ahead that he's pretty much campaigining full time for Kerry and other Dems in Illinois. Louisiana is wierd in that their November 2 election is actually a primary, so that won't be decided on that day unless someone wins an outright majority.

What does a Kerry/Edwards win do to their seats in the Senate?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
He needs to get checked in somewhere and have someone close to him make a sympathy plea.

The model for this kind of election was in Missouri.

Except in Mo. the guy was dead so he couldn't make embarrassing or bizarre statements. I wonder if Bunning's strategists have suggested this?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Except in Mo. the guy was dead so he couldn't make embarrassing or bizarre statements. I wonder if Bunning's strategists have suggested this?

Yes, having a dead candidate was an advantage.

They did keep him quiet at the debate, but checking him in would have made it a bit less obvious what they were doing.

[Replaced_Texan]

I swear this isn't an Onion Article

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ign_vandals_dc

Political Yard Sign Wars Rage as Election Nears

2 hours, 46 minutes ago U.S. National - Reuters


By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Two weeks before a tight presidential election, tension among bitterly divided voters is translating into a barrage of attacks on political targets that can't talk back -- yard signs.

Campaign signs depicting support for either President Bush (news - web sites) or Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) are being burned, chopped down, spray-painted and commonly, stolen away in the dark of night. There were reports even of a hatchet left in one and a swastika burned into a lawn sporting a Bush sign.

...

"I was outraged," said Lis Ross of Fairway, Kansas, whose "Kansans for Kerry" sign disappeared last week. "What made it worse was that they replaced it with a Bush-Cheney sign. I ran out there and ripped it into little pieces."

The Kerry to Bush yard sign ratio in my neighborhood is about 12-1. I've noticed a lot more going up as the election gets closer. There's a Kerry sign in the back of my car that will go up whenever I remember it's there. Probably mid-November.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone have a handle on how the Senate is going to pan out? I assume that the Rs in Kentukey thought that this race was a lock until the last few weeks. South Dakota also looks tighter than the Dems expected. I've heard that the Pennsylvania, Colorado and Oklahoma races are pretty tight, and that Obama is so far ahead that he's pretty much campaigining full time for Kerry and other Dems in Illinois. Louisiana is wierd in that their November 2 election is actually a primary, so that won't be decided on that day unless someone wins an outright majority.

What does a Kerry/Edwards win do to their seats in the Senate?

In Mass., there will be a special election to fill the seat. So it will likely remain Democratic.

I understand most people think the Rs will pick up a couple of seats. I think there are some who think the Dems could hold their own and some who think the Rs could pick up more than a couple.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone have a handle on how the Senate is going to pan out? I assume that the Rs in Kentukey thought that this race was a lock until the last few weeks. South Dakota also looks tighter than the Dems expected. I've heard that the Pennsylvania, Colorado and Oklahoma races are pretty tight, and that Obama is so far ahead that he's pretty much campaigining full time for Kerry and other Dems in Illinois. Louisiana is wierd in that their November 2 election is actually a primary, so that won't be decided on that day unless someone wins an outright majority.

What does a Kerry/Edwards win do to their seats in the Senate?

As a small matter, the Dems are running rampant in Illinois so much that I'm not sure what good it would do for Obama to campaign in Illinois for them. His talents would certainly be useful in other critical states, like basically every state that surrounds Illinois.

As another small matter, the Dems were nuts if they thought Daschle was a shoo-in, though I'm not saying he's going to lose. Thune was my good deed for the year.

Aside from that, my impression is that the R's are expecting to pick up a few (maybe 2) seats net (i.e., after compensating for the loss of the R seat in Illinois to Obama). When that last honorable R in Illinois moves to Virginia in a few months, I think there is going to be a lot of soul-searching in conservative circles thereabouts. Come to think of it, he's moving to McLean VA when he leaves his seat. Could he be up for a serious cabinet post?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Kerry to Bush yard sign ratio in my neighborhood is about 12-1.

Wow. Is your neighborhood in Texas one of those with the barbed-wire fences around it?

Jesse Helms once famously prescribed that solution for Chapel Hill, but North Carolina never really got around to doing it. Perhaps Governor Goodhair is more pro-active.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Wow. Is your neighborhood in Texas one of those with the barbed-wire fences around it?

Jesse Helms once famously prescribed that solution for Chapel Hill, but North Carolina never really got around to doing it. Perhaps Governor Goodhair is more pro-active.

Mary Cheney would be welcomed with open arms in my neighborhood. So, if rumor is to be believed, would Governor Goodhair.

ETA: More people voted for Gore than Bush in the city of Houston in 2000, though Bush won the county.

[Not Bob]

For those of you who haven't checked it out yet, the "running with lawyers" blog is hysterical. And, despite the following, Rufus the blogger is mostly non-political.

But one of his recent posts raises a question I constantly ask: Why isn't everyone a Democrat?

Discuss.

http://runningwithlawyers.typepad.co...s_america.html

• But people who are behind Bush really baffle me. It’s just astounding to me that people can’t see him and those he surrounds himself with for what they really are. And don’t tell me what’s wrong with Kerry, I’m fully aware of what’s wrong with Kerry, but compared to the alternative how can anyone even consider Bush? I truly don’t understand red America. And despite what they claim, I truly believe my America is in keeping with the traditional ideals of America. Indeed, why is liberal a slur? Every political and social advancement that has improved the lives of ordinary Americans over the past 72 years has been the work of liberals and was opposed by conservatives. From Social Security to legal protection for trade unions to the minimum wage and OSHA to civil rights to voting rights to student loans to environmental protection, all liberal programs. I don’t get it.

(emphasis supplied)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
[url]http://runningwithlawyers.typepad.com/runningwithlawyers/2004/
Every political and social advancement that has improved the lives of ordinary Americans over the past 72 years has been the work of liberals and was opposed by conservatives. From Social Security to legal protection for trade unions to the minimum wage and OSHA to civil rights to voting rights to student loans to environmental protection, all liberal programs. I don’t get it. [/list](emphasis supplied)

Yeah, I'll give you some discussion. See the charts supplied by our Dear Leader herself last week for what has happened over the last 72 years. Some blogger wants to call this social advancement? All I see from my view is increased incarceration, a higher violence rate, higher taxes, a higher abortion rate, a higher divorce rate, a higher teenage pregnancy rate, etc. etc. etc. Lets see, 72 years=1932, right?

Social Security won't be around for us. Trade unions are on their way to extinction due to incredible abuses.

I'll give you the characterization for minimum wage, bite me for the civil rights (hate is not a "conservative" trait"... don't believe me just go visit Chicago or the Northeast Democrat areas), student loans are a massive fraud that is trapping America's youth into debt for large portions of their working lives, environmental protection only works when the conservative economic models are invoked (i.e., tax people for the burdens they impose on others/society... such as with pollution vouchers).

And so on and so on.

So yeah, you guys got the minimum wage. Congratuflippinlations, geniuses. Do you want the other 50% of my check, or have you run out of ways to spend my money yet?

He(b-b-but, the blogger started it, maaaa)llo

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The Right would never blindly support an industry in a way that is partial to or against the industry (except when the G has a very legitimate reason like during war).

All this proves is that Bush ain't Right.

You're screwing around with me, NTTAWWT. I have been describing rather conventional political science theory to defend my innocent characterization, and you have now confirmed that you are engaged in your losing battle to define and defend a pure meaning of "Right."

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The theory was beautiful, but no actual "Leftist" system every really took too much of that universal brotherhood stuff to heart either.

True enough.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
All I'm saying is that these characterizations (Nazi=Right versus Soviets=Left) are meaningless. Pat Buchanan is just as wrong as the unions for fearing Mexicans.
Hello

They may not have much meaning, but I think they are harmless, and facilitate conversation. BTW -- is this the point of your whole "Right" thing? Clever.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

They may not have much meaning, but I think they are harmless, and facilitate conversation. BTW -- is this the point of your whole "Right" thing? Clever.

S_A_M

Basically. I think I know how people felt about the term "liberal" being a disparaging term 10 or 12 years ago now. There are so many things that are misconceptions and mischaracterizations of the actual doctrines, that the use in modern language almost seems arbitrary. So arbitrary, in fact, that Club recently was asking something like if Buchanan was a good conservative or model Rightist (something like that). I almost cried when I saw it, because its like the Evil Media taught our exemplary citizen how to swear.

Maybe we could start a movement to positively define the terms "conservative" and "liberal", so that the various positions of the candidates could each be compared to the actual terms. Something tells me that Bush doesn't come out nearly as much the principled and committed conservative as I would like, or as people assert.