James Carville's Advice to the President...Panic!

I can see how the throne-and-altar conservatives and free-market liberals of yesteryear would be confused by the way those terms get used today.

I would see modern American ”liberals” as better described as “Social Democrats” as understood in Western Europe, or perhaps as “Federalists”, in the way they would like to see the power of a central government expanded and used for what they view as benign purposes.

I would see modern “conservatives” more as “Anti-Federalists”, or perhaps “Constitutionalists”, suspicious of concentrated power, and looking to keep as much sovereignty as possible at the local or individual level, and limiting the central government to a strictly enumerated role.

I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.

---

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."

Idahl,

I changed your quote to reflect MY reality:

The Right requires villains for its narrative, and President Obama, homosexuals, undocumented immigrants, transgender people, Democrats, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and of course Muslims fit that bill. With no central platform you can pick and choose which person speaking in their name provides the most outrage. Look at how the image their enemies have test-marketed have changed over the years, from "communists" to "the homosexual agenda", to liberals who spoke out against Sarah Palin for her incendiary rhetoric following the Giffords shooting to President Obama doing his Harry Truman Schtick. If President Obama and gay people and George Soros and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Code Pink and Rachel Maddow and Barbara Streisand and so on and so forth didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent them. That's why Fox News, right wing talk radio, The Free Republic, Daily Caller, World Net Daily, and CNN will keep up their villain with a thousand faces coverage.[/QUOTE]

AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."

---

Perhaps not, but I think there’s a pretty common interest out there to protect oneself against an administration that feels justified in mandating health insurance premiums and viewing any income you can keep for your own use as a “tax expenditure”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

---

It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!

---

Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.

And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........

and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........

and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?

---

My point was the silliness of equating the torrent of paranoid bloviation aimed at Tea Party types with whoever it is out there who's familiar enough with Rachel Maddow to be annoyed by her.

And Mrs. Palin has managed to build a nice little fortune as a left-wing bogeyperson. I wouldn't be so quick to compare her unfavorably to a basic cable talking head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.

---

Well, that was exactly the point. You were going on about how the left wing narrative requires a villain du jour, and I was merely pointing out that the right wing is NOTORIOUS for drumming up cash and support by creating villains, which change over the years. You do know who Frank Luntz is, right? He is a marketing expert for the right. He knows that "universal health care" doesn't make people as jumpy as "government takeover." He knows that "job creators" sounds much better than "the wealthiest people in the country." C'mon. I've been at this for a long time, I know spin, both left and right and when you strip it down you come down to policy and ethics. So, stop with the knee jerk spin already.

So, Code Pink is very yesterday. So is Hillary Clinton. Who are today's left wing villains according to the right? Soros is still popular. Obama of course ranges from the antichrist to a Nazi to unAmerican to bad for business, or all of the above according to some folks. To liberals, he is a centrist who has tried and tried to accommodate the Republican party. That's our pov.

Of course Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition than Rachel Maddow. What's your point?

You don't think the "opposition" hands us plenty of material? Are you kidding again? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Rush Limbaugh? 10 doozies a day each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.

---

That's true. Rich folks come in all stripes. But there are distinctions. There are some rich folks who donate soley based on personal interests. Maximizing profit is their ONLY concern and they have a very narrow understanding of how that interest is advanced, and they don't seem to give a crap about anybody else, including the people who for example will be impacted by the pollution generated by their businesses, so they tend to vote for candidates who claim they will minimize taxes on rich folks and regulatory burdens on business. In fact, the party carrying the water for these folks now calls them "job creators" which allows them to exploit the unemployment crisis for the benefit of rich folks.

There are other rich folks who have concerns beyond maximizing profits or who believe that the best way to advance profits is to advance the opportunities of other people. They might profess, say, to care about the plight of poor folks or working class folks without health insurance.

The majority of rich folks seem to be in the first category. Therefore, it is safe for me to say that in general, with some exceptions, the interests of rich folks do not align with my interests. Therefore, someone's wealth is a factor to me in determining credibility. There are of course affluent people who do seem to care about other things beyond their own finances & power. But sometimes those folks just want to impose a religious agenda on society, so I'm not too fond of that either.

Soros is rich but tends to support policies that have wider application than his bank account, including policies that might help ME. Can't say that about the Koch Brothers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

Well, that was exactly the point. You were going on about how the left wing narrative requires a villain du jour, and I was merely pointing out that the right wing is NOTORIOUS for drumming up cash and support by creating villains, which change over the years. You do know who Frank Luntz is, right? He is a marketing expert for the right. He knows that "universal health care" doesn't make people as jumpy as "government takeover." He knows that "job creators" sounds much better than "the wealthiest people in the country." C'mon. I've been at this for a long time, I know spin, both left and right and when you strip it down you come down to policy and ethics. So, stop with the knee jerk spin already.

So, Code Pink is very yesterday. So is Hillary Clinton. Who are today's left wing villains according to the right? Soros is still popular. Obama of course ranges from the antichrist to a Nazi to unAmerican to bad for business, or all of the above according to some folks. To liberals, he is a centrist who has tried and tried to accommodate the Republican party. That's our pov.

Of course Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition than Rachel Maddow. What's your point?

You don't think the "opposition" hands us plenty of material? Are you kidding again? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Rush Limbaugh? 10 doozies a day each.

---

I think there is a significant difference. The Left needs to constantly update their list of things we need to cede more power to government to protect us from: corporations, banks, the carbon atom, competition, people (rich or otherwise) who don’t want to surrender their “fair share”, bad decisions, bad luck, people who like guns, fatty foods, et. al. After all, they can’t very well come out and say, “We need to establish an elite with enough coercive power to protect you from yourselves”.

Conservatives have a much simpler problem in this regard. Their perceived enemy is overweening government. Granted, this sometimes gets taken to foolish extremes, but by and large you can’t go far wrong keeping government on a short leash.

Sarah Palin can dangle 10,000 participles, Rick Perry can raise his eyes sanctimoniously to Heaven every quarter hour, but how can that compare to the delectable cluelessness of AttackWatch.com? Or a presidential candidate standing in a faux Greek temple assuring us that this was the time the seas would recede and the planet would begin to heal? Or the acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize on spec? Or the tingle running up Chris Matthews' leg? Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"? Or a president using the State of the Union Address to scold the Supreme Court for enforcing the First Amendment? "Kinetic Military Action"? - can't wait to see that campaign ribbon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I think there is a significant difference. ....
Conservatives have a much simpler problem in this regard. Their perceived enemy is overweening government. Granted, this sometimes gets taken to foolish extremes, but by and large you can’t go far wrong keeping government on a short leash.

---

I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Perhaps not, but I think there’s a pretty common interest out there to protect oneself against an administration that feels justified in mandating health insurance premiums and viewing any income you can keep for your own use as a “tax expenditure”.

---

Tax expenditures were called Tax Expenditures long before Obama took office. That isn't something Obama made up.

If Congress ran Cash for Clunkers through the tax code it would still be Cash for Clunkers. And if they made it permanent and called it the "Let Americans Keep More of Their Own Money Act" it would rightly be excoriated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangano's Gold

I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.

---

Perhaps some don't draw a distinction between a person and a condition. Where you see Gays, Arabs and Mexicans, others may simply see a small minority attempting to influence the majority, a sub-sect of a religion that has declared war on us, and a large group of people who have bypassed our legal immigration requirements.
Framing the discussion around entire demographics may make for good drama, but it's dishonest and slimey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Perhaps some don't draw a distinction between a person and a condition. Where you see Gays, Arabs and Mexicans, others may simply see a small minority attempting to influence the majority, a sub-sect of a religion that has declared war on us, and a large group of people who have bypassed our legal immigration requirements.
Framing the discussion around entire demographics may make for good drama, but it's dishonest and slimey.

---

Hey, they are Republican boogeymen not mine. And you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangano's Gold

Hey, they are Republican boogeymen not mine. And you know it.

---

No, I don't know that. And neither do you.

Electoral politics can be a dirty game. Partisans on each side think the other is worse. Some are even in total denial.

One man's boogeyman is another's legitimate concern.

>>Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?<<

Ah yes, the Patriot Act: the abomination that pretty much shredded the Bill of Rights...(I think the Third Amendment is intact).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangano's Gold

I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.

---

Your post reminded me of something I read shortly before the 2010 election:

“It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

>>Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?<<

Ah yes, the Patriot Act: the abomination that pretty much shredded the Bill of Rights...(I think the Third Amendment is intact).

---

Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.

---

Obama has been way too far to the right for my taste on many issues he's addressed, attempted to address - or ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Your post reminded me of something I read shortly before the 2010 election:

“It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

---

This goes to Bernie Goldberg's analysis of his news buddies during the Bush election years. They simply could not imagine rational people who would vote for GW Bush. They wouldn't do it. None of the people with whom they associate with would do it. They didn't know anyone who would vote for GW. Therefore, it won't happen.

And they were shocked, not once, but twice, at the election outcome.

That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.

---

That he hasn't even tried is shameful, IMO.

"That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird." (Iris Lily)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, Iris Lily. Which is why, if I were a conservative, I would be both embarassed and ashamed of the percentage of really out there on the fringe folks who are being seriously considered as Presidential timber on the Republican side. It's as though the Republican party has been taken over by idiots. Even Goldwater or Reagan would be considered RINOs by these people.

President Reagan, he who headed a large union, raised taxes on the rich, etc., could not possibly win this election's primary campaign.....he would be considered far too moderate. Despite the fact that they all appear to venerate the man, and Rick Perry has even been receiving consultant lessons on Reagan mannerisms, ways of ****ing his head, standing, etc., to evoke the "Reagan image". Lots of luck!

Honestly, I feel badly for friends who are serious, knowledgeable conservatives. I know you are, I consider Alan and others to be thinking people. You HAVE to, underneath, be seriously embarassed at folks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, et al being who is representing conservatism. It would make past and should make present conservatives squirm with embarassment. You're not people who hold many of the fringe views of people like Michelle Bachmann.

I really think that if the folks fanning the flames of partianship could be quieted, and folks on both sides could sit down and discuss quietly all the problems our country faces, and how we could work together to solve them, with each side being willing to some compromises, rather than "my way or the highway", we'd find that we are not so far apart.

Both Republican and Democratic families want opportunity for their kids, something of a fair opportunity to succeed, decent schools, access to health care, a reasonably clean and less toxic environment, and moderation in government. Unfortunately, the loudest voices live on the fringes, and both parties are pulled by the loudest and most rigid ideologists, and the large bunch of us on either side of the middle get little representation, and even less decent government because of it.

JMHO

Of course, there is a reasonable conservative view of the world. I don't happen to share it, but it's not the bunch that deny the science of global warming, or the ones who have kept the birther stuff about President Obama alive despite all proofs, think that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet a fair percentage of the people being seriously considered for President on the Republican side either believe or support that stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

This goes to Bernie Goldberg's analysis of his news buddies during the Bush election years. They simply could not imagine rational people who would vote for GW Bush. They wouldn't do it. None of the people with whom they associate with would do it. They didn't know anyone who would vote for GW. Therefore, it won't happen.

And they were shocked, not once, but twice, at the election outcome.

That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird.

---

agreed. +1

Just to add.....today on www.thehill.com, conservative son of President Reagan, Michael Reagan said.....

"“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,” Reagan said. “He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes...................”


These conservative candidates today have marched so far right, they've practically fallen off the edge of their flat world. Yet serious conservatives will not denounce them, defend them, and in the process hurt the Republican Party.

Hey, if I just look at it from a Democratic point of view, it's fine....let them howl at the moon if they want, but when I look at it from the standpoint of the fact that should President Obama lose the election, one of these folks will be sitting there in the Oval Office being expected to deal with the complexities that face a President, it's VERY scary. And should be scary to you guys, too, much as you might disagree with this President or the views of Democrats.

How would you serious conservatives, with good minds, really FEEL about one of these folks like Perry, Bachmann or Palin ending up in that Oval Office? Honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Just to add.....today on www.thehill.com, conservative son of President Reagan, Michael Reagan said.....

"“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,” Reagan said. “He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes...................”


These conservative candidates today have marched so far right, they've practically fallen off the edge of their flat world. Yet serious conservatives will not denounce them, defend them, and in the process hurt the Republican Party.

Hey, if I just look at it from a Democratic point of view, it's fine....let them howl at the moon if they want, but when I look at it from the standpoint of the fact that should President Obama lose the election, one of these folks will be sitting there in the Oval Office being expected to deal with the complexities that face a President, it's VERY scary. And should be scary to you guys, too, much as you might disagree with this President or the views of Democrats.

How would you serious conservatives, with good minds, really FEEL about one of these folks like Perry, Bachmann or Palin ending up in that Oval Office? Honestly.

---

In all honesty, I'd prefer to see Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan duking it out right now.

Would a recovering Democrat like Reagan be considered today? Or any other ideologically impure candidate? I think that's still within the realm of possibility when you consider Romney hasn't dropped out yet.

Right now, I'm cracking myself up contemplating Chris Christie practicing international diplomacy...http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...violent021.gif

Jeb Bush? Ben Stein? (I might even contribute to Stein's campaign, though he surely doesn't need my money. I rarely agree with him, but I respect him nonetheless.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Jeb Bush? Ben Stein? (I might even contribute to Stein's campaign, though he surely doesn't need my money. I rarely agree with him, but I respect him nonetheless.)

---

Love his column in the American Spectator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

You HAVE to, underneath, be seriously embarassed at folks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, et al being who is representing conservatism. It would make past and should make present conservatives squirm with embarassment. You're not people who hold many of the fringe views of people like Michelle Bachmann.

---

Having candidates with all sorts of different views is simply part of our process. Right now there is a very large voting block that shares the views expounded by those candidates. It's nothing more than democracy at work in that regard. Candidates telling voters what they want to here is as old as voting itself. Personally I'm hoping the more moderate cream will rise to the top, but right now the squeaky wheels are getting greased (sorry for the bad double cliche').

More curious to me at this stage is that there are very few rumors of a challenger on the Democratic side. It seems the DNC and the voters are going to limit themselves to the increasingly unpopular incumbent. I'm just surprised that some of the more upwardly mobile moderate Dems haven't started making a little more noise.