"What we need to do is figure out a way over the next year to really bring the leftwing lunacy front and center of the American political debate, and clearly attach the entire leadership of the Democratic party - especially the Presidential candidates - to these insane views."

Actually the MSM already does this. The problem is with those that buy into it---witness the posters on this board. Scary.

If I were teaching a course in logic, this post would make a great essay question. I'd just reproduce it and ask... "what's wrong with this?"

Dick Cheney walked away fro a Billion Dollars in options when he first ran for VP. I don't see liberal politicians doing that.

A sample of the original post:

"frothing at the mouth leftwing lunacy". "Alternate Universe our critics live in". "don't view it as the insanity it is". "leftwing lunacy"(x2). "to these insane views". "paranoid, leftwing conspiracy theories". "deeply flawed leftwing worldview". "don't understand what freedom is".

Wow man. Yeesh. Where do I go from here? Ummm...dunno. Jeez, that was in this commentary alone.

You could have saved a lot of space by going:

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Raker,

One day you'll surprise all of us and address the issue at hand.

Ricorun,

Don't say its logic is flawed, by logical argument demonstrate that it is illogical...betcha can't do that.

Mark: "Don't say its logic is flawed, by logical argument demonstrate that it is illogical...betcha can't do that."

Gosh, I was so hoping you'd ask, lol! In brief, your argument is based on a series of cascading assumptions. Without going into too much detail they are:
1. The assumption that the opinion of some no-name blogger on a no-name blog site is somehow representative of anyone else's opinion (I'm condensing this issue into one, but in actuality there are several opinions which could be separated and their veracity considered separately). I'm sure there are some that would agree in its total composition, but probably not many. The opinion of the blogger you have targetted strikes me as a little too extreme even for many KosKids. And that's saying something.
2. The assumption that the opinions of that same no-name blogger is somehow representative of the Democratic "leadership". All the evidence I know of suggests that that is not the case -- but that conclusion, to some extent, depends upon how you define "Democratic leadership".
3. The assumption that the "Democratic leadership" is some kind of monolithic entity. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that. But I suppose it depends on how you define "monolithic" -- or "leadership".
4. The assumption that Democratic presidential candidates share the assumptions of the "Democratic leadership", however monolithic it may be. For example, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that someone like Dennis Kucinich and someone like Wesley Clark agree on much of anything.
5. The assumption that assumptions 1-4 are substantially correct (which is exceeding hard to believe) and therefore require an equally extreme, though opposite, monolithic response. And frankly, all lines of evidence suggests that that assumption is just nuts.

The battle is for the middle, Mark. If the 2006 elections sent any kind of message, it would be that. I tried to explain that to people here, in many ways at many times, prior to the elections. I got labeled as a libbie for saying that. Okay fine. But if you really think that you have to come to grips with the fact that there are many people like me that don't vote strictly along party lines. And there are a lot of us. The notion that "we are living in two Americas - and left and right have no meeting of the minds at all anymore" is, in my opinion (which is consonant with all evidence), so totally, utterly wrong as to be, well... [insert your preferred adjective here]. Personally my preferred adjective is BS.

The fact remains that both Cheney and Bush spoke many times about WPM in Iraq. They used it as a reason to invade. And the fact remains that there were no WPM found.

It's not leftwingnutcase blather, it's the truth.

Ok, let me try and get this. You advocate "attaching" the leadership of the democratic party and their presidential candidates to the far leftwing lunatics. In doing so, it seems to me, you understand that the democratic leadership is not that far left, and you would knowingly somehow, alter, influence, lie, smear, to catapult the propaganda making it seem to Joe Middle that the leadership and candidates are truly that far left.

How quaintly macavailian.

Machiavellian

Ricorun,

That the best you can do? I saw better logical expositions in my 10th grade logic class...

No name blogger?

Sanford Levinson, who holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. The author of over 250 articles and book reviews in professional and popular journals, Levinson is also the author of four books: Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); Wrestling With Diversity (2003); and, most recently, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It)(2006). His edited or co-edited books include a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (5th ed. 2006, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel); Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (1998, with William Eskridge); Legal Canons (2000, with Jack Balkin); The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion (2005, with Batholomew Sparrow); and Torture: A Collection (2004, revised paperback edition, 2006), which includes reflections on the morality, law, and politics of torture from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. He has taught a course on "Torture, Law, and Lawyers" at the Harvard Law School. He is also a regular participant on the popular blog, Balkinization.

He has visited at the Harvard, Yale, New York University, and Boston University law schools, as well as the law faculties at the University of Paris II, Central European University in Budapest, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is also affiliated with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is married to Cynthia Y. Levinson, a writer of children's literature, and has two children, Meira, a writer and public school teacher, and Rachel, a lawyer with the American Association of University Professors in Washington, D.C.

God help us, but this man is VERY liberal/left mainstream - and he ain't a no-name.

I didn't say there was a monolithic Democratic Leadership subscribing to this lunacy, but you will not find a single member of the Democratic leadership who has or will call this sort of thing pure, unadulterated insanity...something which, in a rational world, would get this man fired from his prestigeous position. At bottom, the Democratic leadership's inability and/or unwillingness to purge such ideas from their side of the aisle makes them de-facto in favor of it, and that is what I want to tie them to...to force them, as it were, to either publically embrace this, or denounce it firmly (which means, in either case, that my side wins).

Democratic leadership/Democratic Presidential candidates = same/same, for the most part. You are aware how many leading Democrats are actually or putatively seeking the White House, aren't you?

For the last bit, you just went into pure political opinion, really disconnected from any attempt to controvert the logic of my argument. Given that, I'll give you my views:

There is no middle, not any more - the radical left has enitrely forced Americans to come down hard and fast on one side or the other. For crying out loud, they've forced an uber-liberal like Joe Lieberman into being a half-step away from becoming a Republican. We are entirely polarised, and 2008 will be a battle royale to determine just who has the most raw, political muscle in the United States: the right, or the left.

In keeping with this, my view is that the left really only commands support among 15-20% of the American population, and that if we on the right can tie screwballs like this guy to, say, Nancy Pelosi, then we'll win a crushing victory in 2008.

raker,

My view is that the Democratic leadership is bereft of ideas, entirely corrupt and willing to do ANYTHING to get and retain power...they've signed up the kook-left because it provides money and enthusiasm...but they are in desperate fear that the American people, on the whole, will find out just who is writing the checks and providing the crowds...if we on the right can tie in the public mind WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TIED IN THE BACKROOMS OF POWER, then we will all down the line...at least a third of normal Democratic voters will switch side IF they find out just what the kook left stands for and if, once they know, the Demcoratic leadership doesn't renounce their support...of course, if the leadership does purge the kook left, then one third of normal Democratic voters will go third party in 2008...so, we win, no matter what.

My hope is that we'll force the leadership away from the kook left - because then the few remaining elements of decency in the Democratic party will have their chance to take over and move the party away from the leftwing lunatic fringe...we do, after all, need a viable liberal party in the United States.

raker: GIGO

PM: You claim "And the fact remains that there were no WPM found." I'm not familiar with the acronym WPM, but we did hear, from dozens of sources including Liberal "leaders" and foreign heads of state and intelligence, that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. And sure enough, though we did not find huge stockpiles, in amounts large enough to appease the radical Left, we did find a lot, in different sites, as well as delivery systems.

The Left would only have been happy with large stockpiles clearly labeled, and even then would have claimed they were "planted". We knew all along that there would be no possible outcome to the WMD question that would not stir up the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist tinfoil-hat brigade. So claim you were not happy with the amount/type/location/purpose/whatever of the various chemical and biological materials found, but please stop whining that none WERE found. It is so tiresome, and so wrong....

Rico, we don't need to have a "majority" or a "consensus" of the Democrat Party spouting hateful nonsense such as that referenced in the post of Mark's to know that there are a lot of kooks out there who buy into every nonsensical word. Have you ever listened to Air America? If you have, you have heard this kind of paranoid lunacy over and over again---and you've read posts from the LLL right here on this blog, echoing the same kind of goofball attacks.

So what if the post refers to a single blogger---this "single blogger" did not just wake up one day with this cockamamie hatred of Cheney, in all its detailed insanity, all by himself. He is just parroting what others have said, and Mark's point is that there are way too many out there who think this kind of venomous drivel is true and factual and a legitimate basis for political decisions.

If there is still a mainstream Democrat Party, which I am beginning to doubt, it can step up and denounce this kind of hysterical hate-based effort to incite hatred and fear. But it won't. There are those who buy into it, and those who know better but are happy to see it spread around and accepted by the true lunatic fringe because it furthers certain agendas, but there are few who have the integrity to stand up and denounce it for what it is. Until the party finds a true moderate center, and until that center starts to denounce vile and hateful propaganda such as that quoted by Mark, they are part and parcel of it.

My goodness, one of the polls I read stated Cheney was at 12% approval. 12%. That was months and months ago. I do not think his poll numbers have improved.

I personally can't imagine Mr. Cheney as the POTUS.
May God help us. I could not imagine him as my CEO or direct supervisor. Yikes! Would you want him sneering at you the entire work day?

Do you actually believe one word of his last few interviews? Do you think the question about his daughter was out of line?

I believe the majority of Americans agree with the bloggers comments.

It's cultist's like you Almiranta and the others who post here (yadda, yadda, yadda with tiresome leftwing allusion to Nazism).

Raker,

Yeah, that's it - lets have a major change to the way we govern the US because the left hates Cheney...good idea...

Mark: "God help us, but this man is VERY liberal/left mainstream - and he ain't a no-name."

You still haven't tied him to any official affiliation with the Dem party. Noam Chomsky has similar credentials, but I don't see the Dem leadership flocking to his door, either. Likewise, I don't see the GOP "leadership" (whatever that is) flocking to the doors of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, either. Nor were they running from them. There are exceptions, of course. Do you have a problem with that, too?

"I didn't say there was a monolithic Democratic Leadership subscribing to this lunacy, but you will not find a single member of the Democratic leadership who has or will call this sort of thing pure, unadulterated insanity...something which, in a rational world, would get this man fired from his prestigeous position."

This comment is shameful. Come on, get over it -- people should be free to speak out as individuals. As individuals they shouldn't have to be concerned about the ramifications of doing so to their employment. Excepting certain rare circumstances, that sounds to me like democracy in action. Doesn't it to you? Apparently not. What you espouse is witch-hunting. Shameful.

"Democratic leadership/Democratic Presidential candidates = same/same, for the most part. You are aware how many leading Democrats are actually or putatively seeking the White House, aren't you?"

What constitutes "leadership" versus "leading" lies at the heart of my question. How many Democrats currently in official "leadership" positions are running for president? You'd have to go way down the list. And the further down you go the less monolithic their positions will be. The same could be said of the GOP. And by the way, who would you consider the GOP front-runners? And what are their "conservative" credentials?

"There is no middle, not any more - the radical left has enitrely forced Americans to come down hard and fast on one side or the other. For crying out loud, they've forced an uber-liberal like Joe Lieberman into being a half-step away from becoming a Republican."

I would argue that focusing on Lieberman would be focusing on an exception that proves the rule. Lieberman won because [1] there was essentially no GOP opposition, and [2] of the Dem candidates available, he was the more moderate. All across the country the pattern was largely the same -- the moderate candidate usually won over the more extreme candidate. Unfortunately, the more moderate candidate was usually a Dem. My guess is that if you have your way, the trend will continue.

"In keeping with this, my view is that the left really only commands support among 15-20% of the American population, and that if we on the right can tie screwballs like this guy to, say, Nancy Pelosi, then we'll win a crushing victory in 2008."

Given that there is no link, and given your proven paucity at prognostication, pardon my skepticism.

Dick Cheney walked away fro a Billion Dollars in options when he first ran for VP. I don't see liberal politicians doing that. -Kahn

Really? A Billion Dollars?!? Interesting that he's still racking in millions from his Halliburton holding now that they are making a Gazillion Dollars charging the taxpayers for spoiled meals and $30 2x4s.

Interesting that the VP comes up the same time we're finding out his non-compliance with executive order #13292, the Bush-made ORDER to declassify information from any executive or military branch.

Of course, the OVP claims that we're all morons and that the veep is actually not-really an executive, but not really a legislative position either, but some magically-exempt grey-area office that doesn't really have to obey the law.

While it has been discussed and debated, Cheney's role in the outing of CIA officer Plame and the temporary (and sloppy) denial by the White House of anyone's involvement is obvious to anyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid. He has blatantly lied about statements he made about the Iraq invasion, shown his utter hypocrisy involving homosexuals and their ability to be a loving family, and summarily acted as if he was above the law.

If any Democratic veep did 1/4 of what Cheney has done, the GOP would have his ba**ls on a platter. Imagine if Gore's former employer received a plethora of no-bid contracts, was found to have committed fraud, and then received MORE contracts?

To say that you would let this go is simply a lie.

Ricorun,

I was too tired to make any sort of rebuttal to Mark's post to you, but you handled it perfectly. Just thought I'd let you know.

Gar Wood

What are your party's failures (we clearly see the shortcomings of the Democrats)?
Failing to get out your message?

What are your party's failures (we clearly see the shortcomings of the Democrats)?
Failing to get out your message?

Ricorun,

That's pretty week, old buddy...c'mon, normally you're much better than that.

I'll just take note of what you allege is "shameful" in my comments...

There aren't always two sides to every story. While no one should be prosecuted for the mere expression of opinion, in something as quasi-official as a college (aside from a very few, all of them exist by grace of taxpayer generosity, in one form or another), the expression of opinions which are destructive and hateful should not be tolerated. If you are to allow this, then you have to allow Holocaust-deniers their place at the higher education table...lunatic idiocy is lunatic idiocy, and wise people cast all of it out.

Nick,

The failures of the GOP have been:

1. Failure to use the "constitutional option" to break Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.

2. Failure to keep non-defense, discretionary spending down.

3. Failure to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent.

4. Failure to craft a stringent border security plan.

These four failures allowed the Democrats their opening - even before the 2006 campaign kicked off, GOP faithful were dispirited at the performance of the Congressional GOP, and this allowed the Democrats bogus campaign against a "culture of corruption" (akin to the Al Capone campaigning against bootlegging) to drive that last nail in the GOP coffin.

Have to disagree Mark. Republicans didn't lose middle America over tax cuts (not a tangible savings to most) or filibusters (political process is boring). Most Americans are angry about bloated spending, tax breaks for energy companies and porous borders. But in those areas, Republicans have chosen to favor business over individuals and they are paying the price.

Republicans are on the horns of a dilemma because their business interests are hooked on cheap labor. That's why six years of firm Republican control of all three branches of government produced nada in the way of border security. It would have dried up the cheap labor supply and forced business to compete for and pay more to workers.

The combination of the Iraq disaster and the free market business interests have opened the door for Democrats, warts and all. Any Democrat with anti-war credentials and the ability to articulate a pro-American nationalism in trade and border security can beat any Republican with the possible exception of Hagel.

Thrower,

Are you kidding? I could beat Hagel...the most beatable Republican out there...wouldn't even get 50% of the normal GOP vote.

Border security, in my view, is the red-herring issue - most people don't care too much about it, as each time we have an election about it, the overtly border security candidate does poorly, even in border States. It is important, but mostly attitudinally - it was the combination of all four errors which led to the trouble. If only one of the three hadn't happened, the GOP base would have remained enthused...but as all four failed to happen, the GOP base was dismayed.

Also, Iraq is a disaster only in the minds of the Democrats...it is why they hope and pray that a disaster actually happens there and why they don't want the troops reinforced...if GW shows full victory in Iraq by middle of this year, then the Democrats goose is cooked.

You live too far to the right to see the center Mark. Americans are concerned about personal security and job security, and illegal immigration strikes at both. And of all the conservatives running for Republicans, only Hagel is on the right side of the war. He could pull in many of the Reagan Democrats who have recently deserted the party.

mark...i just dropped in......sorry....said i wouldn't come back here anymore......but just this one time....to let you know you're living in a delusional hard core right world without any perspective of people (like myself) who live and will vote from the middle. watch how many of your fave politicians slide over from right to left between now and the 08 elections.

If I were teaching a course in logic, this post would make a great essay question. I'd just reproduce it and ask... "what's wrong with this?"

Instead of being a smartass, why don't you enlighten us, Rico? I'm sure there are those who hang on your every thought. Not myself of course, but CO, Canuckguy, and Cybersnot may want you to share your "wisdom." Give it a go, lad...

You could have saved a lot of space by going:

You could've saved a lot of space by jumping in front of a bus...

May God help us. I could not imagine him as my CEO or direct supervisor. Yikes! Would you want him sneering at you the entire work day?

Uh, raker--CEO's don't hang around the fry-pit. Besides, you've got a handy-dandy buzzer to tell you when it's time to flip that burger or take the fries out of the deep fryer.

Ricorun,

I was too tired to make any sort of rebuttal to Mark's post to you, but you handled it perfectly. Just thought I'd let you know.

Gar Weed

Translated:

"Rico,

I am too stupid to make any sort of rebuttal to any post, but yours looks logical to me, so I'll latch onto it. However, later on, would you be willing to simplify it for me, because I really don't understand what you said.

Gar Weed"

Of course, the OVP claims that we're all morons and that the veep is actually not-really an executive, but not really a legislative position either, but some magically-exempt grey-area office that doesn't really have to obey the law.

Anillio,

Your misuse of hyphens proves the OVP claim to be true--at least in your case. And nice Halliburton talking points, moron...

G-I-G...it's not just the hyphens our psuedo-intellectual can't handle, it's his Rogue Apostrophe that marks him as uneducated. Oh, he probably got A's from his equally illiterate Liberal teachers, but he sure don't know much, do he?

raker is clearly still stuck at the third grade popularity-contest level of maturity. Thank God we have some adults in charge, who don't whiz down their legs every time someone (sob sob..) DOESN'T LIKE THEM. This adolescent preoccupation with POPULARITY just amazes me. We keep pointing out to them that their obsession with who likes who best and who is "in" and who is "out" just illustrates their vapidity, but they are so hung up on it, they will never catch on. They seem to be from the Paris Hilton School of Political Decision-making. And once their buds decide Cheney isn't "hot", well, then, he's out.

Yes, we also get it that raker needs a poll to tell him what he thinks. Which comes as no surprise..

Rico, you are trying to create a debate where none exists. The Dem Party does not only not need to publicly embrace a figure to have that figure express its views, it is aware of the fact that to publicly embrace such figures would be political suicide. Note their refusal to fly their true colors during the '06 election, choosing instead to run as psuedo-conservatives, knowing full well that if they admitted to their radical Lefitism they would be skunked.

And of course we have knee-jerk anillo, incapable of presenting any radical Leftist view without a slam at Halliburton. Factual slam? No, but who cares---it's AGAINST HALLIBURTON and that's all that matters. Take away your silly buzzwords, fellas, and you'd be mute.

(From my lips to God's ears---oh, please please please...)

it's his Rogue Apostrophe that marks him as uneducated.

Next sentence:

Oh, he probably got A's

Uneducated is as uneducated does, eh, Almiranta?

My view is that the Democratic leadership is bereft of ideas, entirely corrupt and willing to do ANYTHING to get and retain power...they've signed up the kook-left because it provides money and enthusiasm...but they are in desperate fear that the American people, on the whole, will find out just who is writing the checks and providing the crowds...if we on the right can tie in the public mind WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TIED IN THE BACKROOMS OF POWER, then we will all down the line...at least a third of normal Democratic voters will switch side IF they find out just what the kook left stands for and if, once they know, the Demcoratic leadership doesn't renounce their support...of course, if the leadership does purge the kook left, then one third of normal Democratic voters will go third party in 2008...so, we win, no matter what.

My hope is that we'll force the leadership away from the kook left - because then the few remaining elements of decency in the Democratic party will have their chance to take over and move the party away from the leftwing lunatic fringe...we do, after all, need a viable liberal party in the United States.

Wow, that's pretty much my exact feelings towards of the GOP and im not even a democrat, I claim Independent.

Almiranta: "Rico, you are trying to create a debate where none exists."

Funny, that was my impression of the original post. And hey, I was perfectly willing to let my initial perfunctory comment stand. But I was challenged. I love a challenge. Especially if it's preceded by "betcha can't". Lol!

"The Dem Party does not only not need to publicly embrace a figure to have that figure express its views, it is aware of the fact that to publicly embrace such figures would be political suicide."

Assuming I correctly followed the syntax, you, like Mark, are assuming that the "Dem Party" knows who this Levinson guy is. Why do you think that? That seems to me to be the missing link. Well, one of them. Without it, who could rightly be accused of creating a debate where none exists?

"Note their refusal to fly their true colors during the '06 election, choosing instead to run as psuedo-conservatives, knowing full well that if they admitted to their radical Lefitism they would be skunked."

This is a very interesting topic, and one that requires much further study, IMO. But from what I can tell, the Sun Tsu axiom, "know your enemy" applies very well here. Be careful what you ascribe as the Dem's "true colors". I'll leave that thought there for now, because I frankly don't know. All I wish to add is two things: (1) it would be wrong to underestimate the Dem "leadership". From what I can tell, they are a formidable opposition. (2) any time you resort to the argument of, "the electorate is a bunch of idiots who are getting the wool thrown over their eyes", you portray yourself as elitist. However true it might be that the electorate is being played for a bunch fools, as you recall that was the argument leveled against the Dems for the previous 12 years - i.e., they were a bunch of prima donnas who thought they knew better and weren't responding to the people. And frankly, as far as I can tell, that was a correct assessment. If you can't communicate your position to those you profess to lead, you don't deserve the mantel of leadership.

Almirantra & GIG,

I must thank you guys for assuming I got high marks in college! If only my plethora of conservative professors would have felt the same way.

And while I hesitated to bring Halliburton in on the discussion because all you right-wingers do is scream “conspiracy theory” when you hear the H-word mentioned, it was your buddy Kahn who opened that door for address.

And wouldn’t they be anti-Halliburton talking points?

Other than that, I really have no complaints with either of your posts. Apparently you both agreed with my argument in all but the most cosmetic of ways, since neither of you could come up with any rebuttal besides my hyphen-use.