« The Emerging Democratic Majority | Main | Merry Christmas »

December 24, 2007

Comments

"is the stupidest thing I've ever seen."

A locution one can only use every five years or so, but ok, we all make our choices.

Happy merry!

These last few years it has been better to refrain form that "worst ever". We simply drown in new contenders for that. When "mainstream" pundits and politicians begin to sound like Ley or Streicher (damn Godwin's law!) on a regular base or promise things that not that long ago would have made them candidates for the asylum (like deporting 12 million in 120 days or that the president can ignore congress at will etc.) the discussion who is "beyonder" the pale seems pretty futile to me.

Bruce Bartlett's op-ed (and book) is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Wait until Jonah Goldberg's book comes out. You'll eat those words.

The left never takes the idea of blacks (or Hispanics or Asians) will ever vote for Republicans to its natural conclusion: That the U.S. will soon be a one party state and that they only relevant election will be the Democratic Party. What will presidential elections be like whne the President is chosen by a hand full of states 11 months before the inaugural. How wil Congress function when there is only one relevant party? What model should the political pundits and wonks be looking at for the future?

If you look at general elections in places like DC or Baltimore, you probably see the future of politics in the U.S. The media did not ever bother to report on them because the real election was the Democratic Primary.

Ehh ... Bruce Bartlett opens his OpEd with:

"In his new book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes a strong case for his belief that the political success of the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the past 40 years has resulted largely from their co-optation of Southern racists that were the base of the Democratic Party until its embrace of civil rights in the 1960s."

And then goes on to note racist comments by the Southern racists whom the party had pushed away.

That's not Rovian. That's stupid.

It’s Rome day on the Military Channel.

Historians like to talk of the ‘diversity’ of the Roman Empire, but really the great majority of Romans evolved in the same latitudes. The Roman Empire was far less genetically diverse than USA-2007. Around AD300, the Roman government overreached and had to print money, devaluing the currency. Things went downhill from there.

Bartlett is unfair to the Democrats:

"Now gentlemen, I don't want to read at any further length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."
-Abraham Lincoln

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2254:1.lincoln

The deep diversity of USA-2007 in the working classes will make it nearly impossible for them (us) to organize in the way that was done previously in Europe and Russia, or for that matter with the Germans and Goths fifteen hundred years earlier. Hispanics and Blacks already find themselves competing for the same resources. The relative homogeneous and intact nature of the Western power structure ensures the security of property ownership, regardless of how things pan out. That’s probably good.

I believe that this is one of the main reasons for the elite’s open borders push. It splinters the power of the Proletariat.

sheesh. I missed this editorial, but it's pretty amusing. I particularly loved quoting LBJ without noting that he went on to push and then sign the Civil Rights Act.

Also, the slide from "A key piece of evidence for Mr. Krugman is that Ronald Reagan gave his first speech after accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 near Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964." to "However, if a single mention of states' rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards...", as though Krugman has no other arguments at all.

Hilzoy: … as though Krugman has no other arguments at all…

Paul Krugman? Erhh…

Sorry hilzoy. What’s it called when you miss someone and then they come back and you feel like harassing them at every opportunity because you missed them? Sick? OK…

"It's Rome day on the Military Channel."

Either McManus lives or I'm an idiot. Well, it could be the latter, as always, without the former, but it would be more fun with the former, too.

Was McManus' given name "William"?

Ugh, to sit back and benefit from a legacy of racism and then... ugh, never mind,

Dude. ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad