Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktMy first question for “E.J.” is, are you asking the left to finance a bogus “astroturfed” TeaBagger movement, since the leftist meme from the get-go is that it is all fake? If so, what’s the value in that? Or, are you arguing for a real, populist lefty TeaBagger movement? If so, how is one created? Our only example out there is the fake kind. Unless you think it was real?
These paragraphs are interesting in that he doesn’t say what prompted the right’s “ferocious backlash.” What motivated the rights ferocious backlash against Clinton in ’94? Or Against Truman in ’46? Or FDR in ’38?
“The administration was complicit in this, viewing the left’s primary role as supporting whatever the president believed needed to be done. Dissent was discouraged as counterproductive.
This was not entirely foolish. Facing ferocious resistance from the right, Obama needed all the friends he could get. He feared that left-wing criticism would meld in the public mind with right-wing criticism and weaken him overall.”
I love “E.J.’s” framing of LBJ’s civil rights victories Of using outside groups to help him. Yes, they did help him, it’s just that “E.J.” can’t quite bring himself to mentioned which party was causing him the problems in regards to civil rights. Anybody remember? Paging Al Gore Sr., please pick up the whites-only courtesy phone.
“What’s been missing in the Obama presidency is the productive interaction with outside groups that Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed with the labor movement and Lyndon B. Johnson with the civil rights movement. Both pushed FDR and LBJ in more progressive directions while also lending them support against their conservative adversaries.”
Anyway, I normally think “E.J.” is silly, this proves he can be funny as well.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Actually, Troll, the meme is that it is financed by undisclosed contributions. The left demonizes the Koch brothers, the right demonizes George Soros. Yawn. The main point being that there is a false narrative in that if two sides are being presented, the truth must lie somewhere in between. So, if the left gets behind centrist positions (you know, like tax rates under Reagan) and the right insists on a 23% flat tax, the "bipartisan" approach must be somewhere in the middle.BB
LikeLike
That's why the concept of, and the promulgation of "Objective Reporting" is absurd.As far as us TeaBaggers I disagree with you. The meme was that we were/are entirely astroturfed. That being said, what would "E.J." say causdd the ferocious backlash against Clinton, Carter, Truman and FDR?
LikeLike
"the meme is that it is financed by undisclosed contributions. The left demonizes the Koch brothers, the right demonizes George Soros"Wait, then aren't they disclosed? "Yes, they did help him, it's just that "E.J." can't quite bring himself to mentioned which party was causing him the problems in regards to civil rights. Anybody remember? Paging Al Gore Sr., please pick up the whites-only courtesy phone."Yeah, this is universal–and then if somebody ever provides a historical context, that's jumped on as being agenda driven. You can't win for losing, so reporters don't try. Rush used to do a thing where he'd compare reporting on Democrats in trouble vs. Republicans, noting how the (R)s all called out while the (D)s were apparently unaffiliated with any party, as far as the general, non-Fox media was concerned. I haven't noticed this much recently, but I don't watch any regular news any more, or read much that I don't already know has an agenda to advance. But, I tend to agree with Troll. What Obama is missing is the 1960s manufacturing base and the 1930s labor movement and WWII and starting from a point where there were almost no entitlements and getting to end at the point where there were a few entitlements. It's not 1960 or 1930 . . . trying to distill the difficulties any politician or group might be having to a single factor (we need more outside interaction!) is pedantry. In my opinion. But I'm often pedantic, so that's not really a criticism, just an observation. ; )
LikeLike
"say causdd the ferocious backlash against Clinton, Carter, Truman and FDR?"Angry white males throwing a temper tantrum. As I recall, that's what Peter Jenning's said when reporting on the 1994 "coup". The astroturfing thing always strikes me as odd. You can always tell the difference between real sod and astroturf, and the same is true with the tea party. There may be folks trying to direct, shape, and manipulate the outcome for their own desire (happens all the time, it's happening with the Occupy Wallstreet protests right now) but was not a corporate plot from the outset. I mostly see that advanced on the Daily Kos and from commenters on other, less esteemed blogs, than this one. Not sure what E.J. Dionne has said about it in the past, I just don't read him that much unless somebody makes me.
LikeLike
Is anyone watching the stock market?FB, I think a comparison between the Koch brothers and Soros is a bit of a stretch in that Koch Industries has an over-sized influence in Republican politics compared to Soros and Dems.
LikeLike
"So, if the left gets behind centrist positions (you know, like tax rates under Reagan) and the right insists on a 23% flat tax, the "bipartisan" approach must be somewhere in the middle."But this is a great strategy for advancing your agenda. You have to admit, if you can reframe the narrative like that, it's a win for your agenda in the practical sense (although nobody on your side will be happy, even so, because the expectations have been set so impossibly high in the process of reframing). Lmsinca, I think that's accurate. But much like the hair-trigger sensitivity to Republican hypocrisy that seems to vanish (as far as most conservatives are concerned) where Democrats are not living in concert with their espoused values, Republicans tend to make a very big deal about rich people ever bankrolling liberals or liberal movements. Because, you know, they're supposed to hate rich people. So they tend to make a very big deal that Soros devoted a lot of money to beating Republicans several years ago, even though he's mostly bailed on wasting his cash thusly in recent years (as far as I know). See! You have unseemly billionaires bankrolling your candidates too! Only, it's worse, because you're supposed to be for the little guy! But you're really an elite group of elites funded by foreigners!When it comes down to it, Soros and the Kochs are fellow travelers. They come in handy to start a website or get some advertising time, but there would still be a lot of liberals and Democrats, and a lot of conservatives and Republicans, running and voting against each other, without Soros or the Kochs.
LikeLike
Agreed to a certain extent Kevin. And while it was never said here, it is endlessly trumpeted elsewhere. The meme that is.
LikeLike
There are very few wealthy groups left that support working people so when a banker, a pharmaceutical company or even an oil company throws money at Dems, they're gonna take it. Why do you think we got an industry driven and written health care bill? Why do you think the financial industry is doing so well? This is the point, there's very little difference between the two parties any longer. The proof is all around us.
LikeLike
I wonder how much of this is just a continuation of a fight over FDR's Four Freedoms (something that I'd like to turn into its own post). Some of us just won't ever get behind idea of 3 and 4. 1. Freedom of speech and expression 2. Freedom of worship 3. Freedom from want 4. Freedom from fear
LikeLike
Is it required to actually read EJ to comment? I once did, but, as with so many other columnists, I found his arguments as holed as Swiss cheese so I stopped. What would 'the left' stand to gain from a left's version of the Tea Party? At this point results would speak louder than anything. Off-topic to MikeinAustin: my niece leaves the Midwest for Austin in the morning.
LikeLike
Mr. Troll,Indeed. I was thinking of a few various people who shall remain unnamed on some other blog that shall remain unnamed that told me, without ambiguity, that there are some suckers in it that don't know any better, but the entire Tea Party movement was astroturfed into existence by the Kock brothers, and that it's all fake. That the entire creation of it, from the outset, was staged and phonied up like the moon landing.
LikeLike
Koch as oversized party influence compared to Soros????I have a piece of evidence that suggests maybe not so fast: President Barack Obama.Soros funding supported much of the media/info infrastructure that led to that improbable result.It is a wonder that EJ Dionne gets paid to write his drivel. He is one of those barometers of conventional wisdom and recycled talking points whose every word is dispensable. There was a time when he seemed more principled than he has in recent years. But no more.
LikeLike
Re: the Koch brothers. it cracks me out that people will make a lewd joke with their name. yet it's pronounced koʊk/; coke
LikeLike
Well, it's not that I disagree with 3 and 4 so much as I wonder why it would be a Federal government responsibility to alleviate my want of, say, a Ferrari. Further, would you join with me in the extermination of all snakes? Cause I fear them.
LikeLike
Chorus: O whacking day, o whacking day, Our hallowed snake-skull cracking day.Soprano: We'll break their backs, Gouge out their eyes, Their evil hearts, We'll pulverise.Chorus: O whacking day, o whacking day, May God bestow His grace on thee.
LikeLike
This statement is beyond ridiculous and ill-informed:"His health-care reform is remarkably conservative …."Or EJ is just doing his job, which is propaganda.
LikeLike
NoVa,I think one can fairly say that a large percentage of American politics since FDR's distorting tenure is just a continuation of the conflict over that vision of collectism and socialism, recast as "freedoms."It has had many names and champions, from long before FDR and after him, of course. At bottom, it all comes down to that (incoherent, imo) claim that people have a right to material things from other people.
LikeLike
Lms,I think the market is reacting to Greece missing their deficit target. While I find it incredulous that anyone thought they would hit it, I'm sure that's it. I don't know about the volume traded either. If it's low, it's easier for big swings to occur. Or, it's because of 'E.J's" column. One or the other.
LikeLike
" It is a cooperative venture with a large number of other organizations, notably the American Dream Movement led by Van Jones, a former Obama administration official who wants to show the country what a truly progressive agenda around jobs, health care and equality would look like."Van Jones is not only a truther and eco-radical but a socialist at the least and, at least based on his previous self-identified allegiance, a revolutionary communist. To EJ, he is a fitting leader of a movement to counter the Tea Party movement. I say, great idea, bring it on. But, EJ, enough with the "extreme" rhetoric about conservatives. You are a silly man.
LikeLike
looks like QB wrote my post for me.
LikeLike
"To EJ, he is a fitting leader of a movement to counter the Tea Party movement. I say, great idea, bring it on."Such an approach is bound to greatly benefit Republicans and the right. Van Jones might resonate with inside-the-Beltway media folks and campus leftists (nothing against those fine folks), but they're just going to provide fodder for Republicans and conservatives in the competitions for hearts and minds of swing voters, independents, and folks who just really started paying attention to politics.
LikeLike
BTW, "Freedom from want" . . . man, what a messy kettle of fish you open up when you start down that road.
LikeLike
I don't have time right now to delve but qb your juxtaposition on these is incredible. More later, and BTW, my email is down everyone so if I don't respond, I'll get to it later."it all comes down to that (incoherent, imo) claim that people have a right to material things from other people.""But, EJ, enough with the "extreme" rhetoric about conservatives."Crazy busy day today so I'm unable to spend any time refuting some of this. Maybe later.McWing, volume looks low.
LikeLike
Want is dangerous. Ignorance more so."Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased." Ghost of Christmas Present.
LikeLike
Okay, lms, I'll look for my clock-cleaning later on. : )I'm just amazed when I see someone in mainstream media treat Van Jones like he is a mainstream, reaonable guy, while calling mainstream conservatives who support smaller, constitutional government extremists who "went astray." EJ is not a thinker. He's not even in touch with basic history.
LikeLike
QB – ACA is remarkably like the R plan of 1993. If I were characterizing it, it is a deal with the insurance industry whereby their profit and overhead are regulated to 15% in exchange for a mandatory expansion of their market. I would characterize the thrust of it as an insurance regulatory scheme. It is grandiose. But it is more "conservative" than "liberal" in the conventional context because it is aimed at the perpetuation and growth of the medical insurance industry. What is it NOT?It is NOT libertarian.It is NOT primarily a health initiative.It is NOT socialized medicine or even bureaucratic governmental gatekeeping of personal health care.What part of the statute will raise federal obligation costs? The expansion of Medicaid.NoVa, have I misstated?
LikeLike
"Soros funding supported much of the media/info infrastructure that led to that improbable result."I have little sympathy for those who work the ref. George Soros does not own the NY TImes, the Post, the Economist (you know, that radical British mag that endorsed Obama), etc. etc. etc. Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, DOES own Fox News, the NY Post, BSkyB etc. etc. etc. AM Radio is practically an arm of the Republican party, so don't whine to me Argentina.I'm not someone who complain that your contributions are bigger than mine. I do feel that undisclosed contributions are corrosive. If you want to give Dick Armey $100M to play with, by all means do it. Just don't hide behind the thin tissue that they'll picket at more poor little child's exclusive school.One of my favorite sayings is that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I have a firm view that there should be NO limits on campaign contributions and that ALL* campaign contributions should be disclosed. In accordance with the recent decision of the Supremes, I would extend this to any non-profit. You donate, you disclose. I put an asterisk in that we can impose a $20 limit or whatever one considers reasonable so that firemen can hassle me at red lights.BB
LikeLike
uh oh. I'm going to have to punt on the 1993 plan, cause I was wasn't even driving yet. Here's a good breakdown of the spending. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2011/07/27/hlthaff.2011.0662.fullassuming everything goes as planned and under current law, it does not significantly raise federal obligations. But the drum I've been beating is the Medicare payment for docs. The law assumes they take a 30% cut come 1/1/2012. I think they're underestimating the Medicaid cost. The law includes an enhanced match for the states (FMAP – for every dollar the state spending, feds chip in based on a %) for a couple of years and then eliminates it. the states are expected to pick up the cost of the "expansion" population on their own. governors (R and D) already are complaining about that. so they're doing the on think they can, which is cut payments to providers, who in turn are suing under the Medicaid "access to care" requirements. so watch for that "temporary" enhanced payment to become permanent, absent other entitlement reform, at a huge cost to the feds. But Mark is right in the sense that the ACA has everything to do with the status quo on insurance and very little to do with actual health care. It builds on the existing system with some cost shifting. That the existing system is struggling under it's current weight and is and seriously FUBAR is why i think the ACA is doomed. ideologically, sure, it's not my thing, but that's largely b/c the current system is not my thing. ACA backers are saying "you're going to have gold plated health insurance"; and, my concern is that we don't have the capacity to meet the need. if MedPAC has taught me anything, it's that "insure it (with first dollar coverage) and they will come (and blow the doors off your cost projections)."
LikeLike
"AM Radio is practically an arm of the Republican party"Typically, liberals wrote off AM radio as being old fashioned and not relevant to the modern world, and the conservatives moved in, patched it up, and start kicking ass all up and down the dial. Man, do we rock, or what? That being said, Soros is 100% entitled to do what he wants and, aside from infrastructure funding to really target Bush in 2004, he political contributions have been fairly typical of your average billionaire.I think it's hard to argue Soros is as active as the Koch bros., recently.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/04/left_right_and_soros.htmlHe's not closing the door in future political efforts, but he's not dumb and I think he noticed it's hard to fund desirable political results, no matter how much you spend. After a certain point, it's irrelevant or even counter productive (example: Meg Whitman). For either of the two major political parties, critical infrastructure will come into being, without Soros or the Koch bros, if it is necessary to advance the agenda. "One of my favorite sayings is that sunshine is the best disinfectant."I agree. Full disclosure of campaign donations. If you're not willing to support someone with your name, you shouldn't support them with your money.
LikeLike
"If you're not willing to support someone with your name, you shouldn't support them with your money."100% disagree. i wish i had time right now for this. anonymous speech is an important and protected right.
LikeLike
"…anonymous speech is an important and protected right."Where?Are you extrapolating from the secret ballot?
LikeLike
"100% disagree. i wish i had time right now for this. anonymous speech is an important and protected right."I 100% disagree with your disagreement! And I do support anonymous speech as a general principle, but not the anonymous bankrolling of politicians who then vote to on legislation that might benefit me while hampering a competitor, etc. Given that politicians craft law, create and repeal regulations, determine the tax code, etc., anybody who donates money to them should be exposed to the full light of day. Even in kind donations–anything that could result in a quid pro quo.
LikeLike
Look at me, pretending I know some legal Latin. I'm funny!
LikeLike
If donations to legislators are going to be opaque to the citizens whom they govern, then the donations should be equally opaque to the politicians, and it should be a crime for donors to come by and hint: "You know who gave you $55,456 and twelve cents? That was me. Anyway, about these new environmental regulations . . . " The simpler solution is to fully disclose who gives who money. Otherwise, I'm not necessarily engaged in anonymous speech–I may be buying undue influence as well, so my issues take priority over the issues of my constituents. Do we argue that's protected? If not, then how do you prevent it without disclosure?
LikeLike
Kevin, contributions and independent speech (i.e., expenditures) are treated completely differently in the law. Speech is not a contribution aka bankrolling. Contributions are disclosed.Oh, the censors would like to treat them the same, but that was part of what was thrown out by Citizens United, which had to throw it out again after it was brought back in by the McCain-Feingold case and the circa 1990 case that right now slips my mind.
LikeLike
Fine, I guess you think you know more about the law than me, because you're a lawyer and I'm a database analyst. Well, actually, I guess that would make sense. 😉 When speech is an in kind contribution to a candidate or party, in effect, and costs money . . . still think that might oughta see the light of day. But smarter people than me are going to duke that out, no doubt.
LikeLike
What's the point of being a _______ if you can't lord it over people who aren't ______s?! Actually, I am someone who has no problem with nonlawyers arguing law, if they are smart and know enough to say something intelligent. That's why I link court decisions sometimes. Your argument is one that's been made, and some Justices bought into it.But what is the difference between speech that is an in-kind contribution and speech that is just speech? If I write an letter to the editor that says, Obama is a shmuck, vote for McCain, did I just contribute to McCain?
LikeLike
If anyone wants to laud the value of anonymous speech, I commend you to the comments section of the Washington Post. Whatever value it might have had has been eliminated. What is the value of slander laws if one can hide behind pseudonyms? Then again, those who think they are anonymous have been disabused of this notion repeatedly. With regards to QB's last question, an in kind contribution should be disclosed. If the owner of the local Kinko's prints 10,000 fliers for a candidate, that is an in kind contribution and should be disclosed. Your letter to the editor I think that you're making a slippery slope argument. I tend to discount these. Ultimately, one has to make arbitrary decisions. Where to put the 28% rate. At what stage of growth can a fetus be aborted. If you're not comfortable with making decisions, get into the grave.BB
LikeLike