Now that we are chest deep in the cesspool of Electopocalypse 2012, the kid gloves have come off and both camps are openly comparing each other to the most hated and hateful ideologies in human history. It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows American politics. Smearing your opponent is a time-honored tradition dating back to the Adams/Jefferson campaign of 1800, when the Federalists portrayed Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans to the headhunting mobs of revolutionary France and Jefferson’s people claimed Adams was a closet monarchist who wanted to ally the nation with the recently defeated Brits.
Now before those of you on the left cry foul and point out that remarks by Kalifornia kingpin John Burton were soundly criticized by the liberal press for comparing Republicans to old Joe Goebbels, I would counter that it’s only because the Dems hold the high ground right now. They don’t feel the need to invoke too many stereotypical arch-villains, but that will change if the tables turn. There are plenty of images of Bush and Cheney in SS uniforms from the 2004 election. Romney and Ryan could be photoshopped in in a nanosecond. And besides, Burton only said what many of them think anyway.
Our friends on the right have been working every angle they can imagine. Birther…muslim…amateur…evil genius…and above all, communist. It was only a few weeks ago that one of our local bloggers plopped a big, omninous sickle and hammer on one of his self-described rants. (I name no names, but he used to be a supervisor.) They have become utterly unhinged by the latest polls showing Obama with a five point lead. If things don’t change by Columbus Day they will go cross-eyed and start foaming at the mouth, not an attractive sight to many voters. There is no slimy rock left unturned in the ranks of the far, far right. As an example, I offer this fine piece of work from the site “It Don’t Make Sense”. (The post is titled State Dept Goes Wild. ) http://www.itdontmakesense.blogspot.com/
Being the middle of the roader, I see some truth in both directions, and both are unscrupulously adept at scrapping the bottom of the bedpan. Nazis and Commies? Not yet, but they are working on it.
Frisch has been tossing Nazi references right and left (or is that left and left) over at Rebanes; perhaps you should remind him how he has the high ground and isn’t really doing that.
Today’s word on the swing state polling is that it’s an even race in those states. There are currently more voters identifying as Republicans than Democrats, and independents are breaking 11% for Romney. A poll that has more Democrat respondents than Republicans and few independents is going to show Obama 5 points ahead but balanced polls of likely voters are showing a dead heat in the battleground states and Romney a point or two ahead in total. At this point it’s just a horserace and the attempts to rally the Democratic troops with good news fabricated out of bad polls will be fading, as both sides’s inner circle are using their own internal numbers and they don’t pay cutrate pollsters to blow smoke up their asses.
It would help if you site some reputable references, Greg. I’ve been reading about the 5 plus point Obama lead and would be more than curious to see what you are referring to that contradicts that.
Here is Real Clear Politics.
It is way too early to worry about these polls anyway. Reagan wsas behind or even with Carter at this point and we all know what happened
Golly, GZ, you didn’t bother to cite your +5 poll. What made your mystery pollster “reputable”?
I’ve cited Rasmussen as being my source a number of times. They tied at #1 for accuracy with the generally considered left of center Pew in the last election cycle but Pew isn’t in full election mode yet, or I’d cite them, too.
The boss at Rasmussen is something of a conservative but it seems clear to me that he’s in it for the bucks he gets for good data, not as a shill for the Republican party.
I wasn’t arguing with you, I was just curious and I think it would help to make your case.
Just for the record, though, I wish Huntsman was running.
GZ, would you actually have voted for Huntsman?
Just for the record, I’ve never been a Romney supporter and will not be voting for him, but I do believe a second Obama term would be more catastrophic than the first.
I had planned to vote for Huntsman. It wasn’t that Obama didn’t have good ideas, it was because he might not be the person t get anything done.
I checked out unskewedpolls.com and was surprised to see Romney well ahead there. I’m looking forward to the election to find out the truth. It is more than a full time job to know what is really going on.
Hey Greg, you going to be consistent on calling people on Nazi references I suggest you take a look at this intro to a post by George Rebane:
“First they came for the veterans, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a veteran; then they came for Tea Party members, and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t belong to the Tea Party; then they came for …; and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
How does that stack up against my tongue in cheek reference to the Reichsparteitagsgelände?
Go read my comments at George’s…please…they connected directly to Glen Beck and his comments about Nazi’s…so don’t go saying I am the culprit here GG…Rebane compares President Obama to Lenin every single goddamn day.
Frisch. you have called me, George, Russ and just about every conservative a fascist too so don’t try and weasel out of your words. Stand up and take credit. Sheesh!
We all label others. That is life. Politics is a blood sport without the blood. But what a rush.
“GG…Rebane compares President Obama to Lenin every single goddamn day.”
There you go again.
Gentlemen – we must remember that progressives have a totally different take on the meaning of ‘compare’, than those not so afflicted. The manner and mode of my comparisons of Obama’s policies of fundamental transformation stand ever ready for your dissection. However, I must tread lightly in these precincts, because here I am considered among the insane by the landlord and his sensible and sober tenants.
Well, George, at least you can console yourself in the knowledge that at this site the other side takes their lickins too. The fundamental question I ask here is: Can a nation so divided ever hope to remain the beacon of freedom for a world that is even more fucked up than we are? While liberals and conservatives fervently believe that only their ideology can save the nation, the gridlock imposed by such rigidity keeps us from needed reforms to keep the ship of state afloat. There will be no “winner” in November, only a shift from one dominant faction to the other.
In the meantime, hard fought freedoms slowly erode away. The right wants to control women’s reproductive rights, banish homosexuals from public view, have our senators chosen by politicians instead of citizens, turn over elections to those with the fattest wallets, and use most of our resources to maintain the military industrial complex.
The left wants to tell us where to live, what to eat, what to drive (if we are allowed the luxury at all), all in an endless cycle of lawsuits, mandates and increasingly worthless money.
Is this freedom? In this scenario, how does one choose the lesser of two evils?
It’s true what you say Bob. I can reply to your postage stamp summaries of the Right’s positions. They are perceived as you describe them, but not as the Repubs publish them. Semantic precision is the second casualty (after Truth) in electioneering.
But the fundamental question that I come back to is ‘Given the disposition – educational and ideological – of the electorate, is there any middle ground left?’ This is a years’ long recurrent theme on RR, and I have to confess that no one has yet to find a workable middle. The alternative is the Great Divide, or worse.
And since the Left (and Middle?) seems to be firmly entrenched in “issue activism”, there are no ideological tenets from there which can be compared to those of the Right, and from which a compromise space fashioned in which both sides can work. Principled negotiation (cf Fisher and Urey) requires such openness.
“…and from which a compromise space fashioned in which both sides can work.”
There are so many places we can start. For example, both sides value home and hearth. That’s huge.
George wrote: “…than those not so afflicted.”
George, once you come to terms with the fact that people who have so-called “progressive” ideas are not “afflicted” with an illness, your ideas will see renewed examination.
Until then, you are viewed as nothing more than a crackpot. Sorry to deliver the bad news.
On the contrary MA, George is viewed by crackpots on the left as a crackpot. The badge of courage for a conservative.
MichaelA 657pm – You are quite the bad news delivery service recently, and you do it with such enviable certitude.
I do use ‘afflicted’ in the clinical rather than snarky sense. As was recently shown by a research team at University College, London., progressives and conservatives do use different parts of their brains when they consider right/left ideological issues. In that sense both sides, and probably others in between, are afflicted. I have reported on this at RR. These results satisfy Occam, and do go a long way to explain the utterly different logics used by the politically ‘polarized’ (among which I must admit membership) – research is ongoing.
The politically correct response here is the usual ‘well, both sides are wrong and the correct answer lies somewhere in the middle (the claimed territory of this blog?)’. Perhaps, but that is not necessarily true. We have to remember that there is no ‘there’ to the middle, as I have explained elsewhere. The middle is an ideological wasteland more arid than even that of the liberals (again reported on RR), since the latter refuse to admit to their neo-Marxist tenets, and adhere strictly to “issue activism”, the unifying basis of which ranges from absent to incohesive and arbitrary.
But, perhaps I’m speaking too much and out of turn here, I will withdraw.
Yeah, put in non-George common English–if you don’t agree with me you are either an idiot or insane.
Yeah, I’m not so much a middle guy either. I like to swing.
Regarding your explanation of what you meant by “afflicted,” I am OK with your idea that it swings both ways, but I would like to still register my complaint against “afflicted” as a pejorative. It doesn’t help us sit down at the table and talk amongst friends.
And yes, you are correct in noticing that I have a reborn “certitudanal” crispness. Probably something I picked up in the desert. That’s usually what happens to me this time of year. Especially in an election year (-;
If there is one point that George and I totally agree on, it is that there is no middle left in American politics. That’s the message I keep hammering on here, and I’ll admit that it pretty much falls on deaf ears. For all the propagandizing from right wing zealots, they are correct (in my opinion) that the Democrats are inept ideologues obsessed with throwing money at every problem and imposing more government at every level. The state of California is the poster child for these failed policies, but rather than reform we get half-hearted tinkering at the edges in the hope that they can rely on a handful of zillionaires to balance the books and make it all work. If Ayn Rand was right about one thing, it is that eventually those people will find somewhere else to invest their time and money.
Republicans should be able to capitalize on these shortcomings, but are carrying so much baggage on social issues that they can’t even get a toe in the door. (As an example, take Doug LaMalfa’s brainfart equating abortion with cancer. What’s next, leeches?)
So yes, I will continue to search for the holy grail of centrist politics, even if it doesn’t exist. Like when Groucho said to Zeppo, “There’s a million dollars buried in the house next door.” Zeppo: “But there is no house next door.” Groucho: “Let’s build one.”
What would you say the Middle would look like? I’m not trying to box you in here RL, just wondering.
Is it a little like the old Donnie and Marie Show? “I’m a little bit country. And I’m little bit rock-n-roll?” Is it an approach? (let’s just compromise and stop fighting.. IOW, working “together.”) A set of issues? (well, it looks like same-sex marriage is gaining popularity, so I guess I’ll support it).
I dunno, but my spidey sense tells me that this illusive middle everyone keeps hammering might exist, but golly does it sound quite accommodating, suburban, pedestrian and frankly boring.
What’s wrong with a good fight? Americans are excellent brawlers. As William Blake noted, “Opposition is true Friendship.”
Perhaps a little boredom with progress is what we need. My crab sense tells me that barricading the ramparts and waiting for the other side to give up will only accomplish a slow, gut-wrenching starvation behind the walls.
I am with Mount is asking what is the “middle” where we all sit around the campfire, sing kumbaya and have some Red Mountain? After sitting through hundreds of meetings as a elected official in our little county it is clear to me humans flock together when they have similar views. A simple lot line adjustment brings out “both sides” in the ideological arguments and these folks come close to blows over the simple idea of property rights. They are just a microcosm of the differences. The real history of humanity is the exercise of power. In our country the power to implement your ideas can change every two years as in Congress or every four years for most everything else.
The power changes when enough people get pissed off and organize. But since the left has infiltrated most of the education system and our bureaucracies ever since the French Revolution, we see the results. I am not too interested in being told what to do about every aspect of living my life so I consider myself a conservative who likes small government and less regulation. I am shocked the left has taken the course over the years in America to now tell us what size soda to drink and that my grand-kids have to discuss homosexuality in the third grade.
I want to know how a “middle” person wants the country to run when it comes to the issues as listed by Crabb regarding the left and the right. I find nothing in the record to describe the middle solutions to the issues.
Ron Paul, Gary Johnson. And others.
Fiscally conservative, socially tolerant.
Yeah, someone like Gary Johnson strikes me as someone who is “in the middle.” He jibes with my decidedly middle-class upbringing: don’t be foolish with your money, and be tolerant(Dad)/forgiving(Mom) of those you disagree with. Except Giants fans. It’s OK to hate them. (sorry, wrong thread)
So someone who is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant (liberal?) is a globally “middle of the roader”? Those two things are parts of the total. I guess I would like to know where a MOTR person stands on the opposite positions on life. One believes a fetus is a person the other just some tissue tossed in to the trash bin. What is a MOTR’s position on that?
Todd, I think the libertarian position is that, at least in the first trimester, it ain’t anybody’s business but the woman’s. No doctor should be forced to perform an abortion and none of Todd Juvinall’s tax money should be used unless it’s an *obvious* case of the health of the mother and/or lack of the viability of the baby. I also think it shouldn’t be done without a prior notification to her spouse if she’s married.
Third trimester, I think the ethics are similar to the separation of conjoined twins and it isn’t just the choice of the mother and the abortionist; there is an obvious second individual that, had an early labor started, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be expected to be spent to save the individual for an uncertain existence. Second trimester and the state probably has a case for insuring it’s an informed choice.
To those of you who think 3rd trimester abortions should never be allowed, imagine a woman gets an ultrasound towards the end of the second trimester and it reveals the child has no brain… an anencephalic child has no hope. Literally. Now imagine that’s your daughter or granddaughter, and by the time all is confirmed, it’s the third trimester.
Greg’s view pretty much mirrors my own. And I’ll be voting for Johnson unless he gives me some reason not to before November.
From Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign website, and it doesn’t sound very socially tolerant to me:
“AN EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN
As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.
Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.
After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.”
Sorry, let me add that if a rape is involved I’ve no problem having tax money spent if the mom-to-be-no-more made a timely police report or there are other concrete reasons for her to be considered credible. Like a serial rapist with matching DNA now behind bars, awaiting trial.
Please, Keachie’s sockpuppet, find the spot where Ron Paul has said it should be criminal for a woman to receive an abortion?
His view of the Federal Government’s role is that it has no role. Works for me.
Are we in a sociopolitical war of attrition? Are we digging in? (well some are, let’s be honest).
Is “boredom with progress” kinda of a slow (very slow) form of Progressiveness? Or a very fast form of Conservationism?
I dunno. I’m suspicious of this middle ground. Sounds mediocre to me.
Keachie’s sockpuppet, thanks for digging out a Paul quote that supports my libertarian template.
Well L.W. GoodNugget,
You don’t have to criminalize the woman if you can criminalize the doctor who might provide the abortion, now do you?
Ron Paul suppports:
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, “without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.” By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are “born alive”.
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.
The Act would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
Keach, it doesn’t scare me to allow states to have power in matters where the constitution grants no power to the Feds.
Sorry, try again. Or better yet, STFU. Your insanity and ineptness, to pay homage to the RLC post, puts you in a class by yourself, and it’s pretty clear that, most of the time, when you quote a bunch of text without adding a word of content, you really don’t have any idea what it is that you’ve posted.
So Greg would maintain that if Ron Paul and a majority of similarly minded folks got elected to the Presidency and Congress, that the state would be free to continue terminating pregnancies, if they so voted, even if the law of the Feds was stated that: “The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, “without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.
Smoke some more and get back to us.
A very quick amendment, adding in, “and duty” right after “has the authority,” stops abortions altogether. Or just link it in to any Federal Aid program.
“He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. ‘It was pretty dramatic for me,’ he says, ‘to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.'”
If it has rights as a person a minute after birth, who is Doug Keachie to say that shouldn’t have a rights as a person a minute before?
I find it amazing how leftists like Keachie can think that just keeping a viable baby’s head inside Mom while it’s brains are vacuumed out makes it all right.
I am definitely NOT in favor of third trimester abortions, another nugget of fool’s gold from your usual source? You are totally disgusting!
I prefer to build my point of view by constructing it from what makes sense to me of different points of view.
My position is simple. The woman has her GOD to deal with and I don’t want the government involved in an abortion. Perhaps an exclusion would be as GregG has said about rape. But I am a Christian who wants life but not government dictate on the taking of life in the womb with my money. I also believe the sperm donor daddy should be consulted.