If you haven’t checked out Ed’s new digs at Hot Air, you should. He’s blogging full-time again, and he’s got some great stuff going on; his takedown of the Dems’ attempt to provide economic stimuli to voter fraud, his rip on the Times’ loathsome drive-by of John McCain’s citizenship status…
…and this story, about the depressing venality of Barack Obama’s economic “policies” so far:
Many people have compared Obama to Ronald Reagan in his ability to promise “morning in America,” but they have focused only on the most superficial part of the Reagan revolution. Reagan didn’t cast himself as the agent of hope, but appealed to the hope within Americans that they could lift up the country, and not the other way around. He focused on the hope of the individual as the true agent of change, and not the despair of the collective that required government intervention.
The rhetoric has given us nothing really new. It has the same populist ring to it that we have heard since before collectivism got entirely discredited in the latter 20th century. It’s simplistic calls to soak the rich and redistribute the wealth, to impose economic isolationism, and to prey on the fears of the working class by casting globalization as an unmitigated evil.
I’ve noted, a few weeks ago, the Carteresque side of Obama’s polarizing, vilifying rhetoric. Ed notes the similarities with William Jennings Bryan, another demigogue and legendary stemwinder. And for me – a North Dakota native – Obama naturally smacks of Bill Langer, leader of the “Non-Partisan League” party, which advocated radical (and socialistic) measures to deal with the farm crisis during the Depression (and, if you’ve read the farm bills of the last sixty years, he’d seem to have won).
Since the entire Republican movement in the midwest is very much William Jennings Bryan populist whinging about elitism, northeastern limousine liberals, etc.. I’d think anyone similar would be very much to your liking, Mitch.
Truthfully, and seriously, OBama’s lack of specifics is concerning, but certianly no more so that Bush’s complete and utter lack of specifics when he ran, and total abandonement, once elected, of even the most general of ideas he ran under (no nation building, fiscal responsibility, etc..) If you are saying you’ve learned your lesson with Bush – great – but I’m guessing the lack of detail, and the personality cult which you so openly embraced during Bush’s runs, really isn’t the issue when it occurs with Obama, it’s simply that he’s a Democrat, so reflexively, you hate him/his positions/his approach/his popularity.
The irony is that you complain about Bryan, while embracing a party that plays upon the same phobias about eastern corporate fat-cat control (as Bryan did) – and complain about cult personality politics, while happily foisting off candidates like Bush, Guiliani, and Romney – the first two of whom had nearly zero credible depth, and the last who so manifestly shifted from his liberal positions in Massechusettes that you couldn’t for a moment claim it was about his stances – because they were so apt to change. Once again, it’s do as I say, not as I do with the GOP and one of their chief blogging flacks, M. Berg.
and total abandonement, once elected, of even the most general of ideas he ran under (no nation building, fiscal responsibility, etc..)
Gosh, it’s almost as if something happened during the early months of his presidency, or something. Something. . . unprecedented. Something that shook America to its very core.
Nahhhhhhhhhhhh.
” . . . the personality cult which you so openly embraced during Bush’s runs”
Your powers of invention are amazing Peev. You should become a professional liar. Please provide an example of Mitch embracing a personality cult during Bush’s runs.
By the way, Mitch, congrats on becoming one of the GOP’s chief blogging flacks!
Didn’t Chief Bloggingflacks defeat Custer?
Once again, it’s do as I say, not as I do with the GOP and one of their chief blogging flacks, M. Berg.
Do as I say, not as I do? Huh?
And I’m sure the GOP would be interested to know I’m “one of their chief blogging flaks”.
Since the entire Republican movement in the midwest is very much William Jennings Bryan populist whinging about elitism, northeastern limousine liberals, etc.. I’d think anyone similar would be very much to your liking, Mitch.
Well, Peev, maybe – if I completely mistook surface factors for underlying substance!
Truthfully, and seriously, OBama’s lack of specifics is concerning, but certianly no more so that Bush’s complete and utter lack of specifics when he ran
He’d, um, run an actual state. Y’know. A big one.
and total abandonement, once elected, of even the most general of ideas he ran under (no nation building, fiscal responsibility, etc..)
Er, yeah. What Terry said.
If you are saying you’ve learned your lesson with Bush – great
Actually, as I’ve written time and time again, I was a Forbes guy in 2000. I had no “lesson” to “learn”; I supported the other guy, for reasons – at least as re domestic spending, which was my #1 issue in 2000, and, somehow, slipped way down my list by 2002 – for which I’ve been completely proven right.
– personality cult which you so openly embraced during Bush’s runs,
Yeah, and what Yossarian said as well.0
really isn’t the issue when it occurs with Obama, it’s simply that he’s a Democrat, so reflexively, you hate him/his positions/his approach/his popularity.
Nothing “reflexive” (or “hateful”, for that matter) about it. It’s a very considered position.
The irony is that you complain about Bryan, while embracing a party that plays upon the same phobias about eastern corporate fat-cat control (as Bryan did)
Nothing ironic about it; merely a catastrophic failure in logic on your part. Bryan and I have one thing in common, as you note; by your “logic”, Hitler and I both loved our dogs, therefore I’m a HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE to complain about him.
and complain about cult personality politics, while happily foisting off candidates like Bush, Guiliani, and Romney
None of which were personality cults!
who so manifestly shifted from his liberal positions in Massechusettes that you couldn’t for a moment claim it was about his stances – because they were so apt to change.
So what? They changed. So did mine; I was a flaming liberal 25 years ago. Ronald Reagan was a New Dealer, for stu’s sake. I don’t care that people change; merely that they change in the right direction. As I did.
Once again, it’s do as I say, not as I do with the GOP and one of their chief blogging flacks, M. Berg.
I’m not actually sure what that’s supposed to mean.
Truthfully, and seriously, OBama’s lack of specifics is concerning, but certianly no more so that Bush’s complete and utter lack of specifics when he ran
He’d, um, run an actual state. Y’know. A big one.” And was that the point of what I said.. ummm.. No… once again, you missed the point – which wasn’t a complex one.. actually, I think you just ignored the point and responded how you wanted to – precisely because you wanted to ignore it.
Mitch- first off, pointilistic responses are horse crap, I’ve been telling you that for years, yet you continue to engage in what anyone even half-informed on what is considered civil and meaningful debate style knows. It allows you to utterly take out of context and misrepresent the actual discussion.
Case in point- your complaint was about Obama’s lack of substance behind his message, NOT his experience. The point, which you so wilfully dodged, was that Bush had little in specifics either, and I was abundantly clear about that. Whether Bush ‘ran a state’, and the size of it, are immaterial to the level of detail and grasp he had when he ran. He could have been the governor of California, or the head of 3M, and still run on vagueries and smoke. Past that, Bush was the figurehead governor who did next to nothing – I mean, if we want to talk about your irrelevant point and all.
As for changing in the right direction Mitch, Reagan later passed the largest tax increase in US history (at the time) – I’m assuming you mean THAT kind of change too :)?
BTW – using utterly invented hyperbole to deflect the realities of your anti-eastern, anti-fat-cat psuedo message – when you open embrace the rich – THAT would be hypocrisy. The point about Bryan isn’t mine, it’s from a book, a pretty famous one, called “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” by Thomas Frank. So, I suppose the point of a work that George Will referred to Frank as “Frank is a formidable controversialist – imagine Michael Moore with a trained brain and an intenllectual concience.” The point M.Berg – is that you do here again, what you so often do, complain about traits the GOP (and especially you) so frequently engage in far more deeply. You complained about Obama’s Bryan-esque appeal, while not even mentioning the vast message already out there of Bush’s (and the ultra-rigtht’s) exploitation of Bryan’s mesage of God n’ Guns. It’s not shallow – and it’s sure as hell not as stupid and easily deflected as something like saying you and Hitler have dogs. I suppose you and Stalin have mustaches, so you’re both Hitler and Stalin too :). You are smarter than this kind of drivel Mitch – and the comparison of anti-elitism (which Bryan engaged in) and your message/Conservatism is valid, certainly as valid as any comparison of Bryan and Obama. I suppose by your response logic, I should say you’ve said Obama, since he has hair, is Stalin.
The right direction is your opinion, not fact. You missed the point of the Caine Mutiny, you’ve made one failed prediction after another, your hard-right end of the GOP’s policies have been utterly repudiated over the past 7 years (and longer), I’m not so sure it’s been in the right direction.
BTW – to those of you who don’t think you’re engaging in Cult politics.. when I confronted Mitch regarding Bush’s lack of knowledge, he responded, “Well he was smart enough to beat you twice” – this was an in person discussion. We were talking about his capabilities to make informed decisions given the insularity which surrounds him.
That response both:
a. Was increadibly childish and uncivil – a rather poor statement of character made at that point. I wasn’t being petty, I was talking about concerns I had about Bush’s ability to grasp why we don’t do things like shred the Geneva Convention (btw, the right-leaning Supremes agreed with me – just so you know).
b. It also showed someone who was fully willing to simply go with the ‘He knows more than you or I’ about intelligence meme. That’s cultism at it’s height. The policy doesn’t matter – just trust him.
c. But probably worst in terms of indictment – it reflected an increadible hubris – one that overlooked the entire point – namely that BUSH wasn’t the SMART one – that was Rove – whom I loathe but respect – Bush did little to win other than follow the lead of people his father hand-picked for him. Yet, and despite enormous flaws and errors in policy which Mitch neither refuted nor defended, he came up with that golden piece of BS err… logic. I care little about the nature of the winner of the Presidency this year for a couple of reasons – first I think McCain has enough character to be a VAST improvement on Bush – Second McCain and the rest of the GOP deserve to suffer the wrath of americans for the collosal screw up they’ve made over the past 7 years – but that said – my concern is about actual defense of good policy and the law. Mitch has consistently shown ambivilence toward it when it suited him – e.g. Hamdi, Guantanmo, Domestic Spying – and been vitriolic when it suited him (Parker/’2nd amendment defense’).
Case here in point – he assailed Obama for ‘Bryan-esque’ approach (generalities and lack of specifics for starters, populism for another), yet when hoisted by his own petard – i.e. that HE uses anti-eastern bias and populism – ohhhh, that’s tooo general – even though he actively engages in generalities like limousine liberal all the time.
Mitch – btw, saying that Bush, Guiliani and Romney weren’t personality cults doesn’t acutally MAKE it so. Guiliani had ONE issue, Bush was detail light in the extreme – yet you supported him , and Romney was all over the map, seeminglly for convenience NOT because in a two year period he changed into Strom Thurmond. Try actually supporting your denials with facts. Romney supported tax increases as recently as 5 years ago, he didn’t ‘mold over time’ into something new (and better according to you) as you and Reagan supposedly did. He supported RINO positions in the very recent past – pretending that meant a sudden change of heart is whistling past the grave, and nothing more. And it makes you, as asserted – one of the GOP flaks.
All those words, just going to waste.
I hope you re-cycle.
Master – heal Mitch first, he writes 10,000 words for each 10 I write – and many of his are simply pointless because while occassionally clever, and usually well crafted – they make points the truth of which he knows better than.
Mitch, you know what’s ironic – the fact that you’d complain about losely tied together associations, while foisting off foolishness like Islamo-facism. Talk about your poorly justified associations – let’s see, Jihadism (a religious movement) believes in totalitarianism – facism – a socio-political movement justifying dictatorship – believed in totalitarianism. The relationships after that pretty well cease – and you know it – one believes in a pre-eminent miltary state, the other doesn’t. One believes in corporate/governmental symbiosys, the other doesn’t. One advocates a theocratic hierachy, the other eschewed the Church. As far as ludicrous associations go, you wing-nutzies have taken the cake, eaten it, and crapped it out again.
he writes 10,000 words for each 10 I write
I know I’ve explained this to Peev before, many times in fact, but it’s my birthday today, so I figured maybe, just maybe, there’s enough magic in the air that he might grasp the point.
Peev? This is MITCH’S BLOG. This is not YOUR BLOG. Mitch has the right to type and post whatever the hell he wants on HIS BLOG. It’s only through his immense patience and capacity for tolerating obsessive-compulsive douche-nozzles such as yourself that you even have permission to comment here and hijack entire threads with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Any other blogger would have started deleting and editing your endless, pointless diatribes for comedic and mocking effect eons ago. You’re a parody unto yourself, Peev.
“he writes 10,000 words for each 10 I write”
Ya know, peeve, you really are a flaming liar about this. You seem obsessed on this point since you bring it up so often.
So once again, let’s do a word count (ain’t Unix fun?)
peeve: 1481 words.
mitch: 400 word (including original post).
Or did you mean to write that you write 1000 times what Mitch does?
Try at least to tell the truth on the easily verifiable things, otherwise only the insane will believe your even more deranged and laughable rants.
One believes in corporate/governmental symbiosys, the other doesn’t. One advocates a theocratic hierachy, the other eschewed the Church.
Stating this as a generality, much less a rule, shows that your understanding of these constructs is paper-thin and pretty much straight out of a 100-level textbook.
You guys, especially Mitch, have far more patience than I do regarding Peev’s long-winded pointlessness. I simply skip over his comments to see if Mitch posted a fisking of them; otherwise, I never bother reading them.
peevish said:
“your hard-right end of the GOP’s policies have been utterly repudiated over the past 7 years ”
What “hard-right end” are you fantasizing about, peevish? And these “hard-right end” policies were “utterly repudiated” in what way? On Kos and DU?