The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« It's the Economy & Stupid | Main | Jon Swift: "Suspend the Whole Campaign" »

September 25, 2008


Ralph Carter

A "conservative" blogger posted a topic with a heading like this: "Republicans sought X; Democrats opposed it", where X was something he could assume his readers would think a good thing. The Republicans had even held the majority at that time. I pointed out that in a divided majority, or when in the minority, any senator can propose anything, knowing it won't pass, and then trumpet his "position" to his constituents. This is child's play; it happens all the time. I opined that one could choose to believe this politician, to give him credit for really wanting the thing he knew he couldn't get, but only if he hadn't already betrayed you repeatedly in that and other areas. I then argued that his headline was unhelpfully misleading, because it implied the granting of this benefit of the doubt to the Republicans who I argued *had* stabbed us ("conservatives") in the back more often than not.

Here you have done the same thing.
Implicit in your headline is the assumption that the Democrats oppose Paulsen, and you express incredulity when they don't. Noone that I'm aware of, and noone likely to be more credible to you I hope, has railed at greater length about the extent to which the Democrats have cooperated with the Bush administration on grave, fundamental matters (the fed/wall street, the war, secret interrogations, etc), than Glenn Greenwald, who I see you've linked to. Have you read him lately? So, I'll let him be the authority, that the Democrats are doing to you what the Republicans did to me. I urge you to escape from the incredulity, which is unproductive, by rethinking your premises.

This is a one-party government.
I wish the best thinkers on all sides would escape from the R vs D misdirection, and cut straight to the reasonable conclusion, that it is our common enemy, it is destroying us in the name of whatever its internationalist goals are, and we in this realm of ideas, the blogosphere, had better start saying so explicitly.
One small step, and most of us would be allies.

Ralph Carter

People forget this: These political parties are not branches of government. Together, they are one of our biggest business interests, and they have a death-grip on the Electoral Show. They are in effect a branch of the entertainment industry, like the media, like our professional sports, and are as corrupted and manipulated and fake as they are. It is a show, people; we've fallen into an Orwellian nightmare.

Ralph Carter

One guy says "gimme a trillion, now", and almost everybody jumps, bends over, and asks "where do I sign?". Which one is the boss? The unelected one. (I wonder who *his* real boss is.)
One more step, and Paulsen's bosses won't have to go through this charade of asking for permission. I'll explain. Paulsen's initial demand was for dictatorial immunity (see clause 8, which would have precluded all oversight by any governmental body or court). What he is likely to get is even better- a new policy or mechanism or department via which his bosses will be able to achieve the same goals a little slower, but without this embarassment of begging hat in hand to congress. Once this is institutionalized, you know we'll never be rid of it. They'll get what they want one way or another because they are, in effect, an unelected government. That is the government we must cast off. We're serfs again people! Stop being mystified when your favorite politicians betray you! What will it take, a million humiliations? a *trillion*?

Ralph Carter

I'm not posting any more, because Glenn Greenwald is saying the same things, infinitely better. See his post and updates:
Tuesday Sept. 23, 2008 08:03 EDT
David Brooks thinks he sees a "new establishment" to run economic policy

The comments to this entry are closed.