The Fit

What Digby said:

The political cost to progressives and liberals for their inability to properly deal with this tactic is greater than they realize. Just as Newt Gingrich was not truly offended by Bill Clinton's behavior (which mirrored his own) neither were conservative congressmen and Rush Limbaugh truly upset by the Move On ad --- and everyone knew it, which was the point. It is a potent demonstration of pure power to force others to insincerely condemn or apologize for something, particularly when the person who is forcing it is also insincerely outraged. For a political party that suffers from a reputation for weakness, it is extremely damaging to be so publicly cowed over and over again. It separates them from their most ardent supporters and makes them appear guilty and unprincipled to the public at large.

I think there's a passage in one of Milan Kundera's books about how the Communist Party would ask grocers to put up signs saying "I Support the Communist Party" (or something) even though both the party and the customers all knew that the sign was insincere. The point, though, wasn't to trick anyone into thinking that the grocer supported the Communists or that the Communists cared whether or not the grocer supported them. The point was just to demonstrate that they could lean on the grocer to put up the sign, and the grocer would do it. Thus, everyone knew that the grocer was a broken man, not least the grocer himself who thus forth would find it that much harder to take himself and his opinions seriously.

These ritual denunciations are like that.

And of course the trap grows tighter each time it happens. The more the precedent piles up that fake Republican outrage should be met by fake Democratic disavowal, the more it becomes the case that it's politically easier to meet fake outrage with a fake disavowal. But at some point, unless Democrats are happy being the Party That Always Loses (and I think there's good reason to think that the consultants who run the party don't really mind) they need to stop doing this and act like people with some self-respect.

Comments

Do you REALLY think "the consultants who run the party" don't care whether we win or lose?

Posted by Anonymous | October 25, 2007 10:08 AM

Do you REALLY think "the consultants who run the party" don't care whether we win or lose?

Why should they? They keep their fees, and their jobs, either way.

Posted by jimBOB | October 25, 2007 10:14 AM

That's a good point. One can think of a lot of reasons for increase in the consultants' fees of the Dems continue to lose. Of course the losses cannot continue for ever, as otherwise the party or its sources of funds will cease to exist.

Nancy Pelosi's rebuke of Pete Stark and the passage of the Move-On denunciation bill should convince anyone that the Dems have no spine whatsoever.

There is no point in support Dems if in practice nothing changes if they win and the Republicans continue to embark on their anti-American agenda.

Posted by gregor | October 25, 2007 10:15 AM

Anonymous: Isn't it obvious?

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 10:16 AM

"they need to stop doing this and act like people with some self-respect"

It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Until Democrats act like they've got some self-respect, they'll repel people who are politically unaffiliated and *do* have some self-respect.

Why, it's almost like that's part of the Republican strategy...

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 10:18 AM

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is, Republicans know what they're supposed to believe and are rude about it, and Democrats don't know what they're supposed to believe and are nice about it.

Posted by Bill | October 25, 2007 10:18 AM

There is value in principle in a willingness to condemn the doings of the bad people who are nominally on one's own side, even if the other side's outrage is fake. So I wouldn't want to sign on to a strong version of Matt's "don't condemn" prescription. But I do agree with a weaker version of it, and certainly the Move On advertisement doesn't make the cut.

Posted by David J. Balan | October 25, 2007 10:21 AM

Yes, I agree entirely with Matt's analysis of the dynamics, and have often thought along similar lines. This really is a huge problem for the worthless DC Democrats.

However, let's turn things around for a moment. The Republicans have become similarly used to the notion they always just have to make a little noise and then their cowardly opponents immediately run away. But suppose that one day their opponents did _not_ run away. I suspect that in turn might make the Republicans very, very nervous, perhaps scared enough to run away themselves...

Posted by RKU | October 25, 2007 10:36 AM

The consultant point seems key.

If Dems lose -- consultants still have work.

If Dems win with a broad-based movement that creates a new base in the party -- the consultants are in trouble.

Of course they're terrified of a stand on principle. That, unlike "microtrends", has the potential to mobilize people in a way that would make it possible to win elections without their help.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 25, 2007 10:38 AM

You're thinking of Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless", one of my tip-top favourite things of all time, not Milan Kundera. And the greengrocer's sign said "Workers of the World Unite!" It's a good analogy though.

Posted by DC | October 25, 2007 10:43 AM

this is an extraordinarily dimwitted analysis. As weak willed as democrats are they dont capitulate just because republicans launch accusations against them. They only do so if they think the republican line of criticism is catching the ear of the public.

If they were simply to sniff at all charges of inapropriate behaviour from republicans, even those the public at large were sympathetic to, they'd simply come off as insufferable popinjays and do severe damage to themselves.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | October 25, 2007 10:57 AM

I think the Right has compelled the Left to act this way because it has always done a good job of suggesting this great, scary, unseen silent majority of dogmatic “values voters” or whatever that always votes Republican and always is looking to give the pitchfork mob treatment to anyone who, say, dares call a military general a traitor. And it works both ways: it spooks liberals who dare think the Constitution matters more than power or security, and it urges those on the fence to lean Right for fear of being mistaken for a liberal. It’s all mythical, ridiculous bullshit, but it still works, even in the face of data that suggest that Democrats’ positions are more in agreement with the majority of Americans. I really think all it would take to kill this myth would be for someone to punch O'Reilly in the face on live TV, get in Bush's face about what a pussy and an idiot he's always been, tell Cheney "go fuck yourself", and emasculate other phonies in a similar way. Otherwise the myth of their toughness will continue to have its appeal and work its magic. Coulter needs to be punched, too. She would never sell another million books if someone would simply punch her in the face.

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 11:10 AM

It's not Kundera, its from Vaclav Havel's Power of the Powerless (1985).

Posted by Jordan Smith | October 25, 2007 11:30 AM

Party That Always Loses

I think he's not talking about losing elections -- winning elections is about the only thing Democrats want to do. He's talking about winning policy battles, which they really don't seem to care about, because the consultants think that losing policy battles is a good way to win elections.

This is why the Democrats should only be supported when they're out of power and the country is in need of their ability: they're the only ones who can beat Republicans in elections.

Posted by neil | October 25, 2007 11:35 AM

I have no opinion on the MoveOn ad, never having seen or heard it. It is undeniably stupid, however, for a Congressman to say that a President of the United States is amused by Americans having their heads blown off, or for a Senator, like Jesse Helms, to say that a President would be threatened with assasination in a Senator's state. Perhaps is it is politically unwise to apologize for such statements, but perhaps it is more unwise to utter such stupidities in the first place.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 11:36 AM

> I think he's not talking about losing
> elections -- winning elections is about the
> only thing Democrats want to do. He's talking
> about winning policy battles, which they really
> don't seem to care about, because the consultants
> think that losing policy battles is a good way to
> win elections.

Remember that in order for there to be a "Democratic Party" of some sort, with cocktail party invitations, party slush funds, consultants, a few thinktanks to retire to, and the occasional book deal that there need only be 35 or so Democratic Senators and 150 or so Democratic Representatives - just enough so they don't go under 1/3 of the total in either house. 41 Senators might be better but is not necessary. So I think Matt is suggesting that the consultants (and IMHO the Democratic Party insiders) don't really aim much higher than those numbers. They are perfectly content.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 25, 2007 11:40 AM

Right on. We need to stop acting like a little bitch and start smashing windows.

Posted by Chris M. | October 25, 2007 11:41 AM

That Shrum dude looks totally happy to be a serial loser. If I was that guy I'd have killed myself years ago.

Posted by Chris M. | October 25, 2007 11:43 AM

"Coulter needs to be punched, too. She would never sell another million books if someone would simply punch her in the face."

I've thought it would be cool if Coulter appeared on something like Bill Maher's show with someone crazy who actually would fucking punch her, like Sandra Bernhart. I remember the early days of Politically Incorrect when Bernhardt appeared with some misogynist wingnut who said that women should be subjugated. She spit in his face. Some people need to get what they deserve.

Posted by Waingro | October 25, 2007 11:44 AM

Havel's point was more subtle than that; he pointed out that the regime could only get away with it because the sign said "Workers of the world, unite!"; if they had tried to make him put up a sign that reflected the truth, that said "I am afraid and therefore obedient", he would never have accepted it and neither would anyone else.

Posted by Alex | October 25, 2007 11:47 AM

Yes, Waingro, and after such a punching, some nut on the opposing side would rationalize a greater act of violence, which would in turn, ratchet up the hysteria more. Wonderful.

Lunatics, and their mirror images, are forever trying to take over the asylum. I know, I know, the other side started it first.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 11:50 AM

Will Allen:

"It is undeniably stupid, however, for a Congressman to say that a President of the United States is amused by Americans having their heads...."

Where is the quote exactly? What was said exactly?

Posted by Jennifer | October 25, 2007 12:03 PM

Congressman Pete Stark:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark declared. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 12:21 PM

Even if the opposition tried to one-up my imaginary Coulter-fighting hero by doing something to Al Franken or whomever, the goal will still have been accomplished and the spell will have been broken. Bill O'Reilly would be out of television within a year if someone simply decked him on TV. Adultery and drug scandals and the usual hypocrisy isn't enough to vanquish them or render them powerless. Pat Leahy should've repaid Cheney the kindnesss in their infamous spat on the Senate floor instead of complaining to the world that big bully Dick Cheney cussed at him. Sure, Leahy comes off as the gentleman and Cheney added another notch to his "I'm A Dick" belt, but you know that millions of right-wingers thought it was so awesome that Cheney dropped an F-bomb and put that Vermonter in his place. We have to help such voters realize that behind the curtain is a collection of weak, limp-dicked white guys who didn't have the balls to go to war and still don't. The illusion must be destroyed.

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 12:31 PM

I deny that it is stupid for a Congressman to say that the President is playing games with the troops.

Posted by neil | October 25, 2007 12:35 PM

Of course, that isn't what Stark said. He said that Americans were getting their heads blown off for the President's amusement. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to say.

Tinisoli, verbally responding to people in kind is quite often a good thing to do. Punching people is not, unless they are physically assaulting you, or are about to do so. It is a bit of a wonder that this needs to be explained.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 12:43 PM

It is time to equate the worst of the BushCo/Wingut media propaganda squad with Totalitarianism. These people scream leftists at Democrats as if Liberals were Communists. But the Communists of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were Communists is name only and were really Totalitarians. They were only focused on the acquisition, maintenance and use of power. Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall reading a piece about Grover Norquist, who had a saying from Lenin tacked up on his wall about the pursuit of power. This is their instinct. It is the instinct of a Totalitarian. So that is the image Liberals must foist upon these people. Liberals must be the champions of civil liberities.

Posted by Cal | October 25, 2007 12:48 PM

You're not "explaining" anything, Will; you're just giving your opinion. It is a huge PR problem for the left that we never ever simply deck someone without first being hit. I'm not advocating, by the way, preemptive war or the War on Terror or other "hit 'em before they hit us!" national foreign policy maneuvers. I'm simply talking about our failure to recognize how valuable it is to occasionally humiliate or emasculate a vile political or cultural figure in the most efficient and powerful way. If you don't want fisticuffs involved then we could come up with something else. An armada of feces-flinging monkeys, for example.

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 12:53 PM

Fine, tinisloi, it is your opinion that physically assaulting people with whom you have political differences is a useful way to pursue your political goals, in a society in which people now can advocate the election of representatives who will put in place policies they favor. In other words, you are a fascist. Why didn't you just say so to begin with?

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 1:00 PM

I guess I'm just too dumb, and I needed an intellectual like you to offer the right word. Thanks, Will Allen!

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 1:07 PM

Always happy to be helpful, tinisoli. I'd offer best wishes in your desire to have you political opponents physically assaulted, but since I don't adhere to such a philosophy, I'm afraid I'll have to wish you failure instead. I can only hope that doesn't mean that you wish to have me assaulted now.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 1:14 PM

I've noticed a lot of references to Kundera bubbling up recently. This is interesting. As a writer, he seemed to lose his footing once the communists lost power. Yet, here he is, still relevant in a post-communist age. Could it be that the central point of his books has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the central drives of human nature? Makes me want to go back and read him again. Book of Laughter and Forgetting gets my vote as his best.

Posted by JZ | October 25, 2007 1:19 PM

Will, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, after the President's rejection of the ISG, he wanted to drag on the Iraq war because he was emotionally attached to continuing it. It is a matter of linguistic aesthetics regarding whether you would choose to describe this as being for his "amusement" or not.

But that's the point-- even if the words were ill chosen, you defend them to the death and accuse anyone who takes issue with iit as being a whiney little brat who's too much of a weakling to realize that the president can deal with it himself.

Posted by Tyro | October 25, 2007 1:26 PM

"neither were conservative congressmen and Rush Limbaugh truly upset by the Move On ad..."

I think he's 180 degrees wrong on this one, and more importantly, a broad swath of Americans were upset by it -- particularly the sort of Americans who helped elected conservative Dem candidates like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, etc. If you want to maintain your majority in the House, you have to take these voters in consideration, for whom patriotism and a respect for military service are as important values as abortion-on-demand is for the Emily's List crowd.

This would all be easier if MoveOn-type Democrats had a sense of honor and were guided by it, instead of being guided solely by a relentless pursuit of partisan advantage. Next time you feel like launching a political smear attack on active duty military officer, ask yourself: What would Scoop Jackson have done? What would Bob Kerrey do?

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 1:29 PM

tinisoli,

Will's right - when you start physically assaulting your political opponents you are making an implicit statement that you no longer believe in the value of public discussion or the rule of law. At that point you are undermining democracy just as surely as the Coulters of the world. The left has gone that route before - in Weimar Germany for example - and it usually doesn't work out very well.

Posted by vanya | October 25, 2007 1:40 PM

Will, you're engaging in an implausible reading of the sentence. Stark said that the President is sending kids to Iraq for his own amusement, and the kids are getting their heads blown off. He didn't say that the President is amused by kids getting their heads blown off; just that the situation that amuses him leads to that.

Posted by neil | October 25, 2007 1:51 PM

"The left has gone that route before - in Weimar Germany for example - and it usually doesn't work out very well."

This is true, but can't you ever refrain from doing something simply because it's wrong, and not because you think it has poor prospects for success?

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 1:52 PM

I think he's 180 degrees wrong on this one, and more importantly, a broad swath of Americans were upset by it

And your evidence?

This would all be easier if MoveOn-type Democrats had a sense of honor and were guided by it, instead of being guided solely by a relentless pursuit of partisan advantage

Oh, your evidence is that you were upset by it. Well, everyone is probably just like you!

Posted by neil | October 25, 2007 1:54 PM

No, Tyro, it is not a matter of linguistic aesthetics. To say that someone is emotionally attached to a policy that is resulting in people getting their heads blown off is not the equivalent to saying that the person is gaining amusement by seeing such people get their heads blown off. The statements mean entirely different things, thus it is extraordinarily stupid to say one thing, when ones means the other, especially when saying one runs the risk of alienating people who might be otherwise be open to your persuasive powers. Unecessarily being an asshole is often very unwise, and it is something people in both parties engage in far more often than one would suspect to be the case, from folks who are supposed to professionals.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 2:01 PM

The principle difference between Republicans and Democrats is this:

Republicans think that bullying people is a show of strength, and Democrats know that bullying people is a sign of weakness.

If Democrats stood up for people, they would show that they stand for something.

Posted by The Other Brian | October 25, 2007 2:03 PM

Will, neil seems to have summed up the issue nicely. It is not out of bounds to say that the war continues for Bush's amusement. That is certainly a valid interpretation of Bush's actions since the release of the ISG report. The flaw is in the refusal to take someone to task for whining like a frightened child when someone pretends to be emotionally upset by this statement.

Insofar as people acted as though they were upset by the MoveOn ad or the Peter Stark staatement, it was because they were TOLD to be upset by it and got the impression that they would gain social accolades and prestige from acting as though they were upset. The answer to such behavior is to humiliate, alienate, and embarass anyone engaging in any such faux-outrage. The first step is in pointing out that they're being total and complete tools when they express such fake outrage.

Posted by Tyro | October 25, 2007 2:09 PM

neil, if you think it matters much to say that Bush is amused to send people to Iraq, where they get their heads blown off, instead of saying that Bush is amused when people get their heads blown off when he sends them to Iraq, we'll have to differ. Both statements entail Bush gaining "amusement" by activities in Iraq. It is a preposterous thing to say, even if one thinks the very worst of Bush's policies. In any case, Stark does say that people will be "getting their heads blown off for the President's amusement", so I see no reason to think your reading is more accurate.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 2:10 PM

No, tyro, neil has summed up the matter inaccurately. A common definition of "amuse".....

to entertain or occupy in a light, playful, or pleasant manner b: to appeal to the sense of humor of
intransitive verb

.....thus unless one is actually asserting that George W. Bush is as psychotic as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, in which case one should be demanding impeachment proeceedings on that basis, which Stark has not, it is purely, stupidly, ridiculous to say what Stark said. Perhaps it is politically unwise to apologize after the fact, but the wisest course of action is not to say purely, stupidly, ridiculous things in the first place.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Will and Vanya,
While I agree with the basic idea of ‘Once you abandon your principles, you don’t have anything’ and the danger of playing fast and loose with your morals, I think if you truly believe in a principle then you ought to be able to stray from it for a moment if doing so helps guarantee its survival in the long run. It may be deeply satisfying to never stray from your principles, but if the general principle or value matters more than your own relationship to it, then there may come a time when it is worthwhile to be a hypocrite or even a criminal. If punching out O’Reilly spelled the end of his career and hastened the departure of his poisonous ilk from the political and cultural landscape, wouldn’t that be worth the momentary departure from the warm embrace of your principles?

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 3:02 PM

Will, as I said, it is an aesthetic judgment. Perhaps it was exaggerated or unwise. I don't think the statement was offensive, and it is amply apparent that we are in Iraq because it is an emotionally sustaining course of action for the president. Amusement may not be a "fair" thing to say, but it's hardly worth calling for a public crucifixion over. As I said, the only reason anyone pretended to be upset about it was because they perceived that it would gain them prestige and accolades from their peers. If, instead of prestige, you return that faux-outrage with scorn, the whining corner of the room will stop behaving like that.

Posted by Tyro | October 25, 2007 3:10 PM

Uh, no, tinisoli, for such an act would inevitably lead to more people being physically assaulted, perhaps far more egregiously than a smack in the face. Why, people you actually approve of might be so targeted, after you put such forces in motion!

Actually, your argument neatly parallels those put forth in support of some forms of milder torture, to be targeted on really disagreeable terrorists, and it has the same weaknesses.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 3:11 PM

Why can't Democrats start throwing fits the same way Republicans do?

Similarly, why can't they use edgier language? When mentioning Giuliani's foreign policy advisors, they should be referred to as "known neoconservatives". Questions posed to Republican candidates should sound like: "are you now, or have you ever been, a neoconservative"?

Given the way things have gone over the last few years, we should make it a concerted effort for neoconservative to be a dirty word, which can be used to sully anyone associated with it.

Posted by Jim W | October 25, 2007 3:12 PM

No, tyro, it is an inaccurate or dishonest use of the word "amusement". Accuracy and honesty are not matters of aesthetic judgement.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 3:14 PM

Will Allen,

As Ann Coulter points out, leftists have already assaulted conservatives:

"Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism."

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 3:36 PM

If Stark had said that troops were getting their heads blown off in a war that is being conducted for the President's amusement, then it would be ok. It sounds like the problem is that he was talking in a shorthand way, which made it seem like he meant the president derives his amusement from the actual blowing off of heads. This could be true but is unlikely.

Posted by Jim W | October 25, 2007 3:43 PM

"Oh, your evidence is that you were upset by it. Well, everyone is probably just like you!"

Neil,

If you think I was the only one upset by the MoveOn ad -- and you think that was right thing to do -- then knock yourself out and send a check to MoveOn. Maybe you're right and the Reagan Dems who voted for your conservative candidates last year were totally cool with it. From my experiences with this demographic -- both as an NCO in the Army Reserve, and as a sales rep who spent years traveling through most of red state America -- I doubt you're right.

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 3:48 PM

Fred, I wish no physical harm to come to Ms. Coulter, but she is stupid enough, or good enough at pretending to be stupid, to serve in Congress with Rep. Stark.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 3:56 PM

Will,
I’d say the fatal weakness of Bush’s implicit justifications for torture (and the difference between them and my hypothetical case for punching Bill O’Reilly as hard as I can) is that Bush’s justifications aren’t based on any evidence or proof of actual success. He implies that if and when he breaks any laws or uses the constitution as toilet paper it’s only because he needs to in order to SAVE AMERICA, but he offers no proof that this is true or effective. (And he doesn’t even admit to any of it, which is even more pathetic.) If he offered any evidence that torture worked in the way that it does so neatly on “24,” or if he offered a verifiable success story involving wiretapping, rendition, and all the other godawful stuff he’s got going on right now, then his argument wouldn’t be so weak. If, for example, he could prove that another 9/11-style attack had indeed been thwarted thanks to waterboarding someone or listening in on Americans’ phone calls, then maybe we’d all be willing to put our notion of America on ice.
But he hasn’t, and we’re not.
And I doubt that my attack would unleash an epidemic of violence against pundits. Jim Rome, a popular sports talkshow host, had a TV show in the late 80s and early 90s on which he was an obnoxious jerk while talking to sports figures. One day he went too far, and a quarterback named Jim Everett tossed aside the interview table and nearly assaulted Mr. Rome. Within a matter or months (IIRC) Rome was off the air and it took him a decade to get back on TV. And I don’t recall a rash of assaults on sports pundits in the wake of Everett’s act of aggression. In general, the floodgates rarely open when people insist that they will.

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 4:04 PM

excellent point Mr Yglesias, i wish to God we dems could get rid of Pelosi she is more worried about acting lady-like than doing the work of the people. not only does she refuse to speak out against everything these Republicans stand for she even forces others to apologize when they do speak the truth.I understand she and rahm emmanuel put pressure on Stark to apologize oh please, since whe did any republican apologize for saying something ridiculous --case in point when Limbaugh referred to "phony" soldiers he was commended by congess and when Move on asked the question "Petraeus or betray us"
they were publicly scolded on a national level.
I wish the dems would stop acting like they've got battered wife syndrome and stand up for themselves

Posted by impeachw | October 25, 2007 4:06 PM

It is undeniably stupid, however, for a Congressman to say that a President of the United States is amused by Americans having their heads blown off, or for a Senator, like Jesse Helms, to say that a President would be threatened with assasination in a Senator's state.

And here is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: Stark apologized for his remarks and Helms never did. And no conservatives ever condemned him for it.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | October 25, 2007 4:11 PM

No, tinisoli, a utilitarian defense of torture is inadequate, even if it were true, as is your utilitarian defense of fascism. I am not going to take the time to explain why.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 4:21 PM

Punching someone in the face is not an act of fascism.

Posted by tinisoli | October 25, 2007 4:26 PM

Of course, that isn't what Stark said. He said that Americans were getting their heads blown off for the President's amusement. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to say.
Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 12:43 PM

Wrong. It is the most accurate description of the situation. That is why the wing nuts needed to hit the outrage button. The truth is dangerous to republicans.

neither were conservative congressmen and Rush Limbaugh truly upset by the Move On ad..."

a broad swath of Americans were upset by it -- particularly the sort of Americans who helped elected conservative Dem candidates like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, etc. If you want to maintain your majority in the House, you have to take these voters in consideration, for whom patriotism and a respect for military service are as important... This would all be easier if MoveOn-type Democrats had a sense of honor... partisan advantage. Next time you feel like launching a political smear attack on active duty military officer, ask yourself: What would Scoop Jackson have done? What would Bob Kerrey do?
Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 1:29 PM

Fred has his manipulation down pat. It's perfect, it's bullshit and it is exactly why the democratic party has trouble beating republicans. Movon Democrats are Heartland Americans. There is no diviation between them and the 70% Democratic Majority. It is the republican dead enders who are different from the rest of the true America, the 27%ers, the values of hate voters, the club for cancerous growth fanatics, the bathtub drowners, the tax fanatics.

You have to have a lot of elitists contempt for the the American voter to think that they can't tell the difference between an honest field officer and a political pentagon climber like Patreus. But the right always has contempt for regular Americans. Always telling them how to think and how to act, always micro managing peoples behaviors and demanding we apologise all the time. Well regular Americans are smart and see through this republics bitch slap politics and are demanding a democratic party that does the same, that tells the blow hard bully boys like Libaugh and pantywaistes like Mitch McConnel to grow up and take it like a man instead of crying for an apology like a little girl.

Scoop Jackson would have called Patreus a political sell out and you a republican crybaby foggot. When the elected Democrats start doing the same the Republicans are going to fold like the losing poker hand they are.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 25, 2007 4:35 PM

Advocating the use of physical violence against a political opponent as a means of discrediting or intimidating him certainly is consistent with fascism, and not consistent with liberal thought. People can thus draw conclusions about what you are advocating.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 4:35 PM

Of course, that isn't what Stark said. He said that Americans were getting their heads blown off for the President's amusement. This is an exceedingly stupid thing to say.
Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 12:43 PM

Wrong. It is the most accurate description of the situation. That is why the wing nuts needed to hit the outrage button. The truth is dangerous to republicans.

neither were conservative congressmen and Rush Limbaugh truly upset by the Move On ad..."

a broad swath of Americans were upset by it -- particularly the sort of Americans who helped elected conservative Dem candidates like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, etc. If you want to maintain your majority in the House, you have to take these voters in consideration, for whom patriotism and a respect for military service are as important... This would all be easier if MoveOn-type Democrats had a sense of honor... partisan advantage. Next time you feel like launching a political smear attack on active duty military officer, ask yourself: What would Scoop Jackson have done? What would Bob Kerrey do?
Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 1:29 PM

Fred has his manipulation down pat. It's perfect, it's bullshit and it is exactly why the democratic party has trouble beating republicans. Movon Democrats are Heartland Americans. There is no diviation between them and the 70% Democratic Majority. It is the republican dead enders who are different from the rest of the true America, the 27%ers, the values of hate voters, the club for cancerous growth fanatics, the bathtub drowners, the tax fanatics.

You have to have a lot of elitists contempt for the the American voter to think that they can't tell the difference between an honest field officer and a political pentagon climber like Patreus. But the right always has contempt for regular Americans. Always telling them how to think and how to act, always micro managing peoples behaviors and demanding we apologise all the time. Well regular Americans are smart and see through this republics bitch slap politics and are demanding a democratic party that does the same, that tells the blow hard bully boys like Libaugh and pantywaistes like Mitch McConnel to grow up and take it like a man instead of crying for an apology like a little girl.

Scoop Jackson would have called Patreus a political sell out and you a republican crybaby foggot. When the elected Democrats start doing the same the Republicans are going to fold like the losing poker hand they are.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 25, 2007 4:35 PM

"Advocating the use of physical violence against a political opponent as a means of discrediting or intimidating him certainly is consistent with fascism..."

It's also consistent with communism; it's not unique to fascism. What they have in common is that they are totalitarian ideologies where the ends justify the means, and violence is used to consolidate political power. In practice, the same thugs have sometimes been attracted to both movements. As Tom Reiss wrote of the Weimar period in "The Orientalist", his biography of Esad Bey:

"Many students first became Communists, but, as Goebbels liked to say, the two were really not so far apart as they seemed: give me a young German Communist and I will show you the Nazi of the future, was his motto."

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 4:57 PM

Fred has his manipulation down pat. It's perfect, it's bullshit and it is exactly why the democratic party has trouble beating republicans. Movon Democrats are Heartland Americans. There is no diviation between them and the 70% Democratic Majority. It is the republican dead enders who are different from the rest of the true America, the 27%ers, the values of hate voters, the club for cancerous growth fanatics, the bathtub drowners, the tax fanatics.

You have to have a lot of elitists contempt for the the American voter to think that they can't tell the difference between an honest field officer and a political pentagon climber like Patreus. But the right always has contempt for regular Americans. Always telling them how to think and how to act, always micro managing peoples behaviors and demanding we apologise all the time. Well regular Americans are smart and see through this republics bitch slap politics and are demanding a democratic party that does the same, that tells the blow hard bully boys like Libaugh and pantywaistes like Mitch McConnel to grow up and take it like a man instead of crying for an apology like a little girl.
=================================================

Oh, absolutely right - Heartland America is TOTALLY in sync with MoveOn

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us?” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

snip

Twenty-three percent (23%) of American adults have a favorable opinion of MoveOn.org while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or the other. Survey respondents were asked their opinion of MoveOn.org before the New York Times ad was described.

=================================================

And you SO don't know what you're talking about - but keep shouting, I'm sure it makes you feel better

Posted by Campesino | October 25, 2007 7:15 PM

Digby's right, you're right. Easy as that, and any Dem politician who doesn't agree should be thrown aside because they're worthless.

Posted by Rich | October 25, 2007 9:13 PM

It is a preposterous thing to say, even if one thinks the very worst of Bush's policies.

Wrong.

Posted by neil | October 25, 2007 9:14 PM

The Democrats are becoming the "Battered Wife" party. When I saw Rep Stark apologizing, that was the final humiliation. Apologizing for what, for telling the truth? He merely said that the war for Mr. Bush's "amusement"; well, of course it was, why else was he parading around the USS Lincoln in full codpiece?

Like the trailer trash pregnant wife apologizing for telling her drunk Bubba husband the truth about how his smelly ass-farts are embarrassing in Sunday service, just before he slaps her onto the gravel driveway.

And we're the kids, victimized by this weird dysfunctional relationship.

Posted by Grodge | October 25, 2007 10:06 PM

The very consultants who need to be run out of the Democratic Party - Ken Baer comes to mind - would find a fairly comfortable existence in the Lieberman wing of the Republican Party.

The problem is that the consultants make their money off of contacts that are only good in the Democratic Party. Democratic Party officials and politicians, therefore, are the people who need to toss them out. Consultants aren't going to leave paying gigs on their own in order to develop a whole new rolodex in the Republican Party. That needs to be forced upon them.

I don't expect this to happen.

Posted by Joe Strummer | October 25, 2007 10:15 PM

We need Vaclav Havel to write a new essay: "The Powerlessness of the Powerful".

"The Power of the Powerlessness" was one of the touchstones of my freshman year in college. Another point Havel made was that in an effective system like Communism, everyone was self-oppressing; the line between oppressor and oppressed ran down the middle of each citizen. Democrats in Congress are in a similar situation. They need to start recognizing their Inner Republican, and drag him out into the street and shoot him.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 26, 2007 2:48 AM

The Petraeus/Betray Us ad was maladroit, but hardly a new low in American political invective. I'd have liked to see Pelosi make a statement confirming at most that Stark's line about the President's "amusement" was contrary to the spirit of the House rule about personal attacks on the President, AND THEN reiterating Stark's real point: 100's of billions for random temporising in Iraq, but kids healthcare is "too expensive".

And the poll numbers about MoveOn mean very little -- most of the people polled only know about MoveOn because of right-wing vaporing about how evil it is. Odd how a group founded to advocate censuring Bill Clinton (rather than proceeding with impeachment) has gotten positioned as the furthermost outpost of radicalism.

Posted by STS | October 26, 2007 3:49 AM

And the poll numbers about MoveOn mean very little -- most of the people polled only know about MoveOn because of right-wing vaporing about how evil it is.
=================================================

You're right. Best thing to do with polls is ignore the inconvenient ones.

Posted by Campesino | October 26, 2007 11:30 AM

Do you REALLY think "the consultants who run the party" don't care whether we win or lose?

those same "consultants" moonlight as corporate lobbyists. gee, i wonder why they position dems to lose everytime.

Posted by jello | October 26, 2007 7:26 PM

In point of fact, Bush probably does find amusement in the deaths of American troops, Iraqi civilians and anyone else, for that matter. Remember when he yukked it up over the freakshow execution of Karla Tucker and smirked when asked about his fondness for executions? The man is a sadist, pure and simple. Why else would he approve of torture?

Posted by Jelperman | October 26, 2007 7:58 PM

"In point of fact, Bush probably does find amusement in the deaths of American troops..."

And you base this on what evidence, exactly? Bush has met with hundreds if not thousands of family members of soldiers who were killed in action -- do you have reports from these family members that he seemed to derive pleasure from the deaths of their loved ones?

Posted by Fred | October 27, 2007 3:20 AM

What would we ever do without Bush apologist Will Allen who pops up like the most wretched of pennies whenever needed by his great friend?

It would be one thing if he applied his lawyer-like rigor across-the-board. "One must always say precisely what one means - and no shortcuts please or be cut to pieces by my rapier-like cross-examination" Allen seems to say. But no, I've never seen Allen intervene in any such discussions when the transgressor-against-truth is a neocon or a Republican or a libertarian. Hyperbolic speech is fine when it comes from those mouths - even if it's lies that lead a country into an unnecessary war.

So screw all this bloviation about whether Stark overstepped the literal truth. Let us stipulate that he did - that George W. Bush does not literally enjoy the deaths of American soldiers. The truth behind Stark's "falsehood" is that Bush is NOT sufficiently repulsed by their deaths to even so much as reconsider whether his policy could possibly be wrong - he's said this many times - and seems to be unable if not unwilling to separate the question of his historical legacy from the question of whether his policies are good ones or not.

Yglesias' point stands basically unrefuted. Republicans can get away with this shit whenever they want to. The rules are different for Democrats who seem to be victims of the Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by stivo | October 27, 2007 2:14 PM

Thanks Matthew for pointing out one of the reasons the right does this. By getting – fill in the blank - to apologize they marginalize them to the cult of conservatism. The pod people can then toss anything that person says aside very quickly and the cult following is kept under control. The dem or any non approved source of into becomes useless. They do it one after another as need be - Durbin for instance when he spoke the truth. Durbin could make the most profound and documented statement about our state of affairs and the cult will instantly foam, as now conditioned, “Oh, he called the troops Nazis.” – Thus they do not have to deal with reality. They stay firmly in their conditioned alternate reality, only listening to the “approved” sources of info and opinion; Rush, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, FOX and Sun Myung Moon, their true savior’s propaganda sheet. Rush has indoctrinated his followers for 3 hours a day, five days a week for the last 18 years, David Koresh did not mold his cult that much.

This all fits into a larger picture of the use of mind control techniques on the nation by the right. I am not saying the right understands what they are doing but the affect of what they do is just that. Prime example is Newt's GOPAC memo which had nothing to do with selling people on conservative’s views but everything to do with language control, a major mind control technique used by all cults to keep a thumb on the minds of their followers.

Many years ago in “Dead Right” Frum basically said conservatives would never win a fair fight with liberals because the people do not support the conservative agenda. Minimum wage, healthcare, you name it. Frum was right.

The only way the right could win was by deceiving and manipulating the population on a grand scale, which they have done. It took lots of soulless people and billions from Sun Myung Moon and others but they have conditioned millions into a false reality. This is frankly a huge national security issue.

Hey Fred, Jelperman gave you two examples of how Bush has a giggling fascination with death and enjoys it. All you have to do is look at anything the man does to know he does not give a rat's behind for the troops, they are his toy soldiers.

Posted by Palmer Higgins | October 28, 2007 4:08 PM