Liberal "mainstream" thought these days

[Bonnie]

Would you see what the average liberal today believes, live and in living color? Then head on over to The Smirking Chimp, a wildly popular, mainstream liberal weblog.

So, what sort of "mainstream" ideas does this "mainstream" liberal blog promote? Well, what you're going to read below are some quotations from articles on the front page of the Smirking Chimp. Keep in mind that every single quote you're about to read comes from the authors of the posts on the front page, not from the commenters.

As you read what the people over at the Smirking Chimp have to say, just remember that the people writing these remarks are not that dissimilar in mentality to the Democratic staffers up on Capitol Hill, the Democratic Party activists, and indeed, the very people who will take the reigns of power in the United States if the Democrats do well enough at the polls in November.

This is what most liberals in America believe today. Read it and weep.


"Here is that address to Democrats Abroad (Munich), delivered 11 October, 2006:

Two years ago, when we last met in this same building shortly after the debacle of the 2004 election, the situation in the U.S. was really bad, but not yet desperate. The question then was "how bad would it get under CheneyBush?" The short answer to that question now is "Very VERY bad." Consider:

...* So bad that many of my friends and colleagues, depending on what happens November 7, are seriously thinking about getting out while the getting is good, like those who emigrated in fear from late-'30s Germany.

...* So bad that, at least on the fringes -- from the far Right and the far Left -- there is starting to be talk about the possible need for some kind of revolution, even if undefined.

* So bad, that some liberals -- yes, liberals! -- are starting to float speculation about a military coup to overthrow the Bush Administration.

....If the GOP can be decisively defeated on Nov. 7, there won't be an immediate turnaround, of course, but there will be hope for major changes down the road. If the GOP, through dirty tricks or otherwise, sqeaks through the midterm election not too badly hurt, all those extreme reactions I mentioned at the start of my talk will begin to look more and more necessary to many in order to save our country."



"In the two years since the fraudulent defeat of John Kerry, we've unearthed an unholy arsenal by which that election was stolen." -- Harvey Wasserman


"Recently, when Al Franken came to the Crest Theater in Sacramento, I was there with a large sign that said, "Impeach Bush." When a couple of old guys (who wore the hats of WWII veterans) walked by me, one said, "Impeach? Hell, kill the b*stard!" Several people standing nearby broke out in laughter. I laughed too..." -- Stephen S. Pearcy


"What's interesting about this story is that when Odysseus started his ferocious cleanup of the "suitors", one of them asked him why he was so filled with fury. Remember his answer? His answer was, "Because you were trying to steal my world."

That's the definition of a Republican: someone who's trying to steal your world, your kingdom, your children and the very heart and soul of your life.

Is money your God? Do you think it's ok to sacrifice other people's children to fatten the coffers of companies like Halliburn? Do you think Mother Nature is an insignificant motel for the salvation/damnation antics of Evangelicals? Do you think the pitiful and terrified residents of New Orleans deserved their fate because they weren't members of a George Bush country club?

If your answer is no to any of the above, then you're not a Republican. So no illusions, please. G. W. Bush is merely the smirking tip of this loathsome and heartless iceberg." -- W. Christopher Epler



"You wonder why Bush and his minions maintain the seemingly irrational belief that "things are going well" in Iraq, that "we're making progress," etc.? That's because things are going well in the war they are fighting: the war for money and power. What happens to the human beings caught up in this war – Iraqi civilians, or American citizens at ever-greater risk from the terrorism spawned by the war – is, again, no concern of the Bush gang. In fact, the worse things are from that standpoint, the better it is for the Bushists. The war profits (and stolen swag) they and their corporate cronies have accrued from the Iraq War (and the "War on Terror" as well) have given them unimaginable wealth with which to continue their overall dominance of American society – no matter who wins the elections in 2006 or 2008, or for decades beyond. As I've stated often before, no matter what happens, Bush and his cronies have already won the war." -- Chris Floyd


"How, then, might the Busheviks avoid accountability for their crimes by remaining in control of the Congress? The same way that they seized control of the White House in 2000, and maintained control of Congress and the White House in 2004, namely by rigging these elections through their surrogates in "the election industry."

...If, this time, the GOP control of the vote counting once again frustrates the will of a large majority of the voters, the proportion of doubters (half of the population, according to Zogby) will likely increase. Perhaps then much more than half will seriously doubt the validity of the elections, while many more "somewhat" doubt these results. At some point of no-confidence, the public at large will finally come to realize that the government of the United States no longer rules with "the consent of the governed" and thus lacks the legitimacy to govern.

What then? Worst case: Bush imposes the dictatorial powers given him by the Patriot Act and by the Military Commissions Act (of September 28), and the United States becomes in fact what it is now implicitly, a dictatorship. Best case: the people, united, overthrow the illegitimate regime. This has happened recently, in Ukraine in 2004 and in the Soviet Union in 1991." -- Ernest Partridge

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_10_15.PHP#006627

 

[Little-Acorn]

It isn't news that more and more liberals are hysterical fruitcakes.

What is news, is when somebody like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, pretty liberal guys in their own right, take a principled, reasonable stand. THAT gets headlines nowadays. And they have to retire or leave their party because of it.

The good news: most voters still prefer the Lieberman and Miller types over the fruitcakes. But the voters are getting less and less choice from their party.

 

[Hobbit]

It isn't news that more and more liberals are hysterical fruitcakes.

What is news, is when somebody like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, pretty liberal guys in their own right, take a principled, reasonable stand. THAT gets headlines nowadays. And they have to retire or leave their party because of it.

The good news: most voters still prefer the Lieberman and Miller types over the fruitcakes. But the voters are getting less and less choice from their party.

Zell Miller is actually a pretty stand-up guy for a Democrat. I'd still vote for a good conservative over him, but if all the Democrats were more like Zell Miller, I wouldn't be so uneasy about the thought of them running the country.

 

[jillian]

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_10_15.PHP#006627

You do know that sites like "thesmirkingchimp" and DU aren't reflective of mainstream anything, right?

It would be kind of like using Pat Robertson as reflective of "mainstream" Republicans.

 

[dmp]

The problem is the Extremists of the democratic party are the most-vocal. Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean...they should extremist Ideas and call them 'main-stream'.

 

[Bonnie]

You do know that sites like "thesmirkingchimp" and DU aren't reflective of mainstream anything, right?

It would be kind of like using Pat Robertson as reflective of "mainstream" Republicans.

Actually Jillian I have read and seen some on this board posting stuff very similar in ideology and in some cases yes even tone of DU and smirkingchimp, and tell us that it's a moderate point of view.

Maybe you could give us examples of what moderate liberal
ideology is compared with extremist ideology??

 

[Kagom]

You do know that sites like "thesmirkingchimp" and DU aren't reflective of mainstream anything, right?

It would be kind of like using Pat Robertson as reflective of "mainstream" Republicans.

You also have to consider the source used here. It's a right wing site and will take the extreme democrats for example.

 

[insein]

You do know that sites like "thesmirkingchimp" and DU aren't reflective of mainstream anything, right?

It would be kind of like using Pat Robertson as reflective of "mainstream" Republicans.

Moveon.org is one of the biggest fundraisers now for the DNC. They promote the same ideals as DU and other liberal sites of the like. To say that these ideas arent mainstream is alittle naive. When the biggest moneymaker in the party is promoting those ideals, i think that makes them mainstream at least for the leaders in the party to promote.

As for the substance of the article. I'm all for a revolution to overthrow the whole government, not just the parts I don't like. It needs to be torn down and started from scratch with the SAME constitution the way the founders intended. Thomas Jefferson once said that overthrowing the government every few decades was a good way to keep it in line. I fear that we will never be able to achieve that control over the government ever again.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

When people refer to themselves as "centrists", "beyond simplistic labels" or "moderates", look out.

Maybe you could give us examples of what moderate liberal
ideology is compared with extremist ideology??

She won't, but I will. The philosophy of the DLC, above and between the two extremes.

Examples? Education, opposition to school vouchers but pro-NCLB and "choice" of public schools only. Economics, pro-Americorps, pro-expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, pro-welfare-to-work. Social Secuiry reform, some privatization but an opposition to financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.

Sometimes yes-Bush, sometimes no. No on partial-birth abortion, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS "on principle", but firmly opposed a filibuster.

The problem with this - triangulation - is that it involves concession after concession to the opposition and lacks "moral clarity".

 

[jillian]

When people refer to themselves as "centrists", "beyond simplistic labels" or "moderates", look out.



She won't, but I will. The philosophy of the DLC, above and between the two extremes.

Examples? Education, opposition to school vouchers but pro-NCLB and "choice" of public schools only. Economics, pro-Americorps, pro-expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, pro-welfare-to-work. Social Secuiry reform, some privatization but an opposition to financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.

Sometimes yes-Bush, sometimes no. No on partial-birth abortion, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS "on principle", but firmly opposed a filibuster.

The problem with this - triangulation - is that it involves concession after concession to the opposition and lacks "moral clarity".

I don't think it involves either concession to the opposition or lacks moral clarity. There is a strong sense of fiscal responsibility tempered by social concerns... what "compassionate conservatism" should have been in the main. I think it also shows an ability to compromise to get things done when necessary as opposed to ramming one's agenda down the throats of the opposition simply because you can because, as we all know, what goes around comes around.

Pretty good job on the political positions. I actually would have answered, but I left work to get my kiddle.

 

[Bonnie]

When people refer to themselves as "centrists", "beyond simplistic labels" or "moderates", look out.



She won't, but I will. The philosophy of the DLC, above and between the two extremes.

Examples? Education, opposition to school vouchers but pro-NCLB and "choice" of public schools only. Economics, pro-Americorps, pro-expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, pro-welfare-to-work. Social Secuiry reform, some privatization but an opposition to financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.

Sometimes yes-Bush, sometimes no. No on partial-birth abortion, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS "on principle", but firmly opposed a filibuster.

The problem with this - triangulation - is that it involves concession after concession to the opposition and lacks "moral clarity".

All valid points of view, I keep wondering then where are all these commonsense points of view are in any of the Democrat rederic (especially from the leadership) we have been hearing for the last six years.

Also missing is the centrist position on Iraq and larger the WOT??

 

[red states rule]

Libs are worried they will not win, so they have to rely on their buds in the liberal media to try and keep conservatives home.

They keep telling them the election is over, Republicans do not have a chance to win, and it is a waste of time for them to vote.

Much like in the 04 election; libs are counting on the early polls; and when they lose they will rant how the election was "stolen"

They will single out the "religious right" for their loss and increase the Christian bashing

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

jillian, it can alienate your party's base and be derided by everyone..."RINO", "DINO", "no political soul", "lacks vision", as well as a cynical political campaign tactic to appear "electable", "mainstream",.

Red states rule, the GOP base doesn't listen to the MSM, except to do the opposite of what they want them to do.

What the Democrat Party should be doing is firing up the middle to vote FOR them and remember why they're the minority party in the first place. The left will turn out to vote against Bush, the right will vote defensively, the middle will probably stay home, they're disgusted with this all.

All valid points of view, I keep wondering then where are all these commonsense points of view are in any of the Democrat rederic (especially from the leadership) we have been hearing for the last six years.

Also missing is the centrist position on Iraq and larger the WOT??

There's an ideological battle going on in the Democrat party also, and there's every indication that the left is winning - Lieberman will win, Dean is DNC chairman, the disappearance of DLC members off the national center. Yeah, they derailed Dean in 2004, but that was it.

Iraq and WoT, the DLC was for the Patriot Act and Iraq, but now they're scrambling. From their website:

We would win the fight against jihadist terrorism where Republicans have failed. That means revamping and expanding our armed forces to meet the specific challenges of asymmetrical warfare and counter-insurgency; rebuilding alliances and international institutions to create a new collective security system attuned to terrorist and rogue-state threats, and taking seriously the obligation of living up to the values we offer moderate Muslims as a guidepost for their own future. It also means replacing the failed Bush administration policy in Iraq with a strategy designed to shift responsibility to Iraqis for their own security while avoiding the disaster of civil war.

http://www.dlc.org/
http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

They've lurched left IMO, they failed in their quest to recenter the Democrat Party they started back in the eighties. Strange, but if the GOP were to lose either or both houses of Congress, the DLC would be more marganilized than ever.

 

[007]

One simple fact is this... republicans get out to vote more than democrats do. Simply because most people that are conservative are educated, hard working people with a life, and most liberals are screwed up little party favors that can't even remember when election day is.