Monday, August 28, 2006


Glenn Greenwald looks at the wrongness of the boisterous radical right using their own words.
Mark Steyn (sometimes Rush fill in) from May 4th 2003: This war is over. The only question now is whether a new provisional government is installed before the BBC and The New York Times have finished running their exhaustive series on What Went Wrong with the Pentagon's Failed War Plan...... Isolated atrocities will continue to happen in the days ahead, as dwindling numbers of the more depraved Ba'athists confront the totality of their irrelevance. But these are the death throes: the regime was decapitated two weeks ago, and what we've witnessed is the last random thrashing of the snake's body. ....But, for everyone other than media naysayers, it's the Anglo-Aussie-American side who are the geniuses. Rumsfeld's view that one shouldn't do it with once-a-decade force, but with a lighter, faster touch has been vindicated, with interesting implications for other members of the axis of evil and its reserve league.
Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds from April 11 2003:Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. And I guess that Dawn Olsen's cautionary advice about gloating is appropriate. So maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong -- again! -- how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong -- again! -- how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error -- again -- and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about "civilian casualties" now seem almost disappointed that there weren't more -- again -- and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American "liberators" were proven wrong -- again -- as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating. And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors. It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again.
Sadly No joins in the memories.

CBR points out how the good economy is far from universal: For months, the talk in conservative circles has been about the strength of the economy — and the unknown variable that leads Americans to express widespread discontent about the president's handling of the economy. Growth in the GDP is relatively good, the unemployment rate isn't awful, interest rates are fairly low, so what's with all the complaints? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest it has something to do with less money in people's pockets. ......As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” .....Keep in mind, it's not just wages. Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data. But you've heard that the average income and average rate of consumer spending has risen in recent years? That's sort of true, but it depends on what you mean by "average." As Ezra noted, "The reason that the statistics on compensation haven't attracted more media alarm is that they've remained positive: the media reports mean compensations, where massive raises for the rich have kept the numbers positive, rather than median compensation, which has fallen."

Patrick Lang on the bumper sticker “fight'em there or fight'em here: Is there a causal connection between civil war and insurgency in Iraq and an absence of Jihadi attacks in the United States? Let's see - What would it be?- People now fighting us in Iraq would otherwise be fighting us in the streets of Peoria. How? There were no Iraqis among the 9/11 attackers. The bogus claims of people like Stephen Hayes that evidence exists of Saddamist/Al-Qa'ida collaboration are a fraud. - War in Iraq keeps the Jihadis fully occupied so that they don't have the planning energy left to work against the West in Europe or the United States. Hello!! Madrid, London twice, Indonesia, etc. The fact is that the War does one thing. It gives the Jihadis a convenient place to fight us and it may in the future give the Iranians a place to fight us on their own terms. The RNC crowd are still saying this egregious crapola as a response to anything they don't like. Ridiculous. Ah, yes, what will be the reponse to this thought? -Leftist- Defeatist- Jihadi Sympathizer - Someone who wants Saddam back in office, etc.

Digby comment: Losing is always a good tonic for the New Right, who always get a little disoriented when they hold power for too long. It messes with their sense of victimization.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

CBR is a good site. Don't believe
it was mentioned there but the
September issue of the Atlantic
Monthly has a short article by
Clive Crook - "The Height of
Inequality" speaking to the same
thing. The reality of the economy
as it effects working Americans is
the issue Democrats should latch
onto for this year's general
election. Point out what neo-con
economic policies have done to
cause this, the budgetary and fiscal policies to begin correcting
it and monetary policies too.
And stay on target. Focus. Democrats can do this, if not too
many of them are tied to the
neo-con policies themselves.

Larry in Roswell

2:48 AM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Larry, we can hope. I am really tired of the party that is suppose to represent my segment of the population being weenies and weasels. We need more Russ Feingolds and more Howard Deans. Who cares what the loyal opposition calls them. Who cares how "shocked" they are. Hell they have Dick Cheney,Anne Coulter, Rushbo and Sean Hannity. I don't know how you can get more shocking than that! There is a post below this one on the front page with Paul Hackett on Hardball. That video segment should be an example to all dems. Bold, confident and forceful. Be a leader for Gods sake!

12:11 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger The Game said...

more Dean's...thank God, the GOP is saved

12:49 PM, August 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Census Bureau release today on
income and wealth showed some
interesting things. 1) Total Earnings of both men and women above age 15 in constant dollars decreaed from '04 to '05. 2) Total
number of people receiving health
care benefits actually increased while the precentage of same decreased and both the number and precentage of those not receiving health care beneftis increased.
3) Per household median income
increased but among the quintiles
only those in the highest 20%
actually saw an increase, and it was enough to offset the loses by those in the other four quintiles.
The rich are not only getting richer their rate of getting richer
is increasing. 4) Incomes did not include items ,e.g. food stamps, medicaid, medicare or other non-monied items. So, if not for these non-monied incomes, the rate of poverty would be increasing rather than staying about the same. Also, if income from investments was
not included in monied income, then the increase of income among the top 20% would be even greater. 5) The increase in the number of people receiving health care
benefits was due to the increase in the number of people receiving public sector health care benefits. The actual number of those receiving private sector health care benefits actually decreased. 6) The state with the lowest rate of uninsured
is Minnesota, well below the national average of around 16%. The state with the highest rate of uninsured with more than 24% uninsured, more than 50% higher than the national average is -----
--------- Texas!! The home of W and so much that is neo-con.

Anyway you honestly look at these,
it doesn't look too good for the Middle Class. You can see the whole thing at:

Couldn't verify that things such as
child care and cash payments for
health costs were not included
in expense considerations for
poverty determination.

Larry in Roswell

5:36 PM, August 29, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

It can only be a good sign for Dean if you don't like him Game. :-)

6:36 AM, August 30, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home