| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2006 07:35:50 AM |
| Object: |
The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
BY MARTIN PERETZ
Monday, August 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding
single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in
the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and
almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone
like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that
most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of
"having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking
them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they
were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt,
who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for,
and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator,
assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had
demonstrated abilities.
At least in this sense, Mr. Lamont comes to this campaign for the U.S.
Senate from absolutely nowhere--and it shows in his pulpy statements on
public issues. Here is a paradigmatic one: "We need to provide parents and
communities the support they need to assure that children start their school
day ready to learn." Of course, he also thinks that U.S. troops should be
replaced by the U.N. in Iraq. Does he know anything at all about the history
of the idea that he so foolishly rescues from the dust? So what we have in
this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with
perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a
senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a cable
television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with
unusually easy access to capital.
But he does have one issue, and it is Iraq. He grasps little of the
complexities of his issue, but then this, too, is true of the genus of the
peace candidate. Peace candidates know only one thing, and that is why
people vote for them. I know the type well. I was present at its creation.
I was there, a partisan, as a graduate student at the beginning, in 1962,
when the eminent Harvard historian H. Stuart Hughes (grandson of Chief
Justice Charles Evans Hughes) ran for the U.S. Senate as an independent
against George Cabot Lodge and the victor, Ted Kennedy, a trio of what in
the Ivies is, somewhat derisively, called "legacies." Hughes's platform
fixed on President John F. Kennedy's belligerent policy towards Cuba, which
had been crystallized in the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco. The campaign ended,
however, with Hughes winning a dreary 1% of the vote when Krushchev
capitulated to JFK just before the election and brought the missile crisis
to an end, leaving Fidel Castro in power as an annoyance (which he is still,
though maybe not much longer), but not as a threat.
Later peace candidates did better. Some were even elected. Vietnam was their
card. One was even nominated for president in 1972. George McGovern, a
morally imperious isolationist with fellow-traveling habits, never could
shake the altogether accurate analogies with Henry Wallace. (Wallace was the
slightly dopey vice president, dropped from the ticket by FDR in 1944, who
ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, a creation of Stalin's
agents in the U.S.) Mr. McGovern's trouncing by Richard Nixon, a reprobate
president if we ever had one, augured the recessional--if not quite the
collapse--of such Democratic politics, which insisted our enemy in the Cold
War was not the Soviets but us.
It was then that people like Joe Lieberman emerged, muscular on defense,
assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic
matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues. He had marched for civil
rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal
opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his
hearts of hearts, does not? He is appalled by the abysmal standards of our
popular culture and our public discourse. Who really loves our popular
culture--or, at least, which parent? He is thoroughly a Democrat. But Mr.
Lieberman believes that, in an age of communal and global stress, one would
do well to speak with the president (even, on rare occasion, speak well of
him) and compromise with him on urgent matters of practical law.
Yes, Mr. Lieberman sometimes sounds a bit treacly. He certainly is preachy,
and advertises his sense of his own righteousness. But he has also been
brave, and bravery is a rare trait in politicians, especially in states that
are really true-blue or, for that matter, really true-red. The blogosphere
Democrats, whose victory Mr. Lamont's will be if Mr. Lamont wins, have made
Iraq the litmus test for incumbents. There are many reasonable, and even
correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are, to
be sure, all retrospective. But one fault cannot be attributed to the U.S.,
and that is that we are on the wrong side. We are at war in a just cause, to
protect the vulnerable masses of the country from the helter-skelter
ideological and religious mass-murderers in their midst. Our enemies are not
progressive peasants as was imagined three and four decades ago.
If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target
other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an
emphasis on national strength. Of course, they cannot touch Hillary Clinton,
who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes
positioning. Not so Mr. Lieberman. He does not camouflage his opinions. He
does not play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.
Now Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded.
Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's
nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to
give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them
incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to
bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to
see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the
problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to
them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that
Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying
is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr.
Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping
the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that?
Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had
disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the
world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we
cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name:
appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr.
Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by
millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration.
Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability,
rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed
doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.
Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel,
and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the
Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was
President Bush's attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation,
disproved by the "road map" and Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, that
Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the
Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas,
too, just a few good arguments away from peace?
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that
the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic
Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr.
Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream
come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic
party will lose the future, and deservedly.
Mr. Peretz is editor in chief of The New Republic.
--
--
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war;
liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
.
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 11:26:51 AM |
|
|
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:k5-dnV1XVvu6GEXZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
BY MARTIN PERETZ
Monday, August 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding
single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several
in
the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and
almost entirely because he can.
McGovern was never a one issue candidate -- neither is Lamont. (If anyone
is acting "de haut en bas" it is Lieberman).
It's really quite remarkable how someone
like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that
most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of
"having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking
them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought
they
were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt,
who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran
for,
and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator,
assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had
demonstrated abilities.
Lamont has held public office and is not running for president. What an
inappropriate comparison! (Not to mention the venal guilt by association.)
At least in this sense, Mr. Lamont comes to this campaign for the U.S.
Senate from absolutely nowhere--and it shows in his pulpy statements on
public issues. Here is a paradigmatic one: "We need to provide parents and
communities the support they need to assure that children start their
school
day ready to learn."
All successful politicians in the United States are given to such vacuous
statements.
Of course, he also thinks that U.S. troops should be
replaced by the U.N. in Iraq. Does he know anything at all about the
history
of the idea that he so foolishly rescues from the dust? So what we have in
this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with
perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a
senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a
cable
television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with
unusually easy access to capital.
But he does have one issue, and it is Iraq. He grasps little of the
complexities of his issue, but then this, too, is true of the genus of the
peace candidate.
Martin Paretz believes that anyone who disagrees with him on Middle East
Issues has little grasp of the subject.
Peace candidates know only one thing, and that is why
people vote for them. I know the type well. I was present at its creation.
I was there, a partisan, as a graduate student at the beginning, in 1962,
when the eminent Harvard historian H. Stuart Hughes (grandson of Chief
Justice Charles Evans Hughes) ran for the U.S. Senate as an independent
against George Cabot Lodge and the victor, Ted Kennedy, a trio of what in
the Ivies is, somewhat derisively, called "legacies." Hughes's platform
fixed on President John F. Kennedy's belligerent policy towards Cuba,
which
had been crystallized in the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco. The campaign ended,
however, with Hughes winning a dreary 1% of the vote when Krushchev
capitulated to JFK just before the election and brought the missile crisis
to an end, leaving Fidel Castro in power as an annoyance (which he is
still,
though maybe not much longer), but not as a threat.
Later peace candidates did better. Some were even elected. Vietnam was
their
card. One was even nominated for president in 1972. George McGovern, a
morally imperious isolationist with fellow-traveling habits, never could
shake the altogether accurate analogies with Henry Wallace. (Wallace was
the
slightly dopey vice president, dropped from the ticket by FDR in 1944, who
ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, a creation of Stalin's
agents in the U.S.) Mr. McGovern's trouncing by Richard Nixon, a reprobate
president if we ever had one, augured the recessional--if not quite the
collapse--of such Democratic politics, which insisted our enemy in the
Cold
War was not the Soviets but us.
McGovern was an internationalist, the opposite of an isolationist. Just
because MP says it so doesn't make it so.
To call McGovern one with fellow traveling habits would be worthy of Ann
Coulter. Paretz should know better.
It was then that people like Joe Lieberman emerged, muscular on defense,
assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic
matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues. He had marched for
civil
rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal
opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in
his
hearts of hearts, does not? He is appalled by the abysmal standards of our
popular culture and our public discourse. Who really loves our popular
culture--or, at least, which parent? He is thoroughly a Democrat.
Mr. Lieberman is not thoroughly a Democrat. And that, more than Iraq, is
his problem. There are other Democrats that work across the isle (Kennedy
and Feingold to name just two) and there are others who have more
conservative voting records than Lieberman, but none of them parrot
Republican talking points. And they don't stand and applaud the leader of
the opposition when that leader is claiming success for his failed policies.
But Mr.
Lieberman believes that, in an age of communal and global stress, one
would
do well to speak with the president (even, on rare occasion, speak well of
him) and compromise with him on urgent matters of practical law.
Yes, Mr. Lieberman sometimes sounds a bit treacly. He certainly is
preachy,
and advertises his sense of his own righteousness.
In other words is Mr. Lieberman who speaks "de haut en bas".
But he has also been
brave, and bravery is a rare trait in politicians, especially in states
that
are really true-blue or, for that matter, really true-red. The blogosphere
Democrats, whose victory Mr. Lamont's will be if Mr. Lamont wins, have
made
Iraq the litmus test for incumbents.
This is so silly it is a wonder that it has become conventional wisdom. It
must come under the heading of if you repeat something that isn't true
enough times then people will believe it. Whoever wins in the CT Democratic
primary, whoever wins in any election it is a victory for the voters who
chose that candidate and for democracy itself. Bloggers are just a bunch of
opinionated people who share their point of view a bit too much. They are
just like newpaper syndicated columnists and magazine writers (like Mr.
Paretz).
There are many reasonable, and even
correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are,
to
be sure, all retrospective.
Like when then governor George W. Bush said in 1999 that we shouldn't go to
war without an exit stategy. Oh, that was before Iraq. My mistake!
But one fault cannot be attributed to the U.S.,
and that is that we are on the wrong side. We are at war in a just cause,
to
protect the vulnerable masses of the country from the helter-skelter
ideological and religious mass-murderers in their midst. Our enemies are
not
progressive peasants as was imagined three and four decades ago.
The thing is, evil as they are, we have descended in their direction. You
do not have moral superiority by being like those who are morally inferior.
Those who are stongest have higher standards thrust upon them.
If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target
other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an
emphasis on national strength.
This is an undemocratic (small d) thought. If the Democratic voters of CT
vote for the candidate they want how is this thought enforcement. CT is a
blue blue state. It is not to be copied by wise Democrats in the rest of
the country.
Of course, they cannot touch Hillary Clinton,
who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes
positioning.
Ms. Clinton is more consistent than Lieberman who is a Democrat in even
numbered years and carries water for Repubulicans in odd numbered years.
She is just as pro-war as Lieberman, but she is a loyal Democrat.
Not so Mr. Lieberman. He does not camouflage his opinions. He
does not play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.
Now Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just
simpleminded.
Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's
nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively
to
give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them
incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to
bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to
see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the
problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to
them, and then they will do the right thing.
Lamont's quote is nothing like Mr. Paretz' dishonest recasting of it. What
does he think the word agressive means? You can easily make someone look bad
if you can put words in their mouth.
It is a fortunate world that
Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of
plying
is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr.
Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about
keeping
the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that?
Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had
disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
One good point does not an article make.
Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the
world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we
cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name:
appeasement.
More McCarthyist name calling.
The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr.
Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by
millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration.
Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability,
rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such
armed
doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.
Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to
Israel,
and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that
the
Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed
was
President Bush's attention.
Well, it might have helped at least. We will never know since he turned
U.S. government attention away from the issue upon reaching the White House.
Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation,
disproved by the "road map" and Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, that
Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict
between
Israel and the Palestinians.
Here Lamont is correct, Paretz is misrepresenting the truth. One initiative
does not overcome the fact that Bush paid little attention to ...
And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the
Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas,
too, just a few good arguments away from peace?
And this is supposed to be a positive for Bush, Lieberman and U.S. policy?
Hamas won a democratic election just because of Bush and those like
Lieberman who have supported him so uncritically (especially in odd numbered
years).
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than
that
the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic
Party.
The left wants a larger voice in the Democratic Party. Look at the
candidates for Senate that might win this year. Tester, Casey, Lamont,
Ford, Webb, ... they are all moderates (with the exception of Brown).
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr.
Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's
dream
come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic
party will lose the future, and deservedly.
Mr. Peretz is editor in chief of The New Republic.
...
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that Republicans
are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timmy Ramone" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 12:15:51 PM |
|
|
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
09 Aug 2006 03:23:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:15:51 GMT, Timmy Ramone <r@mones4ever.com>
wrote:
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
He defeated Lieberman and no doubt the Republicans are getting
nervous. If a Democrat can be defeated in a primary on the Iraq
issue, what does that say about voter temperament for the November
elections. McKinney lost her primary bid in a near landslide.
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "POIUYT" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 12:39:04 PM |
|
|
These elections are going to be real fun to watch! I don't think our nation
has ever been so solidly divided by the nut cases on either side!
Hopefully the middle will win out!
"Timmy Ramone" <r@mones4ever.com> wrote in message
news:44D8C83B.64C@mones4ever.com...
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 01:13:36 PM |
|
|
"POIUYT" <poiuyt@papernapkin.net> wrote in message
news:X_3Cg.86305$ZW3.74061@dukeread04...
"Timmy Ramone" <r@mones4ever.com> wrote in message
news:44D8C83B.64C@mones4ever.com...
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
These elections are going to be real fun to watch! I don't think our
nation has ever been so solidly divided by the nut cases on either side!
Hopefully the middle will win out!
So POIUT would like to see
Tarrant (R) in VT
McCascal (D) in MO
DeWine (R) in OH
Ford (D) in TN
Casey (D) in PA
Chafee (R) in RI ?
That would definitely be a rejection of extremes in this election.
As long as we are dreaming add a gain of exactly 25 seats by independents at
the expense of Republicans. Then have these Independents insists on a unity
House with someone like Shays (R) or Cuellar (D) as Speaker.
Is this what POIUT would like to see?
.
|
|
|
| User: "POIUYT" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 05:10:05 PM |
|
|
Close enough...but it won't happen!
The Rabid Right will once again wipe out the Looney Left.
"Bert Bishop" <bishop.11@oosu.edu> wrote in message
news:ebak8k$i6t$4@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
"POIUYT" <poiuyt@papernapkin.net> wrote in message
news:X_3Cg.86305$ZW3.74061@dukeread04...
"Timmy Ramone" <r@mones4ever.com> wrote in message
news:44D8C83B.64C@mones4ever.com...
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
These elections are going to be real fun to watch! I don't think our
nation has ever been so solidly divided by the nut cases on either side!
Hopefully the middle will win out!
So POIUT would like to see
Tarrant (R) in VT
McCascal (D) in MO
DeWine (R) in OH
Ford (D) in TN
Casey (D) in PA
Chafee (R) in RI ?
That would definitely be a rejection of extremes in this election.
As long as we are dreaming add a gain of exactly 25 seats by independents
at the expense of Republicans. Then have these Independents insists on a
unity House with someone like Shays (R) or Cuellar (D) as Speaker.
Is this what POIUT would like to see?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 02:54:10 PM |
|
|
POIUYT wrote:
These elections are going to be real fun to watch! I don't think our nation
has ever been so solidly divided by the nut cases on either side!
Hopefully the middle will win out!
"Timmy Ramone" <r@mones4ever.com> wrote in message
news:44D8C83B.64C@mones4ever.com...
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
Speaking of "not clear on the concept":
When an up-till-now well liked by voters and power brokers multiterm
incumbent Senator with bipartisan connections and a squeaky clean
history can be unseated or close to unseated (I haven't looked at the
returns) solely on the basis of getting carried out by the antiBush
tide..... it's not going to go well for the Republicans even if
Lieberman does win.
.
|
|
|
| User: "POIUYT" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 05:11:53 PM |
|
|
I think the trend will prove to be anti-incumbent rather than any specific
party division. I pretty much agree with it that way. It may be time to
completely kick out ALL of those 535 clowns and bring in a new batch. They
would probably be okay for the first 6 months or so before they get all
messed up too.
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1155066850.207315.173760@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
POIUYT wrote:
These elections are going to be real fun to watch! I don't think our
nation
has ever been so solidly divided by the nut cases on either side!
Hopefully the middle will win out!
"Timmy Ramone" <r@mones4ever.com> wrote in message
news:44D8C83B.64C@mones4ever.com...
Bert Bishop wrote:
If Ned Lamont's victory is so bad for Democrats, why is it that
Republicans are so interested in seeing Lieberman win?
Ned Lamont obviously makes the War Party very nervous. Even if
he doesn't win, he's already sent the message: "If you support
the occupation of Iraq, you are going to be in political trouble."
About damned time, too.
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
Speaking of "not clear on the concept":
When an up-till-now well liked by voters and power brokers multiterm
incumbent Senator with bipartisan connections and a squeaky clean
history can be unseated or close to unseated (I haven't looked at the
returns) solely on the basis of getting carried out by the antiBush
tide..... it's not going to go well for the Republicans even if
Lieberman does win.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
08 Aug 2006 08:14:18 PM |
|
|
Tiptoeing around Our Problems
By Dr. William Pierce
"We've been talking about the very dangerous situation in the Middle
East recently, just because so much is happening there, and
undoubtedly we'll be talking about it much more in the future. For
that reason I want to make very clear what my motives and sympathies
are, lest I lead anyone astray and be thought a hypocrite for doing
so. First, regarding Palestine: although my sympathies definitely lie
with the Palestinians rather than with the Jews, it is not horror at
what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians that motivates me. What
motivates me is horror that my country is being used by the Jews in
their war against the Palestinians. If America were not involved at
all in the Middle East I still would sympathize with the Palestinians
and I would wish that they could be successful in driving the Jews
into the sea and annihilating the abomination that is Israel, but that
conflict between Jews and Palestinians would not be a major concern
for me. At least, my
concern there would be dwarfed by my concern for problems more
directly involving my own people in America and in Europe and in
southern Africa.
Even now, with money and weapons being supplied by America and used to
slaughter Palestinians, my concern is much less with monsters like
Ariel Sharon who are doing the slaughtering than it is with the filthy
creatures among my own people in America who are collaborating with
Jews here to keep the weapons and money flowing to Sharon -- and are
ready to do whatever else the Jews require of them here or abroad.
So when I tell you about Jews in occupied Palestine shooting
Palestinian children, and disapproval and anger are evident in my
voice, what I really am angry about is that the American people, my
people, are being used for this murderous activity. I am angry that
America's whole foreign policy has been perverted to serve Jewish
interests at the expense of American interests. I am angry that
America's political system has been perverted to ensure that we always
have so-called "leaders," whether Democrat or Republican, who are
dependent on the Jewish media or Jewish money or both for their
election and consequently will do the bidding of the Jews. I am angry
that our whole government is riddled with Jews -- Jews in our Defense
Department, Jews in our State
Department, Jews in our Immigration and Naturalization Service, Jews
in our Justice Department, Jews in the President's speech-writing
staff - who really set the policies of our government behind the
scenes, while the politicians are out front in the spotlight making
speeches and kissing babies - and doing as they're told by the Jews
behind the
scenes.
Did you know that it was a Jewish speechwriter, David Frum, who put
the phrase "axis of evil" in George Bush's mouth to justify America's
ongoing war against Israel's enemies? Did you know that a clique of
Jews in the Defense Department and among George Bush's foreign policy
advisers are the people actually running the so-called "war on terror"
in Afghanistan: a war that they intend to expand to Iraq and any other
Middle Eastern country that gets uppity, in order to make that part of
the world safe for Israel at American expense? Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld is a front man for his nominal subordinates, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; and George Bush's official foreign
policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, helps him meet his Black quota for
the Cabinet, but it is the Jew Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's
Defense Policy Board, who gives him his foreign policy directives.
As I've said on more than one occasion, George Bush is a feckless
nincompoop who couldn't come up with a defense policy or a foreign
policy on his own if he had to -- which is why he's President. The
real policymakers behind the scenes certainly don't want a man in the
White House who has ideas of his own, because those ideas might
conflict with theirs.
And it is nothing but empty sophistry to make a distinction between
Jews in Israel, such as Ariel Sharon and Simon Peres, and the Jews in
Mr. Bush's administration formulating his policies or the Jews
controlling our mass media. They all are Jews, and that's what really
matters.
There are many knowledgeable Americans besides me who think that it's
not a good thing to have Jews using America to advance Israel's
interests at the expense of America's interests. They know how the
system works: how the Jews exert their control through money and media
and a well-entrenched network of Jewish operatives, such as Wolfowitz
and Feith and Perle. And many of these knowledgeable Americans also
understand how Jewish subterfuge and deceit work: they understand that
the Jews throw up a lot of smoke to conceal their control and make it
appear that they have much less influence than they actually do.
Despite this degree of understanding that many knowledgeable Americans
have, there seem to be very few who are willing or able to draw the
necessary conclusions. What I keep seeing are comments about the need
to get the so-called "peace process" going again in the Middle East,
and how there are hardline supporters of Israel who are obstructing
the "peace process" because they think that it will give too much to
the Palestinians or will compromise Israel's security, or whatever.
These knowledgeable Americans seem to believe that if we could just
get around the Jewish hardliners somehow -- if we could just
neutralize Jews such as Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle; if Ariel Sharon
could be replaced by a "moderate" Jewish prime minister -- then the
"peace process" could proceed, America could gradually reduce its
involvement in helping the Jews keep the Palestinians repressed, and
eventually Israel no longer would be using America, and everything
would be rosy. And so these knowledgeable Americans expend all of
their wit and energy in these trivial pursuits.
Listen! Do you know what the most hopeful aspect of the conflict
between Jews and Palestinians is now? It is the ongoing radicalization
of the Muslim masses throughout the whole Middle East. The
collaborator governments in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia are
terrified of the reaction they see among their own people to what
Ariel Sharon is doing to the Palestinians. When Sharon's Jewish troops
shoot Palestinian children, Muslim mobs riot, and governments that now
collaborate with the United States quake. Ariel Sharon is the best
thing that has happened in the Middle East in the last 54 years.
The Palestinian tactic of suicide bombing is being denounced by every
politician and every media spokesman over here now. It's nothing but
terrorism, they all say. There's no justification at all for suicide
bombing, they tell us. Of course, whenever you hear that sort of
unanimity from the politicians and the media people you should be
suspicious. In fact, suicide bombing is the best tactic for the
Palestinians to use now, because it provokes the Jews to step up
reprisals. And the reprisals radicalize the masses in every country in
the Middle East. If just one of the collaborator governments falls,
the spines of all the rest will be stiffened, and the Bush government
will be far less likely to find collaborators for building its
so-called "coalition" to do the will of the Jews in the Middle East.
Suicide bombers now hardly put a dent in the population of five
million Jews in occupied Palestine, and Sharon's bloody reprisals
hardly put a dent in the overall Palestinian population. But if
conflict of this sort continues until just one collaborator government
is overthrown, that ultimately will be worth more than ten thousand
successful suicide
bombings in which only 20 or so Jews are killed each time. In the long
run there can be no real peace in the Middle East and no end to
America's shameful role there -- and no future for the Palestinian
people -- as long as there is an Israel. There seems to be a better
understanding of these things among knowledgeable Palestinians than
among knowledgeable Americans.
Shallow thinking and the pursuit of trivial goals is even worse among
knowledgeable Americans when it comes to domestic problems. They
really do not want to grasp these problems with both hands and deal
with them in a forthright way. Look, for example, at what uncontrolled
immigration has done and is doing to America. And what do
knowledgeable Americans propose to do about that? Very little, really.
They make much of the fact that several of the al-Qaeda hijackers who
carried out the September 11 attack were in the United States only
because of very lax immigration policies, and so that's a good reason
for tightening up the policies.
How about simply rounding up all illegal aliens immediately -- all 12
million of them -- and booting them and all of their offspring out of
the country without further ado?
Oh, no, no, no! We can't do that! Why not? Well, the media never would
stand for it. The media would be all over anyone who even proposed a
mass expulsion of illegal aliens. They would denounce any political
leader who tried to do that as a "racist" and a "neo-Nazi." And so
knowledgeable Americans, who understand the immigration disaster quite
well, continue tiptoeing around it, afraid to do or even say anything
really significant about it: terrified even to think about really
radical solutions that might actually end the problem. And it's the
same with the rest of our domestic problems. Lots of people understand
these problems and are worried about them, but they won't tackle them
in any
significant way. They let the Jews -- the Jewish media and Jewish
money and the entrenched Jewish network -- have their way, for all
practical purposes.
Why? Why are the Jews permitted to get away with all of their
destructive policies and activities without being challenged or
opposed in any significant way? Part of the reason is that the Jews
are very powerful, and therefore many people are afraid to cross them.
They're afraid of the sort of media reaction I just mentioned in
connection with immigration. Everyone understands that the Jews stick
together and will viciously attack anyone who opposes them. It's the
old story, so aptly expressed by the late-16th-century writer, Sir
John Harington. Harington wrote: "Treason doth never prosper: what's
the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Today the
Jewish power structure is
prospering, and none dare oppose it or even call it what it is. Well,
that's only part of the reason Jews are permitted to get away with so
much. There's more to it than that. There's a mystique the Jews have
built very carefully around themselves and nurtured diligently. It is
a mystique of piety and injured innocence. It is a mystique that says
to the Gentile world: "We are a gentle and inoffensive race, and
because of this everyone hates us. We're smart and we work hard and
achieve success, and because of this everyone hates us. We are a
highly moral and ethical race, and because of this everyone hates us.
We are a very talented race, with many gifted members, many geniuses,
and because of this everyone hates us. We are a very altruistic race,
a race of philanthropists who only want to make a better world for
everyone, and because of this everyone hates us."
Many simpletons among the lemmings simply accept these claims at face
value. Many knowledgeable people, however, who can see through these
claims to the real Jews hiding behind them, still hesitate to
challenge them. Part of the Jewish mystique is the so-called
"Holocaust." In its most simpleminded form the "Holocaust" story is
the claim that the
Germans hated the Jews for the reasons I just mentioned -- for their
gentleness and their success and their morality and their talent and
their altruism -- and because of this hatred roasted six million of
them during the Second World War in "gas ovens," to use one of the
Jews' favorite "Holocaust" phrases.
Actually, the "Holocaust" is a very powerful part of the Jewish
mystique. The Jews crafted the "Holocaust" story with great care and
great effort -- well, actually not with as much care as they might
have used: it's as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, but still it is
sufficient to make most people, even those who understand what Jews
are really like, hesitate to attack them. People don't want to be seen
as bullies. They don't want to be seen as so insensitive that they
would criticize the Jews, who already have suffered so much, poor
dears, at the hands of anti-Semites.
In several past broadcasts we've looked at a number of the lies and
exaggerations and distortions that make up the "Holocaust" story.
There are a number of good books available on the subject from the
sponsor of this broadcast, National Vanguard Books, including Norman
Finklestein's excellent book The Holocaust Industry, which I discussed
in an earlier broadcast. The point is that despite the lies, despite
the fact that many knowledgeable Americans are aware of the lies, the
"Holocaust" still serves its purpose for the Jews. People are afraid
of the image conjured up by the "Holocaust."
Perhaps it's that American life is too soft... Whatever the reason,
many otherwise knowledgeable and hardheaded Americans just can't
entertain the idea of rounding up the Jews and getting rid of them,
even when the situation is as urgent as it is in America today. And
really, in the long run that is the only way to solve the Jewish
problem.
The Germans understood that, back in the 1930s, and they had the
courage and the foresight to act on their understanding. Unlike
Americans today, they had an honest government concerned above all
with the survival, welfare, and progress of the German people, and
they began doing what was necessary, forcing the Jews to emigrate
wholesale from Germany beginning in 1933. And because of that the
Jewish propaganda machine has attacked the Germans so viciously, has
so blackened and demonized their image, that today even knowledgeable
people are afraid to be associated with that image. They are afraid to
say that the Germans were right, that the Germans were justified, and
that we need to do the same if we are to survive. So, as I said, the
"Holocaust" story, despite its
glaring discrepancies and lies, still serves as a shield for the Jews;
it still protects them from criticism.
Well, mostly. In parts of Europe not quite as poisoned by Jewish
propaganda as America is, the shield has slipped a bit. A large
British department store chain, Selfridges, has yielded to demands
from anti-Israel demonstrators and has removed from its shelves
products marked "Made in Israel." Last week the second largest
supermarket chain in Norway, Coop Norge -- which is to say, Norway
Coop, announced its decision to boycott all Israeli imports. That
decision was not the result of pressure from anti-Israel demonstrators
but was based on the feeling by Coop Norge management that it would be
immoral to continue supporting the Israeli economy by selling Israeli
imports under the
present circumstances. That is a step forward, though it is a long way
from what is needed.
The Jews, of course, immediately began waving their "Holocaust" story
around, and now, as the boycott movement catches hold in Scandinavia,
they are trying to portray themselves as injured innocents being
attacked once more by "anti-Semites." They are comparing the growing
Scandinavian boycott of Israeli products to the German boycott of
Jewish merchants in the late 1930s. Certainly, a boycott of Israeli
products is a good thing, and the fact that such a boycott is even
thinkable by big businessmen today is a sign that the Jewish mystique
-- and in particular the Jewish "Holocaust" story -- is becoming a bit
shopworn. It no longer has the hypnotic power that it once had -- at
least, in some parts of the world. And I suppose that we should be
happy about that. The unfortunate fact remains, however, that in
America the Jews still have their money and
their media and their entrenched network of bureaucrats, and even if
the "Holocaust" story has lost some of its charm in Europe, it still
keeps most knowledgeable Americans intimidated.
Knowledge isn't enough. Courage and boldness also are necessary.
Honesty and forthrightness are necessary also. Tiptoeing around the
critical issues of our time isn't enough. Tiny reforms in our
disastrous foreign policy and in our disastrous immigration policy and
in a dozen other disastrous policies aren't enough. We need to stop
apologizing to the people who are destroying us and go full bore at
destroying them instead.
Instead of being hypnotized by the "Holocaust" story we need to look
with clear eyes at why there was a need for action against the Jews in
Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews' claim today that the Germans
were suffering from collective insanity and had no reason for trying
to get the Jews off their backs is as phony as George Bush's claim
that
Osama bin Laden had no reason for attacking America on September 11.
Wherever Jews go they corrupt and destroy. That is their nature,
always and everywhere. Let us be thankful to the Palestinians who now
are making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the
Jews are like. And I suppose we also should be thankful to Ariel
Sharon for demonstrating so forthrightly to the world what Jews are
like.
Let us hope that the conflict between Jews and Palestinians
intensifies and lasts long enough to wake up many more of our people
around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing
support for the Jews. Let us hope that it lasts long enough to bring
about the overthrow of every collaborationist regime in the Muslim
world. Let us hope that it brings about an airtight oil embargo
against the United States and shuts off the lights in every shopping
mall and every sports stadium in America long enough for the lemmings
to become restless and begin asking questions. Let us hope that it
makes the efforts of every fool and every traitor who is striving for
a resumption of the so-called "peace process" so obviously futile that
these efforts no longer have the power to deceive anyone.
Ultimately, of course, we must not depend on the Palestinian suicide
bombers or on Ariel Sharon's murder squads to do for us what we should
be doing for ourselves. Ultimately we must stop tiptoeing and begin
marching boldly and forthrightly toward solving our own problems."
Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The "peace" Democrats are back. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. |
09 Aug 2006 09:08:34 AM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
my concern is much less with monsters like
Ariel Sharon who are doing the slaughtering
I blame Terri Schiavo.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
