Skip to main content

Morning Joe had a panel discussing Benghazi. In other words, Fox News and a Republican Congress have successfully coerced the traditional media into covering a false narrative on a tragic story.

Chuck Todd, a journalist that has recently seemed to have been taken hostage by right-wing talking points surprisingly gets it right. He acknowledges that the new Benghazi investigation is occurring because Republicans do not like the truths revealed from the many other investigations.

“As for the need for the select committee, I will hear Republicans say there are unanswered questions,” Chuck Todd says. "Well no, all the questions have been answered, there are just some people who do not like the answers, and that wish the answers were somehow more conspiratorial, I guess. What I don’t understand is their focus. Have a conversation about the policy. Have a debate and investigation as to whether the policy is working, our response to the Arab spring and if we did the right thing with the light footprint in Libya. To sit here and investigate talking points seem to be totally missing the larger point."

CNBC’s Brian Sullivan eventually could not take the ridiculous punditry and the behavior of the Republicans any longer. “Can we just stop saying, the Republican Party? As somebody that grew up in a conservative household, I don’t recognize the Republican Party of even my youth,“ Sullivan said. “I don’t like what I see. I don’t like the far Right. I don’t like the extremism. They’ve pushed me away. As somebody who is pretty much not religious, right, pro same sex marriage, pro legalization of marijuana for the most part. Okay, what party is this. What party am I supposed to be in, when I am a fiscal conservative who believes that small government can often be better. There are times for larger government. … But I don’t know who the Republican Party is anymore. I don’t know if the Republican Party knows who's the Republican, cause it is not a party, unfortunately Republicans, that I can get on board with because I don’t like the small-minded attitude, a lot of the far right-wing stuff that comes out.”

If one listens to Sullivan it becomes immediately evident that his Party has left him. It has left many otherwise good and noble Republicans. Most interestingly is how Democratic Sullivan sounds. It is almost like the Democratic party has morphed into the Republican party of old. Is there a place for true liberals and progressives anymore?

Originally posted to ProgressiveLiberal on Wed May 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Now we just need the voters to realize (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, Jon Sitzman, starduster

    that the GOP label is attached to something quite different than they originally bought it for.

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Wed May 14, 2014 at 11:33:44 AM PDT

  •  The Republican Party of your youth is still around (6+ / 0-)

    It's called the Democratic Party.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Wed May 14, 2014 at 11:51:19 AM PDT

    •  Yup. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      akze29, TRPChicago, J M F, cybersaur, Janet 707

      I agree completely, 420.

    •  The Democratic Party is not my Party, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, Zinman, Janet 707

      but I am still a real Democrat. The Policies and the Platform which I was taught to understand truly represented The People of this nation, are not a part of the current Democratic Party Leadership thinking. Debbie W-S can pretend all day long to be one, but she has not fooled me. Nor has Mr. Obama. Much as I dreamed of respecting him, much as I longed to see him Practice What He Preached, all those hopes and dreams (most of them anyway) are gone. Snuffed out by the Winds of Pretense. Obama has allowed himself and the leaders in the Party to become soft on very seriously needed policies. The very act of consulting only in secrecy on these Trade Agreements that are on his table, has left me completely disgusted with him.

      Harry Reid is so right to call out the KOCHS on their behaviors, but why on earth isn't the Democratic Party Leadership taking a completely bullish stand and bringing up the Hard Policies we need to be firmly committed to?
      Infrastructure Funding - Jobs
      Transparency - Open and honest sharing of info on Trade Agreements
      Halting the NSA - Return privacy to the American people
      Going Green - every aspect of what green means, from organic farming to extensive, job creating natural energy sollutions
      Halting GMOs - Getting them out of our Food Chains NOW
      Healthcare Reform - Making it free for all American citizens
      Education Reform -  Making higher ed free
      Stopping Polluters - Ending water, soil, and air destruction
      Closing all the Big Oil, Pharm, Insurance loop holes
      Taxing the rich a fair share
      VOTING RIGHTS - Reinforce open and easy voting

      These are the real Democratic policies, real Democrats want to support. WHERE ARE THESE POLICIES?

      "We can have Democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

      by 2BOrNot2B on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:11:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are two major parties in America (5+ / 0-)

    The Democratic Party is for liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The Republican Party is for lunatics.

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:27:32 PM PDT

  •  It has left many other... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster

    ...wise good and noble Republicans, who despite this continue to vote for the people that don't even remotely represent them.

    Call the waaaaahhmbulance

    Religion is like a blind man, in a pitch black room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.....and finding it.

    by fauxrs on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:38:46 PM PDT

  •  The Thing Is (7+ / 0-)

    That once someone criticizes the Party they are no longer in the Tribe, and their opinion carries no value for the Faithful. These folks are trained to eat their own, if Sarah Palin went on live TV tomorrow and denounced the GOP they'd turn on her like a pack of wild dogs.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:05:44 PM PDT

  •  There Never Were Any Wise, Good, and Noble (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nocynicism, CharmCityDave, cybersaur

    Republicans.

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:07:26 PM PDT

  •  I'm An Ex-Republican (16+ / 0-)

    I came of age in the Eisenhower administration and registered as Republican for the next 45 years. But I always considered myself an independent—registering with a party so I had a voice in the primaries. But historically I split my votes in general elections. Then came Dubya!

    He compelled me to change my registration to Democrat. The Republicans of my youth—Eisenhower, Lodge, Rockefeller, Dirksen, Halleck, Javits, Edward Brooke, etc., even Nixon—would not recognize the Republican Party or its positions today and would be run out of the party for being un-American.

    •  Your experience parallels mine, (6+ / 0-)

      although I was probably a more active Republican than you. I did vote for Democrats from time to time, but Dubya was my turning point. I finally got around to changing my registration so I could vote in the KS caucus for Obama in 2008 (I'd already been working for him for about a year).  It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Republican.

    •  My turning point was the 1992 GOP convention ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, asindc

      ... in Houston.

      Bush let Sununu devote the first night of televised coverage to the "Values Voters" crowd. They went crazy. Literally.

      I was traveling and missed the live broadcast. (Which is good, because I would have had an accident even if I wasn't driving.) The radio clips afterwards turned me from a "liberal/moderate Republican" to a sputteringly active Democrat almost literally overnight.

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:57:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My experience... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Janet 707, asindc

      is different still.  My family lived in suburban St. Louis, where the Congressman was Tom Curtis, ranking member of the House Ways & Means Committee (if I recall correctly).  I don't recall much political discussion, growing up in the '50s, but I do recall my parents being negative on JFK.
        I'm a very loyal person, and also very interested in politics.  The combination meant that I was naturally predisposed to try to find a place for myself in the GOP.  And when Curtis was running against Tom Eagleton for Senate in '68, I was working out of the Curtis HQ office in Clayton -- mostly stuffing envelopes.  
        Then I was asked if I would join another young guy on a special assignment, to which I agreed.  Turns out it was a dirty tricks campaign by the Goldwater branch of the party against the Rockefeller wing!  I won't go into it here, but suffice to say I'd had no idea that Curtis was a part of the Goldwater group.
        Soon, though, it was apparent that my parents were, too.  And once that group was triumphant (in now red-state Missouri, but years before…), my Dad was GOP county chairman in the county to which they'd retired, and my Mom was a member of the GOP state committee from their new congressional district.
        I'd been headed the other direction for some time, and remember reading and being very impressed by a Time magazine cover story on Sen. Jacob Javits.  So, continuing to walk the fence between being loyal to family and honest to myself, I started giving small $$ contributions to a "liberal" Republican group.
        Before long, however, I noticed that when they featured an occasional Democrat for support, I was more drawn to them.  Cutting to the chase, when The Pentagon Papers hit the fan, I knew I was at least a de facto independent.  By Nov. 1971 I realized two things.  One, the presidential election was a year away.  Two, I couldn't stand the double life anymore.  I silently declared myself to be a Democrat.
        The following spring I joined a group going to the Nebraska primary to campaign for McGovern against Humphrey.  Soon I sported a McGovern sticker on my car.  When I came home with it, and my folks saw it, they called my a Communist to my face.  Really!!
        So it's been a long road.  But I have a wife and three kids who are on the same page.  And my folks are long gone.  And I'm still "loyal to my family."  But it's a different family.  Life can be strange.

      "There is no way to give to honest toil its just reward--its full share of all wealth produced--but by the full application of the single tax. And righteousness and justice require it to be done." --A. Moll, 1897

      by Zwenkau on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:43:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It seems to me: (10+ / 0-)
    Is there a place for true liberals and progressives anymore?
    ...clear that both parties have moved to the Right of the general electorate.

    (Taken on a policy by policy outcome issue.)

    Liberals have been reduced to a pack of chihuahuas nipping at the heels of the Federal government.

    •  so, despite the feelings of the SCOUS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      money always talked
      just now, money was handed a giant megaphone and everyone else a gag.

    •  Most voters (9+ / 0-)

      agree with liberal polices, but vote against those who advocate those policies.

      That is due to the complete failure of the Democratic party to refute the propaganda of the right wing.

      The Democratic party knows this but what have they done to change the situation?  Did they save Air America?  Did they go all in to aid the protesters in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, etc?

      Why won't the elderly liberal SCOTUS judges retire now to ensure the right wing doesn't have the ability to replace them with right wing justices in the future?  

      I get so frustrated with our party.

      Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

      by AppleP on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:36:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree .. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybersaur

        "That is due to the complete failure of the Democratic party to refute the propaganda of the right wing." - Not true. The Democratic party works for their donors jst like GOP. They pay lip service to progressive voters. Their point is this "So if you don't vote for me what are you going to do, vote Republican?"

        •  Lip service is better than giving in (0+ / 0-)

          At least the discussion is there.

          I would rather a Democrat be a forceful voice for such things as unions even if they don't fight for them.  At least it provides a balance in the debate.  If we don't even debate their propaganda it makes their propaganda stronger.

          Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

          by AppleP on Sun May 18, 2014 at 06:34:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70, Hanging Up My Tusks
    As somebody who is pretty much not religious, right, pro same sex marriage, pro legalization of marijuana for the most part.
    Sounds like old school Libertarian to me.

    A million Arcosantis.

    by Villabolo on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:30:24 PM PDT

    •  Not Corporate Anarchists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zinman, CharmCityDave, paradox

      They didn't mention that they're coroporate anarchists who want to eliminate the government, which even "old school" libertarians wanted.

      If you want the government to protect you from religions, allow you or your family/neighbors to marry regardless of gender, and police and tax a legal marijuana market, you're not any era of Libertarian. You're probably some kind of Democrat, or a Socialist.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:37:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Corporate anarchist" is an oxymoron (0+ / 0-)

        Corporations are as authoritarian as it gets, with an autocratic central top-down dictatorship, no workplace democracy, and no worker control. Corporations are like quasi governments within their corporate workplaces.

        For most workers, their employers are their wage-labor masters, completely dominating a large part of the worker's life for most of the workers adult years. Why should people submit to this subservience? There is no such thing as private property "rights".  The concept of allowing private individuals to monopolize property used in production is a flagrant exertion of unjustified authority, and is not a "right", but rather a violent, oppressive attack on the working class by the owning class. There is no natural right of exclusive private property ownership for business owners. Monarchs and Lords of yore simply made these things up hundreds of years ago, and we have simply replaced these lords with corporate bosses and elected dictators who continue more or less the same control over the wealth.

        Corporations are not anarchists. Anarchism is direct democracy, and worker self-management as equal participants in their work environment, wherein workers run the workplace as a collective.

        Conservatives who want "no government" really are supporters of classism, and they want to retain the "freedom" from government for business to exploit the majority working class by appropriating the fruits of their labor. They want "freedom" to turn most people into dominated wage-slaves. This form of liberty deprives the majority of freedom and equality. It is thus not truly libertarian.

        Real anarchists want equality among the people, self-management of their lives using direct democracy, equality in profit sharing, and an end to classism. They do not believe in private property used in production, viewing that as an authoritarian, violent, erroneous concept, and a form of theft.

        Applying the term "anarchism" to the right wing is a form of enabling the right wing to redefine a term which has historically meant non-statist socialism (see Proudhon, Bakunin).

        "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

        by ZhenRen on Sun May 18, 2014 at 08:40:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Somalia Is Anarchy (0+ / 0-)

          Yet the power vacuum is filled by warlords.

          anarchy (n.)

          anarchy (n.)
              1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).

          Libertarians work to eliminate the government. The power vacuum in the US would be filled by corporate power, including armies - indeed it already has begun to be.

          Sure, there are different alternatives to "archy" or to "archons". In theory, there could possibly be the kind of anarchy you describe. But in practice there never has been. In practice there has only been warlords, or corporations operating as warlords alongside their other business.

          Libertarians are corporate anarchists. You might be a different kind of anarchist. But not if you're a libertarian, and certainly not if you're a Libertarian.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sun May 18, 2014 at 05:08:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please inform yourself better (0+ / 0-)

            Proudhon was the first to call a sociopolitical theory anarchism, and the first to call himself an anarchist, and the anarchist movement was well known over 170 years ago. It was much more widely known during that time than Marxism. To apply this term which has a clearly anti-capitalist basis to the right wing capitalists is to serve the interests of the right wing in co-opting a term from the left.  The usage by the right wing of this term (a relatively recent development) is heavily contested by traditional anarchists, because anarchism means without authority, and the right wing by no means are calling for a world without authority, rather, they want private authority of the capitalist class to prevail, which is as far from true anarchism as it gets.

            The word, used in this way, loses all meaning and logic, and is a contradiction in terms. You, as a capitalist, are far closer than any anarchist to Ron Paul in your views. You both would be joining in a primal scream if anarchists had their way, because we would abolish the ruling class. And one thing the right wing believes in is the wealthy ruling class (please note that anarchists want to abolish the ruling class), and thus they are not by any legitimate reason or logic able to be defined as anarchists.

            This really gets a laugh out of me:

            In theory, there could possibly be the kind of anarchy you describe. But in practice there never has been.
            Look up anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune, the Makhnovists, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and get back to me.

            Let's allow Mirriam Webster to fill you in on the term and its history:

               

            anarchism
                noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

                Political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. The word was used only pejoratively until Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, now regarded as the founder of anarchism, adopted it in What is Property? (1840). The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin clashed with Karl Marx at the First International; when it was dissolved in 1872, Bakunin's followers retained control of workers' organizations in Latin countries such as Spain and Italy. Even anarchists who believed that the transition to a government-free society required violent revolution disagreed on the nature of the transition. Anarcho-syndicalism, which developed in the late 1880s, emphasized labour unions (syndicats) and called for general strikes to paralyze the state. In the 19th and 20th centuries, anarchism also inspired experimental communities, including New Lanark in Britain and Brook Farm in the U.S. During the early months of the Spanish Civil War, anarchist militias were in virtual control of much of eastern Spain, where they established hundreds of anarchist collectives. Suppressed as an organized movement by fascism in the 1930s, anarchism reemerged in the 1950s and '60s through its influence on the civil rights movement and the student movements in the U.S. and Europe. The radical ecology movement in the 1970s also was inspired by anarchist ideas. Beginning in 1999, anarchist-led street demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund received unprecedented publicity and inspired new anarchist groups, periodicals, and Internet sites. Anarchist themes are reflected in the work of many 20th-century artists, writers, and musicians, including Pablo Picasso, the American poets of the Beat movement, the Spanish Surrealist filmmaker Luis Buñuel, and the American composer John Cage.

            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

            by ZhenRen on Sun May 18, 2014 at 05:51:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Getting Back to You (0+ / 0-)

              This conversation is going, almost robotically, exactly the way it always does with anyone who's personally an anarchist, but insists on ignoring anarchies they disapprove of.

              Look up anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune, the Makhnovists, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and get back to me.

              I don't have to look them up. Just as I don't have to "inform myself better". I know all about it. Because I was once a slightly informed person whose ignorance extended to existence of the rest of the facts, too. So I'll run them down for you:

              During the Spanish Civil War, after the government collapsed amidst murderous military power struggles, several million people lived and worked in a society organized locally for a few years - during a war. Which they lost - fascist warlordism filled the vacuum they'd created by starting the war. Once the warlords turned their attention to the areas in anarchy after years of fighting elsewhere in the country (fighting funded mostly by money from foreign non-anarchies, fought by many foreigners from non-anarchies, as well as by Communists and many other statists), the state resumed.

              The Paris Commune lasted a few months, after the Germans defeated the French emperor and the French government collapsed along with its ability to rule even Paris once it was discredited. It ran Paris after an election, with mandatory military/police service keeping the French government at bay (briefly): a state. Until the national government finished getting the Germans off its back, when it refocused on getting Paris back under control. The state refilled the vacuum.

              After the Russian czar lost the revoution to the Soviets, the Communists spent a few years actively battling the Makhnovist army in Ukraine, eventually defeating them. Though Makhnovists had implemented an anarchy for a while, once the Soviet state wasn't busy with fighting the army, the state refilled the power vacuum.

              Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin wrote a lot, but never directly freed anyone of state power. I don't know why you'd mention them because they underscore that anarchism is primarily a writing genre, and by extension an imaginary political system. Implementations of their exhortations and models have always been brief exceptions, usually ruling people by force in their own right, and then always replaced by the local state when it got down its list of priorities.

              Do you see what your examples of anarchism actually were? They were temporary political vacuums while the state and its military were preoccupied with fighting and/or discredited, which were quickly filled by even more repressive violent states once the exceptional and brief period was over.

              Somalia is an anarchy that has lasted for over 2 decades. The warlords who filled the vacuum when the last government's head fled the country with his bribes from some American oil corps have achieved equilibrium. Even growth: They and their mode of social/political organization have spread to Kenya, South Sudan, Ethiopia and elsewhere. Eventually they'll probably be eaten by a bigger fish, so the oil corps and tankers have more reliable security. But they've already established an anarchy that's lasted five times longer than even the Makhnovist wartime anarchy did. That's why Somalia is the definitive anarchy, and the others are aspirational footnotes.

              I like the idea of anarchy. I'm a technology systems developer, and I love the idea of self-organizing people without coercion. But coercion always has the advantage. Inded most people want coercion, usually of others, but they'll accept it on themselves if they believe others are coerced too for their benefit. And that belief takes only propaganda. Which is completely effective.

              It's tempting to think that anarchism is unrealized only because so few know about it, but that's not why. It's even more tempting to think it's misunderstood because so few know the facts, and the facts will convince - and make the terminal problems anarchists have always faced just go away. But it's not.

              Nature, especially human nature, abhors a vacuum. Anarchy is a lack of rule, a vacuum of power. Human nature fills it. None are so hellbent on making themselves the government as those who see its absence somewhere. This is why Churchill was right when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." People have a very long way to go before we're ready to let others live without a government controling them, even if we each think we're ready for freedom from it. Anarchism is an inspiring aspiration. But that's all it's ever been, and its track record shows no reason to believe it will be anything else until people are very different than we are today.

              I'm a "Jeffersonian socialist": "the least government for the most people" (all the people, but no less than the least), where that "least government" runs all necessary monopolies and protects everyone's "right to life, liberty an the pursuit of happiness". Which is still a pretty big state: totally free public education, public healthcare, public transit, public housing, among many other public operations we do in our present government; paid by a sales tax on everything except groceries, used/homemade clothing, and the rent/mortgage of property equal to the public housing (and the cost of utilities there). Within the US Constitutional democratic republic. Because I know that's the best way, or least bad way, to fill the vacuum. Otherwise it will be filled by something much worse.

              And in the US, that is corporate anarchism. The government out of the way, while the capitalists (corporations are political capital, the property for ruling the other property) take whatever they want. That is what "libertarianism" will get us, when it creates the vacuum by drowning a starved government in a bathtub.

              I hope that got back to you well enough.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:46:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                I wasn't going to read this when I noticed a reply, but curiosity got the better of me.

                You still completely miss an essential fact about anarchism, and such an important one that you've proven to me, again, that you not only are poorly informed, but have fallen into some of the worst assumptions people make about anarchism.

                I could go into what these errors are, and they are easily rebutted, but the arrogant tone, the know-it-all attitude, and the wrong assumptions inform me that you aren't really capable of being receptive to new information.

                "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                by ZhenRen on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:18:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hahaha (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, being your kind of anarchist means never having to admit you're wrong. That would be kowtowing to the man, amirite? But you've still got to post as if you've got the answer, if only the world could just see!

                  Clown.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:37:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I dunno from "old school" Libertarians. (5+ / 0-)

      New school Libertarians think the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire was the fault of the girls who died in it.

      Evil scum.

      "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:59:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Love your sig line. "Arcosanti" is one of my (0+ / 0-)

      favorite user IDs. If you're a bridge player, you might see me playing as Arcosanti on BBO. I've actually been to Arcosanti on a trip from Albuquerque to Los Angeles. Very interesting place and my 2 ultra-conservative traveling mates whose arms I twisted to take the tiny detour to visit the site never tired of teasing me about my hippy-dippy ways. Good memories!

  •  So They Can Stand Up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akze29, CharmCityDave, MadGeorgiaDem

    Chuck Todd proves that any pundit or journalist can call these BS'ers on their BS at any time. The kind of BS he's calling out is the main content of the news every day.

    Since they can do it, why don't they? I know that's a rhetorical question: They prefer BS, because they're lazy and it gives them unaccountable power, preferring to trade in access rather than accuracy. They're 1%ers or kowtowers to the 1%ers in their offices, so they keep the scam going for their side.

    But now it should be harder to pretend it's otherwise.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:34:56 PM PDT

  •  The dem party has been moderate (3+ / 0-)

    At least since Carter. Unfortunately the country bought into the Republican talking point that all dems were radical left socialists.

    History is a guide, not a destination.

    by NCJan on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:35:40 PM PDT

  •  R v D (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zinman, Zwenkau, libera nos

    Republicans of the past were often quite good--Ike sent troops into Little Rock-- first time American soldiers were used to back up a court ruling.  Brooke was the first African American Senator.  Javits was the smartest person in Congress.  Earl Warren was a CA Republican.
    I'm old enough to remember voting for the person, not reflexively for the party.  
    At the same time, there were some very bad Democrats--the Dixiecrats were tolerated until LBJ fought for civil and voting rights.  Bobby Kennedy worked for the McCarthy hearing inquisition.  FDR refused to let Jews escape Nazi Germany--and refused to bomb rail lines leading to the concentration camps.
    Even today, we have turncoat D legislators in NY siding with Rs to give them control of the NY legislature.  

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:39:33 PM PDT

    •  I would give this two... (0+ / 0-)

      "recommends," but can't seem to do it w/o creating a separate DK account.

      "There is no way to give to honest toil its just reward--its full share of all wealth produced--but by the full application of the single tax. And righteousness and justice require it to be done." --A. Moll, 1897

      by Zwenkau on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:56:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clifford Case from New Jersey (0+ / 0-)

      May have had the greatest integrity of any senator of his times. (Of course, our other senator was Harrison Williams!)

  •  "Democratic party has morphed into the Republican" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Beelzebud, J M F, cybersaur, Hirodog

    No shit. Some of us have been saying this for thirty fucking years now.

    Is there a place for true liberals and progressives anymore?
    No. Even here, we are called "DFHs" and "purity trolls".

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:39:44 PM PDT

  •  Your last sentence says it all.... (4+ / 0-)

    in 1980 it was Carter on the left and Reagan on the right and in 2012 it was 'Reagan' on the left and Romney on the right.

    In reality? No.

    Its by Sanders is both an independent and the best 'democrat' we have.

    Its why you see so much pushing from the left around here. Its not because we are from the extreme left, but its that we are even left at all.

    No one represents us or we would have had a national works project by now.

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:39:53 PM PDT

    •  So, let's take back the Democratic Party (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, Ohkwai

      Elizabeth Warren can be our rallying point. She is a populist, and she is calling out those who would savage the poor to feed the corporatist juggernaut, whether they fly the Republican or Democratic flag.

      Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 401.25 ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

      by Zinman on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:42:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She would end up like Carter, an outsider (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Janet 707

        against the greater powers. Hamstrung fighting her own corrupt party as well as the opposition.

        No one will save us but us. We have to clean up the system to even allow a good leader to lead well.

        Everyone wants a hero, but in this case that is going to have to be us.

        Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

        by fToRrEeEsSt on Sun May 18, 2014 at 08:28:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Republicans shifted WA-A-A-AY right (0+ / 0-)

    years and years ago. Some guy with lots of Brylcreem slathered on his Astroboy 'do that miraculously never grayed and "personally" remembered being at the liberation of Auschwitz, and was still capable of laying a wreath on a tomb at Bitburg while saying the SS troops who were buried there "were victims too."

    The editorial board of the New York Times, that "liberal bastion" shifted rightward with Reagan's election.

    Of COURSE the Democrats gave us the "New Democrats" which were really the "old Republicans."

    With the long term rightward shift giving way to the Tea Party types (and others before them) and to unapologetically ranted racism and fascism, where else can people who identified as Republicans 40 odd years back go? Where else but "home" with the New Democrats who love fat cat business and Wall Street as much as old line capitalist anti-New Deal Republicans did of old?

    The "end of welfare as we know it" done by a "democrat"

    NAFTA-- impossible under Bush 1, moved by a "democrat"

    GATT- see above.

    And now, with Obama, who was a damn sight better than McCain/Palin (shudder) and the last knothead anti-democracy anti-altruism pair, and we get an education policy foisting more crazy testing, charter schools and an aim to have a cage match for public school funding with the "Race to the Top."

    "democrat."

    I'd sigh, but I'd never be able to draw enough breath to function again.

    Darling, you didn't use canned salmon, did you?

    by JrCrone on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:41:16 PM PDT

  •  I'm so sick and tired of the whining (16+ / 0-)

    from the 'me too, as long as we are winning, I'm fine until we are losing and it's not fun anymore' Republicans.

    The ones who did nothing, absolutely nothing, but cheer for the Republican Party being all wingnutty batshit nuts when it paid off, when it was not a burden or an anchor dragging on the ocean floor, but who are now lamenting how the party isn't their party anymore. Where were you from 1988 to 2010?

    Probably at the party.

    Dancing your fucking asses off.

    I didn't hear a god-damn fucking thing when that vile grinning woman had her purple heart band-aid on her cheek for John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

    Suddenly, Obama is a two-term President and the GOP needs the Democratic Party to shit the bed to have a shot at the White House... and the "it's not my fault, this isn't my Republican Party" brigade marches out of the little clown car.

    When it was fun it was not a problem, but it is now. Because now it's not winning the big important top-ticket races it used to win anymore. Or because they, the whiners, found out one day that they were the ones who were getting purged, as the Rightward tilt of the party made them the new RINOs and "liberals".

    It was not a problem, and now it is?

    Please.

    David Frum? Give me a fucking break. He can go on "Morning Joe" and cry me a river or ten. He was fine with the GOP going fucking crazy, until it hurt him. His bottom line.

    Has anybody seen CNBC?

    Fox Business cannot beat CNBC because CNBC is more batshit that Fox News on a regular basis. Rick Santelli's rant that has become the political pop culture's "shout heard round the world" heralding the dawning of the Teahad Jihad, wasn't not Fox News, or Fox Business, it was on CNBC.

    If Brian Sullivan felt this way, he could have always... turned his head a few inches to the side and said so every five minutes since the day he was hired to work at CNBC.

    I remember how George H.W. Bush ran for President. 1988. Back when the GOP was supposed to be "more inclusive" and "about big ideas and not small minds".

    Or, as I like to call it, The Atwater Era. Karl Rove's Yoda.

    Dukakis was smeared from day one to election night. "Vince Foster was murdered, they crashed Ron Brown's plane, Chelsea was the product of a rape, Bill Clinton is a drug dealer, Bill and Hill have had people killed" was the 1990's. An impeachment in search of a justification to hang it on.

    The Party didn't leave these people.

    They were on board for the Atwater era.

    The Rove/Atwater era.

    The Rove era.

    The dawn of the Citizen's United Era.

    It wasn't a problem for a single god-damned one of them until it started dawning on them that the demographics of 1988 are gone forever.

    Mitt Romney is President if 1988's America comes to the polls and votes. But since that day is dead, Republicans who are not having fun anymore are doing what they do best.

    Blame Avoidance for their role in the big messes.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Sat May 17, 2014 at 07:42:53 PM PDT

    •  I Think There Was Genuine Resistance Within (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftHandedMan

      the Republican Party, to the wingers, in the 60's and 70's.

      Reagan's wing forced him down the party's throat, but clearly by the mid 80's most of the party had come to terms with what we now recognize as the rightwing.

      I suppose there may have been and may be some in the upper ends of Republicanism who could not extrapolate an indefinite trend of wealth and power flowing from the people to a very few at the top.

      They are as Ike once mistakenly characterized the rightwing, few and stupid.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 08:04:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, JeffW, LeftHandedMan, Janet 707

      Good job.

      "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Sat May 17, 2014 at 08:05:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican Party? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeninSC, cybersaur, Janet 707

    Personally, it is my conclusion given the rise of oligarchy, that these politicians function more as the political wing of this minority of great wealth. They function only  to advance the position of the oligarchy, increase its power and ability to further remove wealth from the general economy and sequester it to their sole advantage

  •  I've Thought for Years... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie, Shawn87

    ...that Obama would fit right in with the early-90's Republicans, before Newt hijacked the party and started turning everyone insane. The Democratic party has undeniably moved to the right since when I grew up (in high school during the Ray Gun years).

    I too was a Republican, at least in spirit (didn't register until my 20's). I thought GHW Bush actually did a decent job as President. I was unsure with how slippery Clinton was--and it was obvious--but Bush at that point almost didn't seem to care any more. The job seemed to sap his enthusiasm for everything.

    And then Newt blew up Congress, and I began identifying more and more with the Democrats. It was almost like the party moved to where I was. Dubya and Cheney of course turned me against everything Republican. I've become decidedly more progressive in my views as I age, but even so, I think a lot of the present-day Democratic positions--and there's no better emblem of that than Obamacare--are actually significantly to the right of what they were 20, 25, or 30 years ago.

  •  like many companies in decline... (9+ / 0-)

    the GOP has been bought out by corporate raiders who will strip any value out and enrich themselves until its zombie corpse can no longer walk

  •  Sounds like a Bull Moose Republican (0+ / 0-)

    I.e. my kind, socially progressive, believes that government can and should do good, that prudent regulation is necessary, that it should serve all the people and not just those it likes, etc. We probably disagree on taxes and the deficit, but that can be worked out over beers and moose jerky.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:25:14 PM PDT

  •  You can't be too far right for the Tea Party. (0+ / 0-)

    Any elected person who does not have a 100% rating from each of the various TParty groups, the John Birch Society, each of many the anti-abortion groups, Gorver Norquist, Fix the Debt (on the backs of the poor), (and each of the myriad Tea Party and/or Libertarian groups out thee had better be ready to face a serious primary challenge.

    I know that I do not know.

  •  corporations versus government (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hawkeye666, Janet 707

    private versus public

    either one can be corrupted; either one can be incompetent

    the argument is that corporations, driven by the profit motive, strive for efficiency ... which can be a good thing

    the government, which is there at the pleasure of the people, may put the public's interests first but may be subject to looting and waste

    a problem is that corrupt and incompetent human beings are found in both places

    of course, the Rs these days are crazy, so the Ds are the only alternative

    we are fortunate that we have at least one mostly sane party

    many countries do not

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sat May 17, 2014 at 10:44:44 PM PDT

  •  Even the most fair minded Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zwenkau

    will never admit that the way to be fiscally conservative is to Tax the Rich in this country, and to close the loop holes which allow them to abuse the rest of the nation by not paying their fair share into the tax base. We cannot run the nation without charging taxes, but you will not see ANY Republicans admit this fact. I salute any Republican willing to be honest about this. Where Are You?

    "We can have Democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

    by 2BOrNot2B on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

  •  Nice to see Chuck Todd regain some sanity. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet 707

    "We can have Democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

    by 2BOrNot2B on Sun May 18, 2014 at 07:32:48 AM PDT

  •  I throw out old rags (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet 707

    when they serve no purpose any more. The republican party keeps resurrecting non issues because it's all they've got. Time to discard them.

  •  before (0+ / 0-)
    Fox News and a Republican Congress have successfully coerced the traditional media into covering a false narrative on a tragic story.
    there was talk radio, doing the unchallenged groundwork repetition that makes it all possible in the first place

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:28:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site