Miller Speech

I don't normally watch political speechs live, and at each convention it appears that I watch the worst--which certainly isn't positive reinforcement to change my ways. Yesterday I watched Miller's speech. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Miller is too angry and at the wrong people. He appears to confuse opponents with enemies:

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

In my most despairing moments while reflecting on politics, I might worry that the majority of the Democratic Party believes that, but it isn't true. Miller is angry, angry, angry and this is a good time for anger. But his anger is misplaced. No matter how wrongheaded the Democratic Party tends to be on the war on terrorism (and you all know that I think it is terribly wrongheaded) it is still an opposition party, not an enemy party. Democrats are not aiming for the downfall of the US, and they do not want to live under sharia law. I suspect that Miller feels (rightly or perhaps not) that the Democratic Party has betrayed his ideals. But if so, the feeling of being outcast is distracting him from the most important issues. Be dismayed with Democratic choices if you think they are leading in the wrong direction, but save your anger for the jihadists. We haven't won against them yet. It is far too early to fall into infighting.

Comments

[norbizness]

I would simply compare and contrast the tone of, facial expressions during, and intended audience for the respective keynote addresses (Miller v. Obama).

[von]

Sorry to step on your post, Sebastian. We apparently were writing and thinking along similar lines at the same time.

[marguerite]

William Saletan, who describes himself as a liberal Republican, sure didn't like it:

But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security—from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator—without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child.

If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments.

I got a pretty clear impression that Saletan would vote for Kerry before this. But he is a Nelson Rockefeller Republican or maybe, at this point, a Joe Lieberman Democrat, who believes in balance for its own sake. I've never seen a column of his in language like this.

Here are some excerpts from Barack Obama's speech:

For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead.

Factual question: did delegates actually chant "hang 'em" about Kerry and Edwards?

[praktike]

Zell is just following where the power in the South is going.

Same old Zell.

[praktike]

The "hang 'em" remark was shouted when Edwards' name was mentioned.

[Anarch]

...and this is a good time for anger.

Finally! Something we can all agree on!

*pause*

God, how sad is that?

[carsick]

Marguerite
The choice could not be made plainer than in your post.

[carsick]

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.

Bertrand Russell

Today must be my day to quote others.

[Ted Barlow]

They shouted "hang 'em"? As in, "hang John Edwards?"

[dmbeaster]

Holsclaw:

Zell represents majority Repub view of things -- not the Dem views. He was showcased for prime time for a reason.. If you find his rheotric troubling, .....

If you accuse him of overstepping a boundary, you are criticizing the core Repub agenda concerning the war on terror, which is to turn an event requiring national unity into an opportunity for fear and smear as a campaign tactic.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Dmbeaster, I think you are wrong. I don't think Miller represents the core of the agenda. I think he represents an inappropriate reaction to the fact that the core of the agenda on the reaction to war on terrorism isn't shared by the Democratic party.

[Jadegold]

I don't think Miller represents the core of the agenda.

I'd remind you Miller was the keynote speaker of the convention. I'd also remind you the coventions--of both parties--are highly-scripted and -controlled affairs. Those staging the GOP convention clearly vetted Miller's address and approved of it.

One need only look at the texts of Miller's and Obama's addresses to understand the core of the agendas of both sides.

[Blue]

Seb,

"Be dismayed with Democratic choices if you think they are leading in the wrong direction, but save your anger for the jihadists."

Anger is a very powerful emotion to express. Often, in negotiations I have used anger to emphasize a particular point or atleast the appearance of anger.

I saw his speech on T.V. I don't really think his speech was for the Republicans, I think it was directed towards the Democratic Party that he has been a part of for so long.

It was like a parent scolding a naughty child. According to the reactions today it seems like it struck a nerve, too.

[carsick]

"It was like a parent scolding a naughty child."

Yeah if the parent was mentally unstable.

[Blue]

And before anyone starts slamming me...

I don't think this was a speech that was looking to build common ground, which is an issue near and near to me.

I don't think it was good strategy to win votes.

This isn't the speech I would have given.
I don't think this is the speech he should have given.

I was just commenting on why I think he gave it.

[Phil]

And drunk.

[Jadegold]

I was just commenting on why I think he gave it.

It didn't happen by accident, Blue. Miller didn't just wander up to the podium and give a speech nobody in the GOP knew about.

Make no mistake; this was the message the GOP wanted to send.

[carsick]

Let's put it this way, the night before a candidate speaks at his convention, the prime-time speakers are there to attest to the candidate's character.
The republicans chose well.

If they had only interviewed Miller one more time after the speech we may have been able to actually watch his head explode on live tv.

[marguerite]

I know a person who, after 9/11, spent lives in a perpetual state of fear, stopped riding the subway and required their kids to bring gas masks on the subway, will no longer read the NY Times because of its Democratic agenda, then moved out of NYC to the midwest where they would be safe, decided not to get a GPS system on their new car because the terrorists could use it to track them....look, I was scared out of my mind too, I am still scared, but life slowly returned to normal. For some people, who went through the same or a comparable level of trauma as I did, it did not. It was a complete and fundamental break with the past--occasionally in a good or at least mixed way. Usually not.

I think that's what happened with Zell. People will say that the Democrats left him, but you know, the John Kerry appropriations bill vote he was ranting about took place well over a decade ago. It didn't stop him from calling John Kerry a good friend and a hero in 2001. He delivered the keynote in 1992.

Not that armchair psychologizing of politicians is worth anything, but that's my best explanation.

[Blue]

Jade,

You may be right, I admit I don't know if it was all designed by Karl Rove or not.

If I were a GOP strategist I would totally go after the vote. I don't think they got any extra votes because of his speech. So lets both make no mistake... neither one of us thinks that this is going to get them any votes.

If you and I can agree on that, then I imagine it crossed Rove's mind, too. And another thing that I think we can agree on is that he really wants to get the President re-elected.

If you believe tacitus has any street cred...

http://rnc.redstate.org/story/2004/9/1/183736/2608

But, then I guess this could be have all been part of the plan too.

The man was angry no doubt. He's angry at the Democratic Party and people like Chris Matthews.

[carsick]

margurite
Either that or he thought his meds were making him foggy and he stopped taking them.

[Jadegold]

Nope, Blue, it doesn't work that way.

There's too much at stake at this level to permit speakers--particularly, your keynote speaker--to 'wing it.'

Miller's speech has been completed for at least a week. He's rehearsed it before media consultants and GOP strategists a number of times. BTW, the Dem convention was no different. There's simply no way they were working on drafts of the speech until the last minute.

[Blue]

Jade,

I acknowledge that I don't know, but it seems a pretty bold statement to say there is just NO WAY?

In a little bit different of a direction...

I do alot of public speaking... when my wife and I were married a few years ago we wrote our own wedding vows.

After the wedding was over and we had a few minutes alone... she told me how touched and impressed she was with how I was able to use the vows we wrote and add so much more into them as I was upfront speaking.

I acknowledge that the whole thing is scripted, but to say that someone can't put in their own words and embellish the delivery to give it more meaning and more impact is not accurate.

Tacitus could full well have been duped by Rove.

[Bernard Yomtov]

You are right Sebastian. It is a time for anger. and a lot of it needs to be directed at the Republican Party. Miller, their chosen keynoter, seems to think even having an election is undesirable, and gets cheered.

The country needs to be united? Well, yes, but this Administration does everything in its power to divide it.

I've crossed the line. These guys really are fascists. Put the Miller position on criticism of the president together with the Bush position on detaining "unlawful combatants" and you have the makings of a police state.

It has become almost impossible for me to believe that any intelligent person, who values liberty and democracy, who is concerned about the future of the country, can possibly vote for Bush. Flame away.

[hilzoy]

Bernard -- I'm not going to flame you. (I have deliberately not watched the convention to avoid becoming furious. I figure I can inform myself quite adequately without it.) However, one of the good things about this board is that there are good people on both sides, and we have the chance to try to understand what is actually driving the ones who don't agree with us. Moe and Sebastian, for instance, are good and intelligent people, as best I can tell from their online personae. Figure out what about us bugs them, and try to fix it. Figure out what you think they're getting wrong and try to convince them. But don't doubt their character and intellect.

[Blue]

Bernard are you really making the case for unity here?

I'm pretty sure you are doing exactly what Seb took issue with...

"It is a time for anger. and a lot of it needs to be directed at the Republican Party."

Hmm... maybe that's how Zell felt about the Dems.

"Miller, their chosen keynoter, seems to think even having an election is undesirable, and gets cheered."

I don't remember him calling to cancel the election.

"Well, yes, but this Administration does everything in its power to divide it."

The same argument could be made about your post.

"These guys really are fascists."

Calling someone fascists... always a good way to convince the other of their mistaken position.

"...makings of a police state."

I truly doubt it.

"It has become almost impossible for me to believe that any intelligent person, who values liberty and democracy, who is concerned about the future of the country, can possibly vote for Bush."

And if one wanted to they could rant the same thing off about Kerry.

[Blue]

Hmm.. I suppose its obvious that Hilzoy's response was much more tactful... and effective.

[Moe Lane]

"I've crossed the line."

Yes, you have. This is your one warning: please read the Posting Rules before commenting here again.

[Slartibartfast]

I think I broke my backspace bar trying to stay within the posting rules in response to that.

[JadeGold]

Look, I can understand and appreciate Bernard's sentiments. After all, the GOP's keynote speaker just asserted that over half of all Americans are unpatriotic and don't support our troops and secretly wish harm upon our country.

We learned from Miller that we want the US to disarm and cede our sovreignty to France.

Most of all, we learned that principled dissent was unAmerican and democracy is undesirable.

This was the GOP message last night. Approved by George W. Bush.

At some point, people of good character are going to have to hold Bush accountable for something.

[Thorley Winston]

Blue wrote:

Hmm.. I suppose its obvious that Hilzoy's response was much more tactful... and effective.

No, Blue, you did just fine. :)

[JadeGold]

The Power of Words to Overcome Insurmountable Facts

[Moe Lane]

"Look, I can understand and appreciate Bernard's sentiments."

Hi. I'm a registered Republican and a Bush supporter. Call me a fascist to my face and be banned for it, or shut up.

[CharleyCarp]

It's a pep rally, and a significant faction of the Republican coalition wants to be angry at Democrats. We've been hearing about treason since the 50s at least, probably long before.

Did Miller cost the President any votes? I sincerely doubt it. Bush can allow this kind of thing with near total impunity because his supporters do not hold him accountable for nearly anything, and undecideds will make their judgment on Bush as a person -- and he's not the one frothing at the mouth with rage. And unlike Pat Buchanan in 92, Bush can distance himself from Miller who is, after all, a Democrat.

Did Miller gain any votes? If one is worried that the hardest of the hard core won't bother to vote because Bush seems too tepid, a little fire and brimstone will help motivate folks to vote. Kind of like calling the Oklahome Senate race a confrontation between good and evil.

It's a tough balancing act. Enough fire to keep the culture warriors interested, enough soft soap to keep from scaring the undecideds.

(This, in my view, is the central republican dilemma. The central democratic dilemma is how can we keep from stabbing our standard bearer in the back, front, and sides.)

((I'm reminded of a thread some time ago where the proposition that Reps prefer character while Dems prefer cleverness was offered. I asked for examples of Reps punishing cleverness, but didn't get any response. Having Miller deliver the Howard Dean Scream is a very clever move)).

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Bernard just got confused. He remembered that I mentioned I had once experienced the flesh-eating bacteria. The proper name for it is 'necrotizing fasciitis'. He clearly thought the proper term for someone who survived the condition was 'fascist'.

It could happen to anyone.

[hilzoy]

Moe: I can understand Bernard's sentiments too. I can also understand why someone might want to just run over pedestrians who step in front of them without looking, which is a lot worse. (I would be a better person, no doubt, if I could understand neither. But there we are.) In both cases an impulse leaps up within me. In both cases I think, on reflection, that this is just not one of those impulses I should act on. And I don't. But understanding them is a different thing entirely.

Zell Miller smeared people exactly like me last night. It is as true of me as it is of Kerry that I would defend America only if given permission by the UN, that I want the army to defend itself with spitballs, that my questions about George W. Bush's conduct of the war on terror mean that I think that it was our fault that Osama bin Laden had people fly into the WTC and the Pentagon, but that luckily if we could just get Osama into a nice therapy group then everything would be OK. And while I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, I would suspect that others on the left who have posted on this thread might feel the same way.

This is of course not a reason for anyone to criticize your character or intelligence. But, to me, understanding why someone might wonder: how can people vote for a party whose chosen keynote speaker had this to say? is not all that hard. We should think again before we say it. We should also, if we wonder, take the trouble to actually ask people like you what the answer is. We should especially think that part of the problem with Miller's speech was precisely that it needlessly and falsely demonized his opponents, and that if we think this is a bad thing, then we should not do it ourselves; and also that the remedy for this stuff is to go on trying to live in a different way than Miller seems to. But understanding the impulse that all these considerations are reasons not to act on is not hard. For me, at least.

[hilzoy]

Quick addition: In what I just wrote, I was taking it for granted that the people Bernard called fascists were the leaders of the GOP, and that what he meant about their supporters, e.g. you, was just the last para.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Umm, hilzoy, the last paragraph was:

It has become almost impossible for me to believe that any intelligent person, who values liberty and democracy, who is concerned about the future of the country, can possibly vote for Bush. Flame away.

That just sounds like a direct continuation of the 'fascist' theme.

But I'll give you the "understand his sentiments" part of the discussion. I have a pretty good understanding of all sorts of horrible things. My initial reaction would often be horrible if I didn't use my intellect to collar the reaction, and often reverse it.

[Blue]

I find it interesting that Miller's use of sarcasm, metaphor's and wit to make his points are being condemned while those who do this on the left are rationalized.

It seems that many here seem to be applying a double standard. On some other threads at this site I have criticized that tactic only to have many rush to its defense.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

"Julian Bond sent electricity through this country when he burst on the scene when he was a young man," Kerry said. "I remember watching him set an example for our country, and he's still setting an example for our country. He is eloquent. He is powerful."

From Gromit:

Highly charged rhetoric, to be sure. But I see nothing objectively false in it, rhetorical hyperbole aside. It should be obvious that Bond doesn't mean Bush (presumably?) is ignoring everything in the constitution, only parts of it, and "swastika" and "Taliban" are clearly metaphorical.

From Jadegold:

Phil (I think?)
"But I will say, based on the transcript, that the NAACP ad sounds uncomfortably similar to the Max Cleland/Osama bin Laden ad that got Saxby Chambliss elected here in Georgia."

Jade:
Gosh, I don't recall pictures of a cropped George W. alongside pictures of Byrd's killers in the ad. I also don't recall statements by Ms. Mullins suggesting Bush's refusal to sign legislation led to Byrd's murder.

From Hilzoy:

"When I look at the Bond quote, the reference to the Taliban is the only thing that strikes me as over the top hyperbole. And there is nothing there that's a lie."

[Thorley Winston]

Sebastian Holsclaw wrote:

In my most despairing moments while reflecting on politics, I might worry that the majority of the Democratic Party believes that, but it isn't true.

Senator Miller said the leaders of the Democratic Party no the members although IMO it’s not an entirely unfair although admittedly somewhat exaggerated characterization of their party base.

Miller is angry, angry, angry and this is a good time for anger. But his anger is misplaced.

I disagree, while it is almost never a good idea to base one’s campaign entirely or almost entirely on anger (see: Dean, Howard) righteous indignation can be a useful tool in motivating the base. We needed at least one red meat speech at the convention while still keeping with the overall more moderate tone of the convention. Having a lifelong Democrat – particularly one as popular and renown as Senator Zell Miller – launch into the other party’s nominee and leadership accomplishes both objectives.

No matter how wrongheaded the Democratic Party tends to be on the war on terrorism (and you all know that I think it is terribly wrongheaded) it is still an opposition party, not an enemy party.

There is of course – Bernard Yomtov’s ad homenim aside - nothing in Senator Miller’s to suggest otherwise.

Democrats are not aiming for the downfall of the US, and they do not want to live under sharia law.

Again there is nothing in Senator Miller’s speech that suggests that Democrats are intentionally trying to cause the downfall the United States or prefer to live under Sharia law. What Senator Miller said is best encapsulated in this other excerpt:

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could. President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger." In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time. And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue. Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter. Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

No one has suggested that elections should be suspended or that the Democrat Party ought not to run a vigorous campaign (although they do seem to whine whenever Republicans run one ;) ). Nor for that matter has anyone suggested that it be out of bounds to criticize certain tactical aspects of the War or even the administration but the fact of the matter is, that the criticism from the opposition party has not (with the notable exception of Senator Lieberman) been constructive. They have exaggerated every setback or misstep to demonize the POTUS and his advisors. Their candidates and leadership have openly catered to every conspiracy theorist loon with an “interesting theory” about how “Bush knew” in the hopes of scoring cheap political points. At no point, again with the notable exception of Senator Lieberman, has the opposition party suggested or tried to formulate what they believe would be a better policy while doing everything they can to undermine the one in place. All of this lends support to Senator Miller’s thesis that the Democrat Party cares more about winning the next election than they do in trying to win the War.

[praktike]

The fascists banned blog comments, too!

(okay, that was irresistable)

[Blue]

Can we also get some condemnation of this or are these metaphor's more acceptable?

U.S. Rep. Major Owens, a New York Democrat, warned a crowd of feminist protesters that the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism."

"I am right on the spot there in Washington, and I tell you our country will either go forward or down the drain into a snake pit of fascism," Owens declared to loud cheers from a crowd numbering about a thousand people.

[JadeGold]

M'kay...if it's not enough the GOP keynote speaker asserted more than half of America was unpatriotic and wished the country defenseless and we should never, never, ever question George W. Bush on anything--perhaps, this may give you pause:

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

Gosh, to think I always thought it was the US Constitution that assured these freedoms. When I was at the Academy--and later in the service--we had it drilled into our white-walled skulls that the US Constitution provided these freedoms.

All those who like to call themselves 'libertarians' must be feeling a bit nauseous.

[Phil]

Blue, I sincerely hope you aren't trying to use anything I said as an example of whatever point it is you're trying to make. I condemned both the NAACP ad and the Chambliss ad.

[Gromit]

Blue:

From Gromit:

Highly charged rhetoric, to be sure. But I see nothing objectively false in it, rhetorical hyperbole aside. It should be obvious that Bond doesn't mean Bush (presumably?) is ignoring everything in the constitution, only parts of it, and "swastika" and "Taliban" are clearly metaphorical.

Blue, you were comparing Bond's metaphorical references to swastikas and the Taliban to Bush's open association with Ted Sampley, who has made the very literal claim that McCain might be a KGB spy, among other scurrilous charges. We aren't just talking about a man who is prone to over-the-top rhetoric, but a purveyor of libel and slander. You were comparing highly opinionated apples to hateful, vindictive, and quite possibly delusional oranges.

Phil (I think?) "But I will say, based on the transcript, that the NAACP ad sounds uncomfortably similar to the Max Cleland/Osama bin Laden ad that got Saxby Chambliss elected here in Georgia."

Actually, that was also me saying I thought the NAACP ad sounded tasteless (though I admittedly haven't seen it). How does this fit into your point?

[hilzoy]

I stand by my comments about the Bond ad. About the snakepit of fascism: snakepit is a metaphor. Presumably the underlying idea is that the current leadership of the party is leading us into a mean, venomous place. Based on last night, I can't say I disagree. Fascism is another story: that's out of line. If one looked up the literal meaning, one would find among the definitions things like: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" (Merriam Webster, online.) Had Owens said that, I might have thought he had some sort of a point: see my earlier constitution post. But the word 'fascism' is just inflammatory, and while I could imagine some actions by a hypothetical administration that I would think warranted that inflammatory response, I'm not there yet. So consider that part of it condemned.

That being said, I agree with Gromit that it's different from making up character slurs out of whole cloth, as Hastert just did about Soros, or as the SwiftVets did about Kerry and his medals.

[Blue]

The point is that highly charged rhetoric is acceptable to some if they agree with it and not if they don't.

I find that to be able to double standard.

"Blue, you were comparing Bond's metaphorical references to swastikas and the Taliban to Bush's open association with Ted Sampley, who has made the very literal claim that McCain might be a KGB spy..."

Actually, I think Bonds really believes what he says. And if he does then it is more than just a metaphor. You don't see it that way because you agree, so you don't condemn it.

Again, I find that to be a double standard.

[Blue]

Again, many here have no problem when all the 527's launch smear attacks. Or the ones who have been smearing him for the last 4 years. That's okay because they are right.

It's okay to attack Bush's NG service, but Kerry's Vietnam record should be left alone.

It's okay to slam Miller, but Gore was just using a metaphor when he referred to the digital brown shirts.

Cheney is evil, but Hillary accusing the administration of waging war on children is okay.

All those who have claimed Bush is a liar are doing nothing wrong... because he is a liar.

Call Kerry a liar because he wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was even though his campaign acknowledges he probably wasn't and it is a personal attack by the all powerful Karl Rove.

The list of double standards goes on and on.

[g-lex]

Miller is a Dixiecrat. He's comfortable with bigotry of the infamous Lester Maddox kind. He tried to do a rhetorical lynching of the two Johns last night. Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of his listeners were yelling "hang 'em. True to their ugly regional tradition.
But it is not fascism: that implies theory and planning for a transformed society.

[Blue]

"We should especially think that part of the problem with Miller's speech was precisely that it needlessly and falsely demonized his opponents, and that if we think this is a bad thing, then we should not do it ourselves"

I don't necessarily agree with your analysis in total, but your conclusion is right on target.

Which is why I am totally perplexed by all the indignation the is being expressed here. This is exactly what many have been doing to Bush/Cheney for years now. This behaviour has been sown for 4 years now by Democrats and the left.

[Thorley Winston]

"Miller is a Dixiecrat. He's comfortable with bigotry of the infamous Lester Maddox kind."

Christopher Dodd is a Dixiecrat. He's comfortable with bigotry of the infamous Robert Byrd kind.

Bill Clinton is a Dixiecrat. He's comfortable with bigotry of the infamous Charles Fullbright kind.

Are we done yet?

[CharleyCarp]

Blue, I agree with yours of 8:01. (Must be something I ate!)

I would add, though, that (a) those engaging in this kind of speech have been roundly criticized for doing so, both internally and by 'your' side of the fence; (b) including to a fairly considerable extent repudiation at the polls by our core electorate; and (c) great pains were gone to at 'our' convention to avoid this kind of thing which, although not perfectly successful, was mostly kept out of the speeches of the principals (nominees and keynote).

Your guy previously ran on a "change the tone" platform, presumably because, at least in 2000, a significant portion of your coalition (and probably a larger portion of the undecideds) wanted that.

[carsick]

Thorley
Which bigotry plays best on tv.
You know... since this thread is concerned with the electorate's perception of Miller's speech.

[fdl]

Actually no, we've still got about 2 months to go. And on the substance of comparing Ds to Rs on fascist tendencies, I have the following thoughts:

loyalty oaths at public campaign events;
the existence of Gitmo prison;
the "trial" procedures for getting out of Gitmo;
American citizens held without access to counsel in a Navy brig;
DoJ redaction of ACLU brief, redacting text of a Supreme Court opinion ON DISSENT!;
DoJ's mis-conduct in a series of terrorist trials;
the press, public and blog response to SwiftVets for "Truth" vs. MoveOn;
Michelle Malkin vs. Eric Muller;
The AG's contempt for FOIA!;
The most secretive administration ever, in terms of documents protected from public disclosure;
Powell lying to the UN;
Rumsfeld saying that we knew where the WMDs were;
Cheney linking Al Qaeda to Iraq;
A federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage;
Rice talking about a warning cloud being a mushroom cloud;
16 words in the SOTU;
Bush saying it would be easier to be dictator, so long as he was the dictator;
Suppression of the true cost of the Medicare bill;
Suppression of unfavorable scientific opinion on a range of matters;
The ever-evolving justification for tax cuts;
The budget deficit being no problem;
voter disenfranchisement in Florida;
and so forth.

to me, the common thread is a profound contempt for the democratic process.

Francis

[Blue]

Well, let me see...

"loyalty oaths at public campaign events;"
Unprecedented behavior of opponents infiltrating rallies in order to be disruptive

"the existence of Gitmo prison;"
Enemy combatants that don't belong to a state

"the "trial" procedures for getting out of Gitmo;"
People who would subvert the very laws that protect us

"the press, public and blog response to SwiftVets for "Truth" vs. MoveOn;"

Have no idea where you are coming from. MoveOn is nothing but a Dem front trying to smear Bush.
SwiftVets have 250 members who are former Veterans

"Michelle Malkin vs. Eric Muller;"
Muller has put up and extremely weak defense and is intellectually dishonest.

"The most secretive administration ever, in terms of documents protected from public disclosure;"
The most hostile press in history that is willing to misrepresent the administration every chance they get

"Powell lying to the UN;"
Powell did not lie

"Rumsfeld saying that we knew where the WMDs were;"
Every major intelligence agency agreed Iraq had WMD

"Cheney linking Al Qaeda to Iraq;"
There is a proven link between AQ and Iraq, but you are misrepresenting why we went to Iraq

"Rice talking about a warning cloud being a mushroomcloud;"
Still could happen. Russia just increased security at nuclear facitlities

"16 words in the SOTU;"
They turned out to be true

"Suppression of unfavorable scientific opinion on a range of matters;"
So many of the sientists have a political agenda.

"The ever-evolving justification for tax cuts;"
Thank goodness we have them.

"The budget deficit being no problem;"
Your lack of faith in the American economy and the strength of Americans in general.

"voter disenfranchisement in Florida;"
Democrats ran the districts that screwed it up.

To me, the common thread is a profound contempt for honesty.

[Phil]

"The most secretive administration ever, in terms of documents protected from public disclosure;"
The most hostile press in history that is willing to misrepresent the administration every chance they get

Right. That's why both the WaPo and the NYT, probably the two most influential papers in the United States aside from the WSJ, have both issued public mea culpas for carrying the President's water during the runup to the Iraq war and not doing enough investigating and reporting.

"loyalty oaths at public campaign events;"
Unprecedented behavior of opponents infiltrating rallies in order to be disruptive

"Unprecented?" Maybe. Not sure of that. Has it happened more than once? And are you honestly defending the President and Vice-President requiring loyalty oaths before people can attend their campaing appearances?

"the existence of Gitmo prison;"
Enemy combatants that don't belong to a state

"Enemy combatants" only on the President's say-so. How's that Hamdi case going, by the way? And I'm fairly certain most of them do belong to a state. In fact, I'm positive.

"the "trial" procedures for getting out of Gitmo;"
People who would subvert the very laws that protect us

See above.

"Michelle Malkin vs. Eric Muller;"
Muller has put up and extremely weak defense and is intellectually dishonest.

Do tell. I can't wait for your exegesis on this one, being an expert as you obviously are. Can you do it while both a) providing a cite and b) avoiding the talking points? Let's watch!

"Suppression of unfavorable scientific opinion on a range of matters;"
So many of the sientists have a political agenda.

Well, that was enlightening. Can we have some (sourced) details please?

"Rice talking about a warning cloud being a mushroomcloud;"
Still could happen. Russia just increased security at nuclear facitlities

So the danger concerning Iraq -- which was the context of the statement in question -- was from Russian nuclear facilities? Well, that one has the virtue of being new, I suppose.

"The budget deficit being no problem;"
Your lack of faith in the American economy and the strength of Americans in general.

Yep, it'll just solve itself. No problem.

[Gromit]

Blue: Actually, I think Bonds really believes what he says. And if he does then it is more than just a metaphor. You don't see it that way because you agree, so you don't condemn it.

I'm not clear what you mean here. I should hope he believes what he says, else he is a liar (and what little I know of Bond says otherwise). But unless you think Bond actually believes the battle emblem is literally the Indian-derived logo of the Nazis, and unless you are convinced that Bond really accuses the Republicans of literally aligning themselves with the Taliban, the only reasonable conclusion is that he was speaking metaphorically. I say this not because I agree with the metaphors (which are extreme enough to make me uneasy), nor because I agree with the basic sentiments behind them (though I do, more or less), but because I understand the meaning of the word "metaphor".

Thorley Winston re Zell and segregationism: Are we done yet?

For once, I agree with Thorley. There are plenty of criticisms to level against Zig Zag Zell without accusing him of racism. He once campaigned on behalf of John Lewis, who I can be proud to say represents me, and I can accept that he has left any segregationist associations behind him. What makes him contemptible is that he is a political opportunist who is leveraging his nominal Democratic affiliation to obtain a last bit of notoriety prior to his exit from public life (and while this may not be his primary motivation, I'm sure he'll get royal treatment in the private sector as thanks for whoring out his party's name to the Bush Republicans). But perhaps the most damning criticism I can offer against him is that I voted to put him in office, and he thanked me for that vote by turning around and spitting on much of what I believe in.

[Phil]

Looks like the President himself disagrees with blue about whether or not WMD were the reason we went to war in Iraq, by the way.

[Gromit]

Did I just see them dragging a heckler off the floor of the convention center?

[Gromit]

And another!

[Blue]

"loyalty oaths at public campaign events;"

As I watch people try to interrupt the RNC convention during the President's speech....

[Catsy]

All those who like to call themselves 'libertarians' must be feeling a bit nauseous.

"Nauseated".

</pedantic>

:>

[Blue]

"the press, public and blog response to SwiftVets for "Truth" vs. MoveOn

No bias here in the media...

CNN... already referred to the uneloquent speech
MSNBC... President admitted he was polarizing and divisive

And of course Hardball:

We, the Carter administration had a horrible balloon drop.

You could both hear and see he realized he screwed up. But it was too late. I think it was the most honest thing I have heard him say on his show in a long time.

[McDuff]

"the "trial" procedures for getting out of Gitmo;"
People who would subvert the very laws that protect us

Are you serious?

Since credentials are often doubted following ill thought-out posts, please allow me the luxury of being long-winded here.

I do not believe that all Bush supporters are morons or fascists. Much of the differences between us can be tied to ideological or cost-benefit disagreements, not to the fact that I am cleverer than they. I believe, like G K Chesterton, that progressives will always win. Then, the progressives become tomorrow's conservatives and the whole glorious cycle of human progress repeats itself. We are both necessary parts of a bigger machine.

I believe I share much in common with all except the choice few, who I categorise unsympathetically as "batshit loony nutjobs." My starting point with the simple many is one on which I find all, of any political stripe, can agree: a commitment to basic human decency, to respect for one's fellows, to the basic rightness of the rule of law as opposed to anarchy - and, in the west, to a general belief that, however much we may do wrong, in the here and now in our nations we do better by ourselves than we have at any point before. That our collective struggle, though not yet over, and though we disagree on where it should take us in the future, is not in vain. That our rights and freedoms, whether we believe they are written into the fabric of the universe by God or mere constructs of society, are ours because we have fought hard for them, and that it is good that they exist.

And this is why it is beyond my comprehension that people can write things like this. Even though it was just a throwaway comment, that somehow makes it more significant; despite its counterintuitiveness and contradiction, it requires no explanation. It has been repeated so often that it has become self-evident, and no questioning of the foundations on which the claim rests are made.

I assume that those who support Bush are good people, who align with me closely on the details I consider most important, and differ only on the details. Yet, here I see that most insiduous and heart-breaking of things, the specific exception to the rule in the case of the "other." "They" are seeking to destroy us, so it does not matter if we violate our own sacred principles first, in order to win. What's a little stretching of the rule of law here, or a few dubious interpretations of "rights" there? Yes, we could be strict. We could set ourselves high standards and try and live by them, but dammit, this is war, and we have to play dirty to win.

What saddens me is that, for all the claims of those who support Bush to support America, they seem inclined at the moment to let it fall further than I. I do not believe, as great a threat as the Jihadists pose, that any price is worth paying to beat them. If I become my own enemy, I can never win. If they hate our freedoms, oppose our laws, despise the fact that we treat all equal and without prejudice, then what benefit us to negate our freedoms, twist our laws, and introduce prejudice our systems to beat these people? That the measures we may take are "not as bad" as those they would employ themselves is beyond question, but also beyond relevance. Should we become even ten-percent as bad as the Jihadists, in order to beat them? And what of the next threat which will undoubtedly raise its hydra head? And the next? If we compromise on these ideals, which I thought we had all held in common, for what are we fighting?

The shadowy "They" is not subverting our laws. WE are subverting our laws, and telling ourselves that unless we do it first, they will do it worse. Some may be willing to pay that price, but I am not. While I concede that the argument has some pragmatic, short-term merit, I object to being told that I do not want what is best for America because I do not want to see it debase its ethical and intellectual foundation -- for all its faults, the finest in the world -- before a puny, bullying, small-minded philosophy that seeks only to hurt and crush that which disagrees with it.

There are, of course, many Liberal-Democratic (which is different from liberal-democratic, of course) points of view which cause similar congnitive dissonances in supporters of a given politican or political party, and I'm sure we could all have a fun game playing Tit-For-Tat and saying "nuh uh, you guys did it worse during Clinton." The fact is, though, we are not during Clinton. We are during Bush. Ashcroft has authority. Rumsfeld has authority. These are the times, these are the things that are happening, right now, in these times. These are the people who are subverting the laws of America, not the terrorists. The terrorists want to kill, steal, murder, frighten and rape. They are terrible people. But, unless they are provoking an uprising, unless they consitute a direct threat to the will of the people to oppose tyranny in all forms, unless they are somehow managing to weaken the common threads that link us all and enable us to exhibit such forceful passions about those insignificant things on which we disagree, they can not subvert the laws of America.

If, as Sebastian says, this was truly a time for anger, I could get angry at the implications of this. As it is, I do not think there is time for anger, right now. I think anger is why we are here. Anger at terrorists -- justifed anger -- has caused us to lash out in a manner which hurts ourselves. Bush's foreign policy is reactionary idiocy, but the same is true of all foreign policy, even the good stuff. The election is being fought on the basis of "What We Will Do To Them," because nobody is willing to look each other in the eye and ask "What Did We Do To Us?"

[marguerite]

I don't have a say in this, but I would be REALLY uncomfortable with a site banning people for saying nasty things about the leaders of a major political party. Bernard's statements were not about posters. They were about Miller and the GOP leadership. That's kicking out people for their political opinions.

And Miller's speech....yes, I used the word fascist in my home. I wouldn't have used it here, but while I think it's probably too strong a word to be accurate, all of the other words I could think of were too weak to be accurate.

The stuff about the soldier, not the reporter, or the lawyer, or the journalist, or the protestor....it is the soldier AND the reporter AND the judge AND the lawyer AND the Constitution AND Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington AND every citizen of this country who demands it that gives us those freedoms in practice. It is God, or just our inherent nature as human beings, that makes us deserve them. Our soldiers sacrifice more than most others, and deserve every honor, but the worst regimes in history have had soldiers.

And we've seen this rhetoric before. Complete glorification of the military over the civilian? Check. Equivalence of the leader and the state and criticism with the leader of an attack on the state? Check.

Mind you, I'm only talking about the rhetoric. I don't think Miller's a fascist--I don't know what on earth he is, but to be a fascist he'd actually have to convince a mob or the cops to light the torches and hunt down Kerry, Edwards, me, Chris Matthews and most of the citizens of the city they're holding this convention in. He won't do that, and scary as he was on TV, I really highly doubt he wants to.

But he talked like he wanted to, and it freaked the crap out of me, and I don't think saying so should get me banned from the site.

[hilzoy]

Bravo, McDuff.

[McDuff]

Argh, how I wish for edits.

Fifth para, "...the foundations on which the claim rests are made.", strike the "are made." I should really fully redraft sentences, rather than create a bastard frankensteinesque mutant of two versions.

[Gromit]

I'll second hilzoy's "Bravo, McDuff!" Only I add an exclamation point, so great is my enthusiasm.

[Blue]

Maybe subvert was a poor choice of words...

How many of you really think O.J. was innocent?

I can only imagine how a terrorist would work our system.

Thankfully, O.J. was only really after his ex-wife, who knows what a terrorist might do who works the system like O.J.

I'm just not comfortable with the thought of that.

[Moe Lane]

"I don't have a say in this"

No. You don't. And, for the record, Bernard did not get his warning for saying nasty things about political leaders; he got his warning for the rank incourtesy of making an attack that could be legitimately seen as being directed against people who read this site. Call Bush or Miller a fascist, if you like: call them ring-tailed lemurs if you so desire. Neither of them read ObWi. But I have insisted from the very start that the metaphorical knives remain sheathed when it comes to ObWi's readers.

Subject closed.

Moe

[Moe Lane]

Reopened for a second... and if people think that I'm missing or skipping over a violation, feel free to use the above email. Edward does the mail, and he isn't a Republican, so if somebody doesn't trust me he/she can surely trust him.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Let me be plain. The people I was describing as fascists are the current Administration, not Sebastian, Moe, etc.. That was clear to Hilzoy and Marguerite at least. I think it should have been clear to everyone, but apparently it wasn't.

So I apologize, but only for not writing more carefully.

I do not apologize for calling the Bushies fascists. No, Miller didn't call for the election to be cancelled, but he might as well have. He wants a campaign where the president can't be criticized, but his supporters can say whatever they want about the opposition. Some election, some democracy. Bush wants a country where he can declare anyone an enemy combatant and lock them up indefinitely strictly on his say-so. Sounds like a police state to me. What does it sound like to you, Moe? ( Yes, I know the Court told him to forget it. But he wanted it. And he'll try again).

I do not apologize for saying it is hard for me to understand Bush supporters. I do not apologize for being extremely angry at the lies, incompetence, and nastiness of the Bushies. Hilzoy asks me to try to understand the other point of view. Well, I read a lot of blogs and a lot of comments, and as far as I can tell it all has something to do with Christmas, 1968, in Cambodia, and the fact that Kerry speaks French, and has a rich wife. Yeah, that makes sense.

Believe it or not, though I'm a Democrat, I'm not particularly left-wing. I was unhappy with the 2000 outcome, but not frothing at the mouth. I thought Bush would be tolerable. Well, I was wrong. He's not. He's been a terrible president, and on top of that I honestly believe he and his crew have zero respect for democracy and individual liberties. So yes, I'm angry. And when that jerk Miller spews a bunch of crap I get angrier.

If that violates your posting rules, Moe, so be it.

[Moe Lane]

"If that violates your posting rules, Moe, so be it."

No, none of that does, Bernard Yomtov. Oh, I could probably ding you for 'reasonably civil' - nice and vague, that one - but that's meant for emergencies. (We're going to drift now into generic commentary land: Bernard's off the hook, and not to be considered necessarily the focus of any statements.) I don't require people here to like their political opponents, nor understand them: but maintaining politeness towards the political opponents metaphysically standing before them is always going to be a minimum requirement for folks posting here. I would politely suggest that those who might think this odd, pointless or silly of me consider that said policy is possibly related to that undefinable whatever-it-is that causes people to come back here.

Moe

[McDuff]

"I can only imagine how a terrorist would work our system."

How? How might a terrorist "work" our system, blue? Might he take advantage of the natural sympathy for terrorists that is prevalent in the USA to swing a jury on his side? Might he purposefully trick law enforcement agencies into using only inadmissible evidence in court so that he gets off on technicalities? Might he arrogantly insist on his own innocence and therefore ask that we, y'know, treat him as an innocent unless we can prove otherwise?

And, even if what you "imagine" what a terrorist could do if he were allowed "rights" were so terrible, or even so plausible, why is this justification for picking holes in the fabric of the legal protections we all enjoy?

See, this is what confuses me most. Like I said above, I don't think you're stupid, and I don't think you're a fascist. So how can an intelligent, reasonable, *conservative* person like yourself honestly tell me that you have no problem removing civil liberties, because you trust the government enough to only imprison bad people? When has a government ever been trustworty -- or competent -- enough to do that in the past, without the strictest of criteria blocking as many avenues of abuse as possible?

It *seems* as if anger and fear has blinded you, and made you say silly things, made you think it's OK to arrest and imprison innocent people because they might be terrorists, or that they *are* terrorists because the President says so. Be reasonable; would you allow such things to be said if it were Clinton or Kerry in the Oval Office rather than Bush? If this election does not go your way, it won't be Bush in the White House with those powers, enforcing your particular biases -- it will be someone who you dislike, who has biases that do not align with your own. Do you trust *him*? I certainly don't, but then, I wouldn't trust Jesus H Christ Himself to run a country that way. Maybe I'm more naturally suspicious of government than you... but again, this can't be true, because I'm a fully paid-up big-government liberal, and I always thought the Conservative mantra was that government is *Bad*. How can you ask for the government out of your wallet on the one hand, and yet see nothing wrong with having the government in your house looking through your computer, in your phone records, in your medical history, in your local library checking out what you've read?

See, that's what it *seems* like to me. It seems like severe cognitive dissonance produced by over emotionalism and irrationality. But you're a smart guy, and a Conservative, so that can't be the reason. What, then, is the real reason? I am at a loss. I need you to tell me, because I truly do not know.

[marguerite]

Moe--I shut up because it's not so much my business, but I think that's quite fair. I'd misunderstood your reasoning and I apologize.

[Moe Lane]

I'm sorry for being short with you on it, marguerite.

[Blue]

I admit that I have become frustrated with attacks like FDL made last night. A littany of charges devoid of context. My response was a hurried attempt at providing a little context.

Your own response has shown context is crucial to understanding.

"While I concede that the argument has some pragmatic, short-term merit, I object to being told that I do not want what is best for America because I do not want to see it debase its ethical and intellectual foundation"

I can certainly understand your frustation if you feel somenoe said that to you. I certainly did not. But, We both agree that the argument has some pragmatic short-term merit. (I assume we are both talking about people who might be detained, but we don't have solid cases against.)

So despite both of your long posts condemning the tactic you acknowledge that their might be some short term benefit. I read your posts. To me this statement answers the very question which you seek to answer.

"See, that's what it *seems* like to me. It seems like severe cognitive dissonance produced by over emotionalism and irrationality. But you're a smart guy, and a Conservative, so that can't be the reason. What, then, is the real reason? I am at a loss. I need you to tell me, because I truly do not know."

It seems you do know. The war with Afghanistan was a tactic. Iraq was a tactic. These measures are a tactic. So many are quick to see the administration as incompetent that they underestimate them.

We can both clearly agree that it could be an effective short term tactic. If it was your responsibility to prevent Americans from dieing it might very well be a tactic you would choose. But, so many look at this issue and criticize the President as if his real objective is to create a police state in which all rights are stripped of the individual. How many times have we all heard the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield fascist line? How can one not question the motives of people who do that? When someone says they HATE the Bush administration, How can we not question their ideology when HATE is what comes out of their mouth? I object to that over the top rhetoric and the endless accusastions.

Just the other day Hilzoy said:
"As far as I can tell, the Bush administration asserts that in time of war, the President is essentially an absolute monarch. He can imprison any one of us at will, and need only show that there is 'some evidence' that we are enemy combatants;"

Does she really believe that this is what Bush wants? That he desires to be able to imprison any one of us at will. I swear I just don't see how and intelligent and reasonable person can say that.

It seems okay to the left side to ask those questions and make those kind of comments because they dislike Bush so much. I would ask you to see what it looks like from the other side. But actually you seem to know how it feels when you say one questions your intentions with respect to what is best for America.

Do you believe Bush is trying to create a police state? How can I not question the motives of the many who believe I would vote for someone trying to create a police state in the U.S. To me that is nothing more than an attempt to smear the President. For so many too accuse him of it is just wrong. They will say it is based on his actions that I believe that. I say that's hogwash. He is a President that has suffered greatly due to 9/11 and wants nothing more than to prevent it from happening again. We are at War and he is a President at War.

"I do not believe, as great a threat as the Jihadists pose, that any price is worth paying to beat them"

I never claimed that any price is worth paying. I think it is absurd to conclude that. When others assume that I am claiming something like that I question why they would think that a rational person would do that. I think they are being dishonest in order to justify their beliefs. This is ongoing behvior.

Today Edward makes the following analysis:

"The President must be thinking "the freedom to lose all your social security money in the stockmarket" because short of that, which liberties is he trying to expand? The PATRIOT ACT is curtailing liberties, his platform outlines plans to take away the freedom of women to make personal decisions about their own bodies, he's advocating roadblocks to the hopes gay Americans have of expanding their liberties...which freaking domestic frontier is he talking about?"

So he can't figure out what FREEDOM's Bush wants to expand from his speech? I find his comments to be inaccurate and misleading in order to express his dislike of Bush.

From his speech:
"The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom."

Is Edward questioning what Bush is talking about in this statement? Now, I know Edward is smart enough to know what that statement is about. But, since him and Bush disagree on certain issues it seems to me he isn't willing to acknowledge the meaning nor truth of that statement. Is it not really obvious what he means? Does the statement not ring true? Is Edward really being honest in even posing his statement in the manner he did? 50 million people have a chance at freedoms that they NEVER would have had because of the leadership of GWB. Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians hope to have those freedoms some day. They just might get them because of the decisions of GWB. How can Edward criticize him for saying that we will extend the frontiers of freedom? Is it not a fact that we have? Edward of all people should be saying, "Hey, that's great, sign me up for some of that." But, he didn't.

Democrats are extremely frustrated right now because of how Zell Miller characterized Kerry without giving context. And accusing him of mischaracterizing Kerry and questioning his motives. But, that is exactly what FDL did and Edward continues to do! I responded with a little context just to make a point that context for all his critiques existed.

Edward goes on to say:
"The President must be thinking "the freedom to lose all your social security money in the stockmarket" because short of that, which liberties is he trying to expand?"

Bush said:
"We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account, a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.

Now tell me why someone obviously as intelligent as Edward would want to mischaracterize his statement. I have been watching behavior like this for 4 years. I agree that I don't care about Clinton, but I do care about how often the left criticizes the right for being deceptive only to practice it themselves.

"The PATRIOT ACT is curtailing liberties"

We know that most of what is in the Patriot Act was already on the books. The act codified most of it making it easier to prosecute. Also, we are at war with people who want to kill us.

"his platform outlines plans to take away the freedom of women to make personal decisions about their own bodies"

Well what the heck about the unborn child? We know that if she is murdered many states will prosecute for a double murder. Possibly Bush believes he is protecting the unborn child's freedoms.

"he's advocating roadblocks to the hopes gay Americans have of expanding their liberties"

Now, on other threads it is known that I do not oppose expanding equal treatment for gay couples, but what about the freedom to live in a society that you think is the best to raise your children in. We all have different ideas of what is best.

"I am at a loss. I need you to tell me, because I truly do not know."

"While I concede that the argument has some pragmatic, short-term merit,"

It really appears that you do know McDuff... and if others are as honest as you and quit falsely accusing the administration of trying to act like a monarch or of being a fascist regime or of desiring to curtail Freedoms they would come to understand the tactics of this war, too.

[Edward]

Cross posting is hard Blue...you should leave it to the professionals ;PPPPPPPPPPPP

just kidding...

Now tell me why someone obviously as intelligent as Edward would want to mischaracterize his statement.

I'm referring to his statement that he's expanding domestic liberties (which I noticed you don't clarify, but instead change the subject). I was trying to give him the benefit of doubt that he beliefs the "ownership society" is an increase in liberties, while pointing out it's not necessarily going to work out so well for all people (which I noticed he didn't explain).

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Social Security isn't going to be working so well either.

[Edward]

Social Security isn't going to be working so well either.

From what I understand Social Security is fine..it's Medicare and Medicaid that will have problems, no? Or do I have that backwards?

[Phil]

Now, on other threads it is known that I do not oppose expanding equal treatment for gay couples, but what about the freedom to live in a society that you think is the best to raise your children in. We all have different ideas of what is best.

I, too, dream fervently of the day when we have the freedom to live in a society in which I, if I can convince 50%+1 people to agree with me, can restrain the private behavior of individuals who are not hurting me or anyone else in any way, simply because they are icky and my children might see them. Then, then, my brothers, shall we truly be free.

[carsick]

If you don't lump medicare and medicaid together with SS then you are forced to acknowledge that the medi programs are essentially bankrupt. Remember Gore talking about the lockbox for SS. SS is essentially a safe savings bond type of trust.
The right has done a good job undermining the confidence of SS but the numbers don't back it up.
If you use SS to prop up the medi programs then you can buy some time; bankrupt both systems; and force alternatives that never would have been acceptable before bankruptcy.
If the focus becomes just on the medi programs then some sort of universal healthcare plans get a heck of a lot closer.

[Edward]

thanks carsick.

[Edward]

I, too, dream fervently of the day when we have the freedom to live in a society in which I, if I can convince 50%+1 people to agree with me, can restrain the private behavior of individuals who are not hurting me or anyone else in any way, simply because they are icky and my children might see them. Then, then, my brothers, shall we truly be free.

Brilliant, Phil!

[carsick]

51% is that some sort of half baked communism yer talkin'?
Thank god that place can't be here in America because that piece of paper somewhere'n Washington they got seems to recognize the rights of the 49% of those you can't get to agree with you.
On second thought...damn that Constitution thingy any ol' way.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The social security lockbox is a silly legal fiction. IOUs written by the government on behalf of the government don't count as actual revenue.

In 2017 the payouts for Social Security are expected to exceed the payroll inputs. In order to cover the difference, Social Security will have to start cashing Treasury bonds that were written on its behalf. From the point of view of Social Security by itself, it can live off those bonds for another 20 years. But viewing it independently is silly. The government pays the SS benefits, raises money through taxes, and pays bonds through taxes revenue. After 2017 the government will have to dramatically raise taxes at a hugely increasing rate to cover the difference. That is entirely independent of the bankrupt Medicare system which also needs money to keep it afloat.

Social Security is not fine.

[Blue]

Specifically, I had in mind my experience during gay pride day when I used to live in the bay area.

I really wouldn't have a problem banning most of the behavior that I saw that day in public. It would have been just as outrageous if it had been a male/female event, but it wasn't and I have never seen the equivalent walking down the street... even Mardi Gras has not qualified as equal.

I remember thinking to myself, I really can't raise children around here. "They" can do what they want, but I gotta go somewhere else to raise a family and I did.

So mock me if you want, but my freedom is just as important to me as your freedom and it only hurts your cause to not recognize that.

Edward,

If that is what you meant then you should have used this quote and not the one you did:

"By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America."

The one you chose was a mischaracterization of what he meant. This one would have made your point.

But, the whole quote was this:

"By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America."

And he is encouraging liberty at home with the ownership concept... he just isn't agreeing with you on the one you want.

I find it unfortunate that you think Phil's comment was brilliant. He made my words mean something you probably know I didn't mean. What good does that do?

[carsick]

Sebastian
I didn't say it wasn't going to need some changes but it's far healthier than Medicare and Medicaid. DRAMATICALLY raising taxes isn't the answer. (I suppose you think a 55 year old who invests their retirement at the end of a bubble is safer because it doesn't affect your nest egg. You know... unless you're that 55 year old.)

Edward
For greater understanding on the issue go here:
http://www.cbpp.org/8-2-01tax.htm
or here:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000416.html

Hearing folks talk about privatizing SS and yet having no idea how a mechanism like that will work and be affordable and still provide a safety net is discouraging.
Do you want to start a thread Sebastian where you show the big thought-out privatization cure?

[Edward]

I find it unfortunate that you think Phil's comment was brilliant. He made my words mean something you probably know I didn't mean. What good does that do?

Divorced of your comment, Phil's does good in that it entertained me. There's not nearly enough of that in the world, you know.

Happy Labor Day Weekend Blue...look forward to debating you when we're all back "in school."

Happy weekend to all! Gotta dash...

[fdl]

Blue said: "Do you believe Bush is trying to create a police state?"

In a word, yes.

The supreme court gave clear direction to the administration regarding the illegal detentions of US citizens in the US and foreign nationals at Gitmo. The admin has defied the direction of the sup. ct., creating procedures that make a mockery of constitutional concepts of Due Process.

DoJ lawyers have grossly abused their "material witness" detention powers.

DoJ terrorist convictions are being overturned across the country because DoJ lawyers suppressed evidence and misled courts.

DoJ lawyers are redacting ACLU briefs, including language from Supreme COurt opinions on the power of dissent.

More pages of govt documents have been suppressed by this administration than any other.

The AG has encouraged govt agencies to defy FOIA, and offered the support of the DOJ in FOIA cases.

DHS has established a no-fly list, but refused to say who is on it, or what procedures exist to get off the list.

the USA PATRIOT Act gives unprecedented search powers to the FBI in some very troubling areas, like no-peek warrants.

how much more evidence do you need?

Francis

[JadeGold]

The social security lockbox is a silly legal fiction. IOUs written by the government on behalf of the government don't count as actual revenue.

This kills me. If Treasury securities in the SS Trust Fund are worthless--so is every other Treasury instrument. If that's the case, we're in a world of hurt--right now--nevermind SS.

In 2017 the payouts for Social Security are expected to exceed the payroll inputs.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the word "expected."

The actual term should be "forecasted," which makes a world of difference. You see, in order for SS to start making good on Sebastian's doom and gloom projections--it is assumed the economy will grow at an annual rate of 1.5%. That's about half the average annual rate (2.9%) over the past 75 years.

To give some perspective, during the Great Depression, the economy grew at a average rate of 1.9% annually.

But if the economy grows at a rather unspectacular annual rate of 2.2%, SS is solvent indefinitely.

[McDuff]

Blue.

I appreciate your honesty. I appreciate that you truly believe that the moral costs you must pay are costs you feel you are capable of paying. I do feel saddened that you have been pushed to this, and sorry that the level of personal fear you feel on a daily basis must be great, but under moments of great stress, we look out for ouselves first, do we not? I understand.

However, I also understand that this is why we have legal protections. Because humans are skittish and panicky creatures, quick to lash out and cautious of those who might harm them, we invented social regulations on individual behaviour - laws - to curb the skittery excesses of the human animal under stress. And we understood that the power to enforce those laws, once gained, can be abused, and so we invented laws for the law-enforcers and law-makers. We made our officials accountable to themselves, to other branches of the government, to the citizenry. "Who watches the watchmen?" the old cynic intones. Well, in a democracy, that's our job. Not just at election time, either. It is not -- never has been -- the duty of a democrat to rally round the leader, even in a crisis. Any bovine monarchist can wave a flag. What separates citizens from subjects is a sacred duty: to challenge those in power. Always, continuously, fervently, to hold them accountable and to remind them that they are stewards, not Lords. They answer to us.

It is not a hinderance to be constantly held to account for your actions -- after all, in what other job are you given freedom to operate in any manner you see fit, with no regard for results? Rather, constant opposition to the people in charge is essential for them to do their job properly. That way, if they get it wrong, they know. If they abuse their power, we disabuse them of it.

I do not believe, no, that Bush wants to actually tear up the Constitution and crown himself king. However, to me the words of Bush-supporters like Zell tell a different story. They say that opposing the leader is wrong, that the duty of every citizen of America -- the freedom that people fought and died for, to be able to say "I disagree with you, George Bush!" -- should not be practiced, that people should keep their opinions to themselves if they know what's good for them. I do know that Bush sees himself as answerable to God, and that worries me. I come from a country where we have suffered at the hands of a long line of people in charge all claiming to be answerable to God. They were all insane. To leave the man in charge answerable not to the public, but to God, and to stifle dissent of his actions, however unfavourable, may not be to crown him as king but it will be to behave *as if* he is a monarch. This is what I read when I see people calling Bush "King George:" a metaphor, nothing more. Nobody except the aforementioned "batshit loony nutjobs" believes that Bush is out to tear up the constitution. I do believe that Bush supporters like Zell would be far happier if we acted as if he had done, rather than doing our jobs.

And this is what I mean when I talk of the "short term benefits." It is comforting to retreat from our responsibilities. It is easy to adulate the figurehead, and to believe that he has everything sorted because he is a good man in our eyes. Uncle George, with the easy manner and "folksy" attitude, will sort it all out, just trust him. To turn a blind eye while he gets in the car after a beer too many -- he obviously knows what he's doing, he wouldn't drive in such a manner that really endangers people, he's not an uncaring guy -- or, in the non-metaphorical case, while he stretches the law, creates loopholes through it, finds ways of redefining criminals so that they can be exempted from protections, is the easy option.

It is also the wrong option.

There are short-term benefits to theft, too. Like theft, it may be that we escape the consequences of our actions entirely. If the police do not catch you, you can sell that TV and VCR for $100 and you've made a personal gain with no cost. America escaped from the mindset that interned Japanese civillians during WWII. It escaped from McCarthyism. I have no doubt that it will escape from the current round of clinging paranoia. Similarly, even though civil liberties are being retracted around you, you personally may get off scott-free. You're a God-fearin' young thing who keeps his (her? I don't think I've got your gender yet) nose clean. You'll probably do fine.

But theft is wrong, and taking liberties with the freedoms of your citizens is also wrong. And though you may escape unharmed, someone will pay the price. Some have, already. You have sacrificed their freedom so that you may feel safe. Your elected officials signed into law an act that restricted freedoms in the land of the free. A thief may escape punishment and benefit from his crimes, but he will always be a thief and a criminal. Those who stood as Japanese were interned and did not speak out, those who considered HUAC a price worth paying then, as you consider the avoidance of due process to be a price worth paying now, they may all escape personal harm because of their actions, but they will always be responsible for them. And you, as I, are responsible for how we aquit our duties as democrats. Not big D, small d; the important type of democrat, which Democrats and Republicans should all hold as the cornerstone ideology supporting all the others.

You said that you don't consider "any price is worth paying." But what price do you consider worth paying? I asked before, if we must become 10% as bad as the Jihadists to beat them, is that worthwhile? Is it worth locking up ten innocent people to secure ourselves against one potential terrorist? A hundred? A thousand? Only one? If we lock up two potential terrorists for every innocent imprisoned, is that a worthwhile benefit to justify the costs? Just how far are you prepared to go? Further than me, we already gathered that, but how much further? Would you sacrifice my freedom for this cause? After all, you don't know me from Adam. I could be a terrorist, posting in such a way as to distract you from my true intentions. Would you, could you, see me imprisoned without due process? Would you allow your government to restrain my freedoms without proving in a court of law that I was guilty of the crimes I was accused of? Would you approve if I were sent to Syria for interrogation, because people believed I might possibly had information I could reveal under more "active" interrogative techniques than you would allow your own government to use? Would you take their word for my guilt, evidence be damned, for the sake of your personal safety?

Would you?

[hilzoy]

Blue: you wrote: "Just the other day Hilzoy said:
"As far as I can tell, the Bush administration asserts that in time of war, the President is essentially an absolute monarch. He can imprison any one of us at will, and need only show that there is 'some evidence' that we are enemy combatants;

Does she really believe that this is what Bush wants? That he desires to be able to imprison any one of us at will. I swear I just don't see how and intelligent and reasonable person can say that."

I did not say anything about what Bush wants.I said that that was what his Justice Department argued in briefs before the Supreme Court. Here are some quotes. In support of my claim that the Justice Dept. argued that the President "can imprison any one of us at will, and need only show that there is 'some evidence' that we are enemy combatants":

"Because the President’s determination that Padilla is an enemy combatant represents a core exercise of the Commander-in-Chief authority, that determination is entitled to great deference. At most, the President’s determination can be reviewed to ensure the existence of “some evidence” supporting it. " (Padilla brief, p. 14).

"In view of the great deference owed the President’s determination that Padilla is an enemy combatant and the serious separation-of-powers concerns that would attend any searching inquiry into the factual underpinnings of the President’s judgment, a factual review of the President’s determination can extend no further than ensuring that it has some evidentiary support. That framework focuses exclusively on the factual support presented by the Executive, and entails confirming the existence of “some evidence” supporting its determination that Padilla is an enemy combatant. Cf. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-457 (1985) (explaining that “some evidence” standard “does not require” a “weighing of the evidence,” but calls for assessing “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion” so as to ensure that the “record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings” are “without support or otherwise arbitrary”). Because any facts that Padilla would present do not bear on the dispositive question under that standard, there is no warrant for requiring that he be afforded access to counsel." (Padilla brief, pp. 47-48)

Here is how the Supreme Court understood one of the Justice Department's arguments:

"Under the Government’s most extreme rendition of this argument, “[r]espect for separation of powers and the limited institutional capabilities of courts in matters of military decision-making in connection with an ongoing conflict” ought to eliminate entirely any individual process, restricting the courts to investigating only whether legal authorization exists for the broader detention scheme. Brief for Respondents 26. At most, the Government argues, courts should review its determination that a citizen is an enemy combatant under a very deferential “some evidence” standard. Id., at 34 (“Under the some evidence standard, the focus is exclusively on the factual basis supplied by the Executive to support its own determination” (citing Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U. S. 445, 455–457 (1985) (explaining that the some evidence standard “does not require” a “weighing of the evidence,” but rather calls for assessing “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion”)). Under this review, a court would assume the accuracy of the Government’s articulated basis for Hamdi’s detention, as set forth in the Mobbs Declaration, and assess only whether that articulated basis was a legitimate one. Brief for Respondents 36." (Italics added: hilzoy.)

In support of my claim that "the Bush administration asserts that in time of war, the President is essentially an absolute monarch": an absolute monarch is one whose power is not subject to any restrictions, and in particular not to laws passed by an independent legislature. As I wrote in my earlier post, "In the now famous 'torture memo' (PDF), a working group of administration lawyers argued as follows: "In light of the President's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas." (p. 20.) It also has a section (p. 53) that reads as follows: "Legal doctrine could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful. See discussion of Commander in Chief authority, supra." This means that, according to this memo, the President, in his conduct of wars, is not bound by any of the criminal laws that Congress has passed, nor by any treaties that are implemented by such laws; and nothing in this document limits the President's supposedly absolute wartime powers to non-citizens."

Blue: these are quotes, not things I just made up. Read the briefs and memos for yourself, and see. Then we can argue about what they say, and what it means. But don't act as though I am just making this stuff up -- especially after all the trouble I went to finding and reading the briefs and supplying links to them, precisely so that if someone wanted to check, he or she could.

I have no idea whether or not this is what the President "wants". I don't know him personally, so how could I say? I do know that this is what members of the administration he put in power have argued. That's what I said, and I stand by it. If you disagree, please tell me how you would interpret the briefs and memos I'm talking about.

[Blue]

McDuff,

"I do feel saddened that you have been pushed to this, and sorry that the level of personal fear you feel on a daily basis must be great, but under moments of great stress, we look out for ouselves first, do we not?"

NO, WE DON'T. They may in other countries, but not here. Americans work to protect our families, loved ones, communities and country. American have gone to Germany, France, Serbia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Italy, Afghanistan and Iraq to fight for others. McDuff, you couldn't be more wrong in that statement. NY Firemen and women rush into burning buildings trying to save the lives of others. This behavior is exhibited every day here in America. I say again. You could not be more wrong.

While your sentiments sound nice they ring hollow to the victims of the twin towers attack and the Russian children whose horrible images are just now appearing around the world. Killed by Islamic militants. We are told that atleast ten of these are Arabic.

"Because humans are skittish and panicky creatures, quick to lash out and cautious of those who might harm them"

I can only assume that you are speaking for yourself. That is certainly not the nature of Americans. We could have easily crushed the militants in Afghanistan without sending soldiers over there. We called off raids against bin Laden because we didn't want to hurt innocent poeple. We could have annihalted militants in Pakistan while barely lifting a finger. Right now we could be starving out militants in Fallujah. We could have wiped Iranians off the face of the planet over twenty years ago when they took Americans as hostages. America has proven over and over again that we are slow to anger. Again, your sentiment rings hollow.

"They say that opposing the leader is wrong, that the duty of every citizen of America "

They say no such thing. Zell Miller specifically stated that they have let their desire to bring down this President blind them. That appears to be the case with many of my fellow Americans.

"I do know that Bush sees himself as answerable to God, and that worries me. I come from a country where we have suffered at the hands of a long line of people in charge all claiming to be answerable to God. They were all insane."

It is difficult to take that comment seriously as Bush is now in the midst of the campaign of his life and political survival. Your comparison is devoid of sanity. Your comments continue to sound pretty... but they also continue to ring hollow.

"It is comforting to retreat from our responsibilities."

I am confused here... because I thought you disagreed with Zell. But, you seem to understand the point he was making perfectly.

"A thief may escape punishment and benefit from his crimes, but he will always be a thief and a criminal. "

Again, while your words sound nice. I doubt they will give much consolation to any victim of the thief that was let go.

How many innocent people are sitting at GITMO? How many innocent people are in American jails? How many Americans would they kill if they could?

To be honest I tought Zell Miller's performance was over the top. But, his analysis seems right on. Especially, after reading your post.

I too am greatly saddened, McDuff. But for different reasons.

One, that someone could come to America, but yet learn so little about what it means to be an American.

Two that more Americans are going to have to pay with their lives for you and others to learn who is the real threat.

[McDuff]

I know I'm taking up a lot of screen space here, but one more comment (again, FAO Blue) and then I'll let other people get a word in edgeways.

"So he can't figure out what FREEDOM's Bush wants to expand from his speech? I find his comments to be inaccurate and misleading in order to express his dislike of Bush.

From his speech:
"The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom."

Is Edward questioning what Bush is talking about in this statement? "
Edward, as far as I could tell, was not questioning which freedoms Bush was talking about in the abstract. He was commenting that all Bush's actions on the domestic front have contributed to the lessening of individual freedoms. That his White House has been responsible for policies which have expanded freedoms "In our world" is undeniable (although you will, of course, forgive a lefty for adding caveats about "sustainability" and "attention span re: Afghanistan," won't you?). That is has expanded the freedoms "at home" is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow or seven.

Yet, he would ask us to believe that he has contributed to those expanding freedoms himself rather than detracted from them, and that despite no previous track record nor stated intentions to do so that in the next four years he will work to expand what he has himself contracted.

It is not unreasonably cynical to cross one's arms at this point and say "I'll believe it when I see it." As the tired old hack once wrote, "fool me once..."

[Blue]

Hilzoy,

The fact that they were in front of the Court arguing their case defeats your whole point that they are a monarch in my opinion and makes mine.

I don't doubt the autheticity of your quotes. But we are in a state of war with a unique enemy.

[Zizka]

Jesus. The lesson of Zell: anger is the problem, so let's watch the Democrats closely to make sure that they don't get angry. (Blue and others).

The character assassination of Democrats hy high-level Republicans (Gingrich, Hastert, DeLay) is a well-established tradition. Add Zell to the list even though he still claims to be a Democrat.

It really, really isn't for Republicans to talk to Democrats about civility and tolerance vs. divisiveness and anger. Clean up your own shithole of a party before you come around to ours.

I don't think that civil discourse between the parties will be possible until Nov. 3 and perhaps somewhat after that. I think that it's foolish for Democrats to hope for that, and ludicrous for Republicans to ask for it. What I think is that Democrats should learn to play more effectively under the Gingrich-DeLay-Hastert rules.

[hilzoy]

Blue: What you wrote was: "Does she really believe that this is what Bush wants? That he desires to be able to imprison any one of us at will. I swear I just don't see how and intelligent and reasonable person can say that." I gave you evidence that whatever he personally wants, his administration has argued that the Constitution gives him these powers. Not only has his administration argued that in front of the court, they have also argued it in the torture memo, which was not presented to any court or intended to be seen by people outside the government, but which was leaked to the Wall Street Journal after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

The fact that the Padilla and Hamdi cases ended up before a court shows that we do not now live in a world in which the Bush administration can imprison people without showing anything more than that there is "some evidence" that they are enemy combatants. This does not prove your point, however. You were originally speaking not of the world we now live in, but of the world the Bush administration would transform us into if it had its way. That, as the quotes indicate, is a world in which they can imprison people without charges and without access to counsel so long as they can convince a judge that they have "some basis" for doing so, and in which the rule of law does not apply to them.

You originally questioned my reasonableness and intelligence for believing that they were trying to gain these powers, not for believing (which I don't) that they have already succeeded. Trying to obscure this is disingenuous.

[hilzoy]

Zizka: the posting rules prohibit profanity. (This is, as I understand it, not just for the sake of general civility, but because some of us work at places where some of the words you used bring web-blockers into play.)

They also prohibit incivility to others on the blog, and are generally construed in such a way that attacks on a party mean attacks on its members. If you were referring to the party leadership, now would be a good time to say so.

As one of the site lefties, I can (please trust me on this) understand your sentiments as directed to the people who had Zell Miller's speech for three weeks and found nothing to object to in it. But the people on this blog are good people, and deserve our respect.

[hilzoy]

To be clear: what I meant above was that attacks on "Republicans" or "your party" are construed to refer to the party as a whole, not (of course) that attacks on its leadership are. Early on in my time here, I screwed up on this, and Moe rightly nailed me for it.