If you have "no place to go," come here!

Can somebody fact-check this for me?

vastleft's picture

VLaszlo, in comments at Open Left:

I am so old that I remember when torture, military kangaroo justice, illegal wiretapping, indefinite detentions, Guantanamo, renditions, expanding the Af-Pak war, keeping combat troops in Iraq forever were considered the program of the far-right.

Was there a time that these things weren't part of a progressive agenda? Seems far-fetched....

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

... taxing employer-based health insurance benefits and "reforming entitlements."

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Or even cognitive ability? The cool thing to do is just draw a blank. After all, it's all working out for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds. Our leaders are trust-worthy, they just need more time for their incrimental actions to lead to perfection. Give them some elbow-room for the love of God!

Anyway, why all the anger? What's your hurry? You aren't a terrorist are you? You do have a trust-fund, don't you?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Where the blog's author (Kevin K. who often stalks Corrente for insufficient devotion to Obama) writes this:

"Maha wonders if the Republicans take another major hit in 2010 will moderate Republicans form a new party. Read it all before commenting (I’d love to hear your thoughts), but I think it’s more likely that the Democratic party will continue to move even more toward the center-right to accommodate disgruntled Republicans [no shit, Sherlock] and that a more leftward party will emerge as a result, led initially by the netroots [it what Bizarro-Pony world would that be Kevin? The one where pixie dust let's you fly if you think happy thoughts?]. It just seems to me that folks like Markos and Jane Hamsher have a much better structure and support system in place than the likes of Colin Powell, Arlen Specter or even Andrew Sullivan. You?

MORE: Political will is a huge factor, too. Certainly don’t see it in Powell or Specter. If not them, who? I’m drawing a huge blank. [Once again; no shit, Sherlock.]

And what he is responding to is:

"yada, yada, yada.....
I’m guessing that if the Republicans have another losing election in 2010 — and I’m not making predictions, but right now that seems a good bet — surely a lot of the money currently propping up the GOP will move elsewhere. A whole new conservative party that doesn’t suffer from association with Bush/Gingrich/Limbaugh would be much more palatable to a broader swatch of voters, IMO, and might even siphon off the Blue Dogs from the Dems. Maybe they’ll even call themselves New Whigs. [WTF! You have GOT to be kidding me!]"

All of which conveniently ignores two things that, without cognitive dissonance, without which these two would long ago be retching uncontrollably while riding the Otis Elevator.

First, the money ALREADY MOVED elsewhere, as did some of the Republicans (the ones still elected), and so (getting back to the topic of the post) did the Republican policies. It smelled the sinking ship (like....) and moved to Obama, you (maha, Kevin) braincell-shorted pocket Einsteins. We now have two parties, the lunatic right party (Republican), and the right-wing party (the Democrats). Since this is what the money class wants: i.e. a choice between two flavors of right-wing, and since our government is elected based on money (Thanks, Versaille!), these are the logical choices you will receive in any viable American political party.

Which leads to my second point: just because the Republican party may (or may not) have imploded, why should that be taken as meaning that Republican ideas/goals/methods/policies have imploded? Both parties leaders praise Reagan, both parties leaders give orgasms to David Brooks and David Broder. What more do you need to know to tell which way the wind blows? A weatherman?

Who could possibly "draw a blank" on this? How can anyone be stupid/naive enough to make some kind of conjecture that Kos, Hamsher, "netroots" [har! cough! cough! sputter! har!] etc., will "emerge" with "a more leftward party... as a result". That the not-batshit-insane wing of the Republican party isn't just going to sashay over to the new right-wing Democrat party where they are now welcomed with open arms? Where their policies are now adopted wholesale? The Sullivans, Specters, Lugars, etc. have WON. They have won ALL the marbles!

Thinking otherwise is "let's gather around and make a fire, maybe that will work" territory.

So, sadly, we need to say: it was you Charlie Kevin, it was you.

So that is what I was on about with the "drawing a blank" thing.

Submitted by lambert on

Because the netroots has such a great record holding their candidate's feet to the fire on going left. As commenter rose says over at Krugman's, "Look on the bright side! Well anyway…."

NOTE In a perverse kind of way, Obama was right. This is the age of post-partisanship...