Indeed, the desperate and the silly stretch to ridiculous lengths to “justify” their goals, since the 1930s.

At least some in the 1930s were honest — the existing constitutional arrangement was in their way, so they ignored it when and where it was convenient. Eventually they found in the judiciary a political weapon that they could use to support themselves and additional, future objectives. It's still that way.

As for Obama this year, as I've written, he could wear a hammer and sickle and he'd still probably get elected. The dysfunctionality of the GOP and lack of coherence (never mind anything like appeal) of contemporary conservatism as well as the GOP simply serves not merely to disappoint, but to repel large numbers of voters.

xcvbcvb

xcvx

Voting as open-heart surgery. May you have a speedy recovery, which you should having bravely cleared your conscience.

Friend A: WMD's! (And history would have proved it!)

Friend B: Jimmy Carter! (And history will prove it!)

Friend C: Violence! (And history already proves it!)

It's the last one that frightens me.

Arguing that Obama is Carter is like when Democrats argued every Republican is Herbert Hoover.

I'm not going to quibble much with your friend's views of Obama. As it is, I've already voted (not for Obama) and could give a list of criticisms of the guy just as long as the ones your friends presented.

I can respect other's political opinions. But one thing I cannot respect is when people form their political opinions based upon ignorance, which is apparently true of one of your friends, whom you call “Friend A.”

In his/her response to your email, “Friend A” wrote:

Although it was about Carter and the things he did that arguably led to our (and the worlds’) current problems in Iran and in the economy because he was naive and weak, it is a reminder of where our current problems germinated.

The whole “Our problems with Iran started during the Carter Administration” appears to be a staple uttered by Republicans and hawkish non-Republicans any time they wish to argue in favor of a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. I heard it repeated countless times during the run up to the war in Iraq, and I have heard it repeated countless time since then as a talking point as a partial justification for the use of force against Iran. And it remains no more true today than it did then.

Perhaps your friend should read up on Iran's political history, because the rift between the United States and Iran didn't start didn't the Carter Administration. It started during the Truman/Eisenhower Administrations. This may come as a surprise to your friend, but Iran once had a working democracy with a democratically-elected prime minister by the name of Mohammed Mosaddeq. It wasn't perfect, and Mosaddeq was hardly a saint, but it was much preferable to the American-backed dictatorship that followed it or to the Ayatollahs who took over Iran following the Iranian Revolution.

Mosaddeq, was a democratic socialist who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil industry. While the majority of the Iranian people supported this position, you might imagine that the foreign oil companies that actually “owned” much of Iran's oil didn't like this position one bit. And the United States (under President Eisenhower) and the United Kingdom under (under Prime Minister Churchill) decided to intervene in Iran on their behalf. This intervention came in the form of a covert action in 1953 known as Operation Ajax, in which the American CIA and British SIS fomented an insurrection in Iran that successfully led to the removal of Mosaddeqand reinstallation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Despite being backed by many Western governments (including ours) and ushering in several Western-style reforms, Pahlavi remained unpopular with his own people, in part because he did not have the support of the Shia clergy in Iran and in part due to his increasingly autocratic rule.

Iran had a democratically-elected government back in the late 1940's/early 1950's, but our own our government helped put an end to that. A large portion of the American people don't seem to remember that fact, but the Iranian people do, and our government's decision to get rid of a democratically-elected leader and support a pro-western dictator fueled both the backlash against the United States and the Iranian Revolution that put the Ayatollahs in power.

Yes, Carter was a flawed president. But for Republicans and foreign policy hawks to argue that our rift with Iran began during Carter's presidency is to engage in historical revisionism.

Your friend is entitled to his/her own political opinions, but he/she is not entitled to his/her own version of the truth. And it is a sad testament to our country that so many Americans are completely ignorant about the history of the Middle Eastern nations and yet presume that our government has some God-given right to interfere with the affairs of those nations.

True, Carter was not a good politician. If the country could have gotten off it's 'don't think about the long term consequences' attitude towards policy, we would probably have been free of our dependency on foreign oil by 2000, would have contributed a lot less to global warming and a lot more to the world economy. Conservatives are always the most 'think inside the box' group anywhere.

Generally, I distill the basic difference between the GOP and Democrats in how they carry out this purpose of the Constitution from the preamble:

Provide for the General Welfare.

The GOP is convinced that if you provide for the welfare of the elite, have mores, it will end up improving the welfare of the general population.

The Democrats prefer to distribute that support to the general population, with some thrown in for the corporations (too much for them as far as many progressives are concerned).

The later is a balance that has worked fairly well historically. The former has brought down every nation that pursued it to the inevitable end.

I think Bill Moyers' on his journal last night cited a new statistic that America is now the country in 4th place in the disparity of wealth distribution.

Although I personally reject the idea of a world government, the current economic situation is highlighting the need for some form of international regulation of finance and commerce, which would need a stronger judicial component. The legal aspect is also important in other areas: international organized crime, terrorism, public health and displaced populations. If we can get that in place, the growing issue of water resources might be kept out of warfare and resolved with negotions and enforcement at international levels.

First, there's something strikingly missing from the responses: John McCain. Are any of them voting for McCain or just against Democrats?

Second, there's a whole lot of vagaries in here. I have no idea what social fascism is, but I'm sure I don't want it!

Third, both long responses have bought into the idea there's a Reid/Pelosi philosophy that will destroy America, but it's not clear there even is such a philosophy. Neither leader is the great philosophical inspiration for the party; they're just who's in charge for intra-party political reasons. This indicates that it doesn't make a difference who's in charge or what they think. They'd be afraid of whoever was the head of the Democratic Party, no matter who it was.

I like this line the best: Anyone who votes for BO is complicit in bring even more power to HARRY REID and NANCY PELOSI and all those HATE groups that will do ANYTHING IT TAKES to CRIPPLE OUR SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT.

Uh, hullo… Have they looked around at the society we have now? And how is doing more of what got us into this position going to help? Obviously that question is framed too simply. But my goodness you'd think they'd have a little appreciation for the debacle Bush has bestowed, and a little appreciation for at least the possibility that maybe we have to rethink things, and not just assume we should do more of it. Interestingly, Bill Maher had the infamous Arthur Laffer, of “trickle down” fame, on his show yesterday (also in attendance was Matt Dowd, another disillusioned Republican, though one who isn't, or isn't yet, a total apostate). There he made the point that cutting taxes is, in and of itself, too simple a concept. You have to consider where you are on the (Laffer) curve. His intent, in the Reagan era as now, was/is to maximize revenues, not “starve the beast”. Whether you listen to him, or to Alan Volker (Fed chairman who is widely credited for Reagan's money supply strategy, and now a strong Obama supporter), or to Bruce Bartlett (a protegee of Laffer, and if I remember correctly is the one that coined the “Obamacon” phrase), among many other economists, you come to appreciate that there are alternatives to the “tax and spend” mentality on the one hand and the “cut taxes no matter what, even if you have to borrow” mentality on the other. It's a false dichotomy.

Then again, some people are simply “culture warriors” — anything Democrat (or vice versa) is bad, or anything pro-government (or vice versa) is bad. I happen to believe that there is such a thing as efficiency — efficiency in tax policy, efficiency in fiscal policy, and efficiency in economic policy. And I see a much greater appreciation of that in Obama than I do in McCain. And that is one reason why I support Obama. And I notice, Pete, you didn't spend much time explaining why you supported Obama. Could that partially explain the reaction you got?

Colin Powell, who IMO delivered one of the more eloquent and comprehensive arguments I've heard, still hardly touched on economics. Different people have different reasons for supporting Obama. On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly the case that those who support McCain do so, either exclusively or predominantly on ideological grounds. By the way, how do the friends you mentioned feel about GW Bush? If they still think he's fine, albeit misunderstood, that might explain the reaction you received. It seems the only non-ideological argument left is the resistance to one-party rule (which is more anti-ideological than non-ideological). Other than that it's only the “culture warriors”, who are just fine with one-party rule as long as it's theirs. And the purer the party the better. They are the ones who remain unconcerned by the fact that the moderates, the RINOs, the non-Norquist “government-in-the-bathtub” types — even the too purely “government-in-the-bathtub” types like Ron Paul who don't make exceptions for aggressive defense — are jumping ship. They don't seem to realize that whatever coalition that remains will necessarily become more fractured, schizophrenic, and difficult to maintain. That's my opinion, anyway.

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/republican...

But in the dark of night as they're pulling their covers up close to their chins..they're going to worry why all these people they used to respect and follow (for they ultimately are followers too) are jumping ship. Is the ship really on fire? They'll ask themselves when you're nowhere in sight…

And this is what is known as “seeding thoughts”. Even the strongest of bullheads is not immune to this very effective technique. Ironically, the GOP goons perfected it and tried to keep it a secret.

Then came the internet…lol…