Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Army of Dicks Goes After Dick Armey
In a teaparty hit-piece swimming with such gleeful condescenscion that he compares protesters to hobby-store black-helicopter glue-sniffers in the second paragraph, L.A. lefty Marc Cooper gets Dick Armey flat wrong.
Then again, this rash of tea parties is being organized not only by the pseudo-journalists at Fox News (with Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity actively stoking the flames) but also by FreedomWorks, a conservative lobbying outfit headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. I suppose it was Armey's constitutional if morally dubious privilege to have built an entire political career out of defending the wealthy. [...]
The FreedomWorks site says the Tea Party movement began in reaction to President Obama's corporate bailouts and ensuing yawning budget deficits. These same conservatives, however, were mum when George W. Bush erased our budget surplus and put us deep in the red by drunken spending on a pointless war in Iraq and by, yes, granting massive tax rollbacks for the loaded country clubbers who fund the GOP (and Armey's FreedomWorks). Another bothersome detail: The bailouts were also initiated by Bush.
These same conservatives? Really? How about, I dunno, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe. Here he is writing for Reason Online last Oct. 2. Note that the president at the time was not named "Obama":
Over the past several days, I have found myself in the most unusual of positions: defending myself and the organization I work for, FreedomWorks, for to having clung to "ideology" and "principle" in opposing the bailout plan racing through Congress. I had never heard the word principle used so much as a pejorative. You know the tone in someone's voice when they clearly understand the world and are trying to explain it to someone, well, simple. What was even more interesting was who was doing the scolding. Friends and fellow travelers in the free-market movement, businessmen, Republicans, and limited-government conservatives all took time to tell me how wrong I was.
Their argument: "Something has to be done." One old friend went so far as to blame FreedomWorks for the 750 point loss in the stock market Tuesday, the "freezing" of capital availability to small businessmen, and all of the economic misery to come, all because we have loudly objected to Treasury Secretary Paulson's $700 billion-plus bailout for failing investment banks on Wall Street. [...]
So my question to my critics is simply this: What good are principles if you are willing to throw them out the window every time they prove inconvenient?
Or here's big Dick himself, last Sept. 29:
My friends and former colleagues on the Hill, under tremendous pressure from the Beltway establishment, have been asking me all weekend where I stand on the proposed bailout. Understanding that it is a much more difficult question for a sitting member of Congress to answer, my answer is: "No, I would not." Too often, it seems that self-professed small-government conservatives come to this town to fight the good fight. Somehow, we do things we ought not to be doing in order to stay in office so we can do things we ought to be doing. But we never actually get around to doing the right things.
The difficult question each member of Congress faces today is simply this: Do you believe that the political process, having produced many of the perverse incentives that resulted in our economy's current predicament, can solve these underlying distortions by essentially doing more of the same? I believe the answer to this question is unequivocally NO.
An equally important question: As an elected official who took the oath of office swearing to defend and uphold the Constitution, should you today feel a greater allegiance to a president, or a political party? I believe that answer is, emphatically, NO.
This is a big vote, one likely to be studied and second-guessed for decades to come. But government's first responsibility is to protect the freedoms and individual liberty of every American. As a free-market economist I unequivocally oppose this legislation because it violates the basic working tenets of free-market capitalism and individual responsibility.
Not very ambiguous, is it? Portraying Dick Armey and his organization as an amen chorus to big-government Republicans is just willful ignorance. Which, I suppose, is marginally more defensible than cold making shit up, which Cooper does here:
Nobody I know is very pleased with the billions ladled out to teetering banks and corporations. Yet a clear majority of Americans are sophisticated enough to know that these bailouts are a necessary evil and are intended -- unlike the lollipop Bush tax cuts -- not for personal profit but rather as a radical, emergency measure to help Americans keep their jobs, their homes and their retirement.
A "clear majority of Americans" are pro-bailout? How on earth did I miss that poll?
Here's a stone truth: Every political protest, and indeed just about every political gathering, is filled with kooks, on account of America is kooky! A commentator's protest kook-detector works great when he disagrees with the protest, then gets turned off when the kooks on his side get busy. It has ever been thus, and it will always be.
Warty|4.16.09 @ 11:11AM|#
You've waited years to use that headline, haven't you
Matt?
And since you came within a pube's width of using my favorite
phrase, "amen corner", have the gift of metal.
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 11:13AM|#
I ain't want to get caught in any rut, Naga. I keep it fresh like Tupperware.
|4.16.09 @ 11:24AM|#
I miss the good old days when the distinguished gentleman
referred to Barney Frank as "Barney Fag."
Dennis Miller on O'Reilly last night, "I love to help the helpless,
but I'm tired of helping the clueless."
Fluffy|4.16.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Matt,
The problem is that the credibility of any antistatist political
movement has been pissed away because Bush sycophants have been
allowed to grab the microphone.
It doesn't matter if Matt Kibbe is sincere and genuine and it
doesn't matter if Matt Kibbe opposed Bush when he enlarged the
power of the state. Dick Armey didn't. Sean Hannity didn't. Glenn
Beck didn't. And these guys have been allowed to grab the reins,
and that means that it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND FAIR for people
on the left to say, "Hey, where were you when Bush did the same
thing?"
This is exactly what I predicted before the last election. That GOP
figures and pseudoconservative media types, after fellating Bush
for 8 years, would attempt to pick up the small government rhetoric
they forgot about for all that time as soon as Obama was elected -
and that the left would have a field day with their hypocrisy, and
use it to discredit small government advocacy in general. That is
exactly what is happening. We need a more thorough bloodletting on
the right before we can credibly oppose Obama on small government
grounds, and unfortunately that's very unlikely to happen, because
it's not like rat bastards like Glenn Beck are just going to give
up their careers and walk away.
|4.16.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Guys! Over here! Remember that time Armey proved himself to be a
homophobic asshole? Remember that, guys? HEY GUYS! GUYS!
PAY ME ATTENTION!
|4.16.09 @ 11:27AM|#
I don't see how anyone paying attention could think the Tea Parties are come big grass roots uprising for Republicans. They are anything but. If there is an analogy in recent history, it is the old H.Ross Perot Reform Party. Before Perot went crazy his big issues were the budget deficit and taxes. The movement also arose when a lot of fiscal conservatives were very angry with Republicans over GHW Bush's breaking of his read my lips pledge and when Congress was at an all time low in terms of ethics and popularity.
Naga Sadow, cool guy|4.16.09 @ 11:30AM|#
I don't know Warty. I use the phrase "hip, cool cat" upon occasion but always in a sarcastic tone that drips venom. I'm obviously cool so I'm gonna go ahead and say it's okay to use "fly" again. I have spoken.
B|4.16.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I'm going to give Cooper the benefit of the doubt here and guess
that "the same conservatives" refers to Hannity and similar members
of the chattering class (team red division), in which case, the
criticism is pretty much spot-on.
Of course, this means Cooper is a shitty writer.
|4.16.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Yes Fluffy,
Clearly the answer to opposing BO is to form a circular firing
squad and kill all of the infidels. Further, Army did oppose the
bailout as shown in the post.
I don't see the point of rehashing the arguments of 2003. Lots of
people who are opposed to BO supported the war in Iraq. You didn't.
So I guess we can take pistols and duel it out at 10 paces and let
the survivor live in Obama land or we can move on and perhaps stop
Obama. I guess it is a question of which is more important to each
of us, scoring political points against the infidels or stopping
BO.
Fluffy|4.16.09 @ 11:32AM|#
I don't see how anyone paying attention could think the Tea
Parties are come big grass roots uprising for Republicans. They are
anything but. If there is an analogy in recent history, it is the
old H.Ross Perot Reform Party.
I had interpreted the Tea Parties to be an outgrowth of the Ron
Paul movement, but since the election is over that movement is
being co-opted by the same establishment Republicans who spat on
Ron Paul during the primary season. And the co-opting is working
because enough small government advocates remain willing to be the
dupes of the GOP, no matter how many times they're lied to and
pissed on.
Citizen Nothing|4.16.09 @ 11:34AM|#
"I don't see the point of rehashing the arguments of
2003."
Those who don't learn from history...
Fluffy|4.16.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Dick Armey didn't.
That's just not accurate.
So it's your position that Dick Armey fought the Bush
administration's expansion of state power, Matt?
You're arguing that the House Majority Leader fought against the
President from 2001 to 2003? Really? REALLY?
L.A. lefty Marc Cooper |4.16.09 @ 11:37AM|#
Facts? We don't need no stinking facts. We're here. We're queer. Get used to it.
Fluffy|4.16.09 @ 11:42AM|#
I don't see the point of rehashing the arguments of 2003.
Lots of people who are opposed to BO supported the war in Iraq. You
didn't. So I guess we can take pistols and duel it out at 10 paces
and let the survivor live in Obama land or we can move on and
perhaps stop Obama. I guess it is a question of which is more
important to each of us, scoring political points against the
infidels or stopping BO.
Do you seriously think it's just a matter of the Iraq war?
What about every single one of the Bush budgets?
What about the growth in federal regulation from 2001 to
2008?
What about No Child Left Behind?
What about the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Where was the
Senate GOP filibuster on that one, babe?
Where was the Senate GOP filibuster to prevent McCain-Feingold from
reaching the President's desk?
Where was the Senate GOP filibuster to prevent the bailout
legislation from passing? Maybe you don't remember, but the GOP
Presidential nominee SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN to fly to Washington to
make sure the bailout passed.
Yes, a circular firing squad would actually be helpful. Because
there's absolutely no point to stopping Obama if the GOP is just
going to be just as statist as he is. It would actually be useful
to have a wholesale generational switchover of personnel - with
just about every major GOP figure losing his office in disgrace,
and every major GOP media figure slinking off to retire in silence
- because that might allow people who actually support small
government to take their places. And if that allowed Obama to
accomplish more of his agenda in the short term, oh well. The
faster he gets his agenda accomplished the faster it will fail and
the faster the public will see it fail.
Tim Cavanaugh|4.16.09 @ 11:47AM|#
The real pettifogging on the teabag issue has been the false
premise that this is primarily about taxes, or even President
Obama's new tax policy. That it fell on April 15 is simply a
function of what the Instapundit described: Tax day is now the
national day of protest than anything else. Teabagging is a protest
against the bailouts, pure and simple. That's what the first one
was about, that's what the second one was about, that's what
yesterday's was about, and that's what Santelli's original rant was
about.
The left is intentionally de-empbasizing and to-be-suring the
bailout aspect because then they might have to consider that the
teabaggers are motivated by principle, and the left has decided
merely to ridicule them. (The tactic is derived from another false
premise, by the way: People acting on principle are just as
deserving of ridicule as people acting out of self-interest. Maybe
even more deserving.)
Anyway, if you want to get the GOP out of the picture (and I do),
just refer to the protests as teabagging events rather than tea
parties.
SpongePaul|4.16.09 @ 11:48AM|#
The people who started the tea parties were NOT Republicans. The Libertarians, The Ron Paul People and other grass roots started them. It was/is a protest on taxes and the current direction the country is taking against both demodemons and repukes. I find it funny, yet sad and not suprising that they highjacked the idea and basterdized it for thier own purposes
|4.16.09 @ 11:50AM|#
What about the growth in federal regulation from 2001 to
2008?
I hated it and objected to it.
What about No Child Left Behind?
I spoke out against that to. A lot of Republicans did.
What about the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Where was the
Senate GOP filibuster on that one, babe?
They controled the Senate. They didn't need to filibuster. Yes, the
GOP Congress sucked ass especially after 2004. Go back and look at
my posts after the 2006 election. I had nothing good to say about
the GOP Congress.
Where was the Senate GOP filibuster to prevent McCain-Feingold from
reaching the President's desk?
I was against that to.
What is your point? Yes, a lot of Republical politicians suck ass,
espeically those in Congress. If you shot Arlan Spector tommorow, i
would come and defend you for free. People did object to those
things at the time, including Dick Army. But you seem to want to
lump everyone who is not you into one big group. Basically unless
you are appointed God like Dear Leader tommorow, what do you plan
to do about BO?
|4.16.09 @ 11:53AM|#
"The real pettifogging on the teabag issue has been the false
premise that this is primarily about taxes, or even President
Obama's new tax policy. That it fell on April 15 is simply a
function of what the Instapundit described: Tax day is now the
national day of protest than anything else. Teabagging is a protest
against the bailouts, pure and simple. That's what the first one
was about, that's what the second one was about, that's what
yesterday's was about, and that's what Santelli's original rant was
about."
The liberals want to make it all about taxes because it keeps them
from looking like they hypocritest they are. Here we have the
alledgedly most liberal president and congress in history and they
are taking trillions of dollars and giving it to wall street
billionairs who fucked up the economy. Aren't liberals supposed to
be for the little guy while the conservatives are all out for the
big bankers and wall street types? Any principled liberal ought to
be appalled by the bailouts. They aren't because there really are
not any principled liberals left.
|4.16.09 @ 11:54AM|#
The problem is that the credibility of any
antistatist antiwar political
movement has been pissed away because Bush sycophants
anti-American useful idiots have been allowed to
grab the microphone.
Agree/Disagree?
I had interpreted the Tea Parties to be an outgrowth of the Ron
Paul movement,
Not really. There is some overlap, but the Tea Party crowd is not
ReLOVEution crowd.
Because there's absolutely no point to stopping Obama if the
GOP is just going to be just as statist as he is.
Good point, and one most Tea Partiers would agee with. Its more of
"throw the bums out" movement than a Repub partisan thing. Hard to
wrap your brain around, I know, but this doesn't seem to map very
neatly onto Blue Team v. Red Team.
Warty|4.16.09 @ 11:56AM|#
what do you plan to do about BO?
Well, my plan was to protest gun control by shooting a bunch of
cops, but it got bogarted.
hmm|4.16.09 @ 12:06PM|#
I like the kooks. At least you know where they stand and can be
fairly confident in that position remaining unchanged no matter how
unconventional the idea is. I have to spend a week of research to
figure out why most politicians are saying or doing something.
Their intentions and ideals are almost never clear and more often
than not are self serving. Plus conversations with kooks is by far
more entertaining.
I don't care who started it, who is trying to manipulate it, or if
I agree with all the reasons. People are actually voicing their
distaste for a government that has a$$ raped them for decades. That
is progress. I've long said people won't start caring until they
can't get cable, drive an SUV, and eat McDs or food that is bad for
them. 2/3 is not too bad.
I'm just happy a larger amount of people are finally pissed about
similar things I am.
|4.16.09 @ 12:11PM|#
media guy says : 'unlike the lollipop Bush tax cuts -- not for
personal profit but rather as a radical, emergency measure to help
Americans keep their jobs, their homes and their retirement.'
Can anyone explain to this idiot that tax cuts ALSO help Americans
keep their jobs, homes, and prepare for retirement.
How far into bizarro land have we gone that leftist media types
defend big business but NOT individual citizens, sickening.
|4.16.09 @ 12:11PM|#
People are actually voicing their distaste for a government
that has a$$ raped them for decades.
Bullshit. This is not some populist awakening. It's rightwing nuts
bitching and moaning like toddlers because they lost an
election.
Citizen Nothing|4.16.09 @ 12:15PM|#
(But if Tony gets kicked in the balls, at least it'll have some redeeming value.)
|4.16.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Right now there's fuck-all that can be done about
administration policy - the conventional Republicans torpedoed
their own credibility by rolling over for Bush when he did the same
things as Obama, and then for good measure they torpedoed ours' by
talking the small-government game while spending and regulating
like the worst kind of big-government Dems.
The GOP needs to be purged good and hard, and then purged again for
good measure - that's what happens when a party gets its ass kicked
at the polls. It'll be good for them, and it'll only get harder to
do the longer they wait.
And libertarian-minded independents need to take out a restraining
order until the purges are over, and maybe after too depending on
who wins. (The marriage is over, babe - don't call me, I'll call
you.)
|4.16.09 @ 12:16PM|#
"Bullshit. This is not some populist awakening. It's rightwing
nuts bitching and moaning like toddlers because they lost an
election."
That is right Tony. How dare people who work for a living say
antying about anything. We round those fuckers up and put them in
camps or something right?
Mad Max|4.16.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Coming soon to theaters near you, it's . . . Army of Dickness, starring Bruce Campbell.
|4.16.09 @ 12:19PM|#
John,
No--but then the rightwing fringe shouldn't complain if it happens,
since they were just fine with that sort of policy as long as
applied to someone else.
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Coming soon to theaters near you, it's . . . Army of
Dickness, starring Bruce Campbell.
I'd go see that.
Warty|4.16.09 @ 12:26PM|#
I love Tony. He has the same points as joe, but he's angrier, but he's not as ridiculous as Edward/Lefiti. Keep it coming, fuckface. I'm a fan.
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 12:26PM|#
And here's Tony once again, to explain to us how there are only two sides to everything, and they are concrete, immutable, and mutually exclusive! Shut the fuck up, Tony.
|4.16.09 @ 12:30PM|#
@Fluffy - You speak good words, my friend.
My biggest fear is that while the Tea Party's allowed
small-government citizens to voice their concerns and anger over
big-government, many will cling to the foolish thinking that voting
Republican will help them in their goals.
Folks, the Republican Party is dead. Get over it. They had 6 years
to fix things and yet we are further away from the Constitution now
than ever before. How much more proof do you need? They no longer
hold to the Constitutional principles on which this country was
founded.
The original Tea Party participants were not conservatives, they
were libertarians. Let's vote them back in power before it's too
late.
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Yo, not about anything political, X.
Well, true.
If Tony turns out to be performance art, i will clap my hands with
glee. If he's not, he must be one of the worst people in the
world.
Old Bull Lee|4.16.09 @ 12:42PM|#
My biggest fear for the Tea Party came true in West
Virginia.
The protest was littered with people holding "don't take my guns"
signs and a pastor who led a prayer asking God to keep gay marriage
out of the state.
My biggest fear was the Tea Party would become a white trash
version of ANSWER.
|4.16.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Yeah, yeah, the GOP is dead [rolls eyes]. Just like the
Democrats were from 1994 to 2006. I wish we libertarians could
replace one or both parties, but it isn't going to happen that
easily. And probably not at all.
Got to have someone to vote for when the controlling party pisses
you off. In fact, I'll be surprised if there isn't a change in one
or both houses of Congress next year. Politics aside, this Congress
is pissing off a lot of people.
T|4.16.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Got to have someone to vote for when the controlling party
pisses you off. In fact, I'll be surprised if there isn't a change
in one or both houses of Congress next year. Politics aside, this
Congress is pissing off a lot of people.
Anybody who is serious about being in Congress should be able to
bitch slap the fuck out of just about any incumbent around this
time next year. I'm planning for a fun (read:ugly mud-slinging)
contest in the primaries.
|4.16.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"Got to have someone to vote for when the controlling party
pisses you off. In fact, I'll be surprised if there isn't a change
in one or both houses of Congress next year. Politics aside, this
Congress is pissing off a lot of people."
I think so to. I keep telling the people I work with that that is
going to happen. None of them believe me. But in 2010, there won't
be any BO to get guilty white people and huge numbers of blacks to
the polls. There will be nothing feel good or historic about the
election. All of the people who turned out in 2008 to vote for the
first black man will have other things to do. The only people,
outside the hardcore party members, who are going to show up are
people who are motivated and pissed off about something. Most of
those people are going to be motivated and pissed off at Congress.
It will be a throw the bums out year.
|4.16.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Why does the how of the organizing, and promoting, of these protest events matter, exactly? Are they more effective, noble, laudable, when they result from some spontaneous group action? And what does it matter to the argument for smaller, less intrusive government that Dick Armey was for bigger government when in Congress and is against it now that he's out? Being a hypocrite doesn't make or break an argument - or did I miss a memo or newly passed piece of legislation?
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 1:07PM|#
It will be a throw the bums out year.
I hope you are right. Fuck Con-gress, yo.
MNG|4.16.09 @ 1:09PM|#
The problem for the Dems is that Obama and the Democratic
Congress are mostly pissing off those who hated Obama and the
Democratic Congress to begin with. The Dems strategy lately is to
point to the ever unified, crazier movement right and say "we're
not these guys" and the majority of Americans who are also not look
at those guys with their mouths frothing and go, ur, not for
us.
And the GOP has played right into their hands, because they created
this group of top down order taking solidiers who can't moderate
their positions ("treasonous RINO's") and who get all their
information from rabid sources and so cannot fathom why people
think differently from them other than that they are evil or
fools.
But the GOP will continue to do very well and in fact be forced to
try to defy everything the Dems do in the areas where the GOP is
quite strong, our 18th Century hold outs like the South and
Utah.
|4.16.09 @ 1:09PM|#
All good points Steve. But I think people have for a long time
fallen into the trap of the politics being the personal and the
message somehow being dictated by the messanger.
So what if Dick Army was all big government all the time for the
last 8 years. First, he wasn't. But more importantly so what? If an
recovering drunk told you that it is a really bad idea to drink a
5th of bourbon a day would you tell him to shut the fuck up about
booze because he used to be a drunk?
MNG|4.16.09 @ 1:10PM|#
The great thing for the Dems is that the GOP cannot help
themselves. Mark Sanford from South Carolina is the current front
runner.
Now anyone who thinks South Carolina is in step with the rest of
the nation, please raise your hands.
Go ahead, raise em high.
Anyone?
MNG|4.16.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Whoops, @ 1:09 I meant "the problem for the GOP", it's no problem at all to be riling up the GOP faithful, because then they will get our there an froth at the mouth as I discussed, making the average American go "er, not for me thank you."
MNG|4.16.09 @ 1:13PM|#
Armey has shown political courage in calling out conservative
allies before. I respect the guy.
Oh, and he has a PhD (jabs stick at SIV)
|4.16.09 @ 1:14PM|#
"The Dems strategy lately is to point to the ever unified,
crazier movement right and say "we're not these guys" and the
majority of Americans who are also not look at those guys with
their mouths frothing and go, ur, not for us."
Like the Dems are not frothing at the mouth lunatics during the
Bush years? What is frothing at the mouth about the people at these
tea parties? They look like normal people to me. Moreover, they
look a lot more normal than you typical ANSWER crowd.
Further, I take issue with the froting at the mouth accusation. Who
is frothing at the mouth. So what people go to church, own guns and
do other things that people of a certain ilk find objectionable.
Well fuck them.
|4.16.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Steve asks- Why does the how of the organizing, and promoting,
of these protest events matter, exactly? Are they more effective,
noble, laudable, when they result from some spontaneous group
action?
Come on Steve, you know only the left is allowed to carp, bitch,
and moan about stuff. The rest of us hoi polloi are only allowed to
bask in their greater intellect and superior morals.
|4.16.09 @ 1:16PM|#
mng,
Have you ever been to South Carolina? it is a beautiful state full
of very nice people and an inordinate number of beautiful women. It
is only out of step with the rest of the country in the sense that
its largest city is not a post apocolyptic wasteland (Michigan) and
it is not facing bankruptcy (New York and California).
|4.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Also I think Rick Perry is probably the frontrunner for 2012. At the end of this whole mess, Texas is going to be one of the few states not bankrupt with a 15% unemployment rate and is going to look pretty good.
MNG|4.16.09 @ 1:20PM|#
"they look a lot more normal than you typical ANSWER
crowd"
Yes, but the Democratic Party doesn't answer to ANSWER types. It's
a tiny part of the vote they are going for, not their base.
"Have you ever been to South Carolina"
I like the beaches, but it's a cultural hole in the ground. More
importantly for this discussion, the kind of politics that reigns
there is very far from the national political scene, which is my
point.
"Who is frothing at the mouth"
Movement conservatives. All the time. It's made everyone else think
it is safe to ignore their goofy asses.
T|4.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Movement conservatives. All the time. It's made everyone
else think it is safe to ignore their goofy asses.
Don't actually know any, do you MNG? Between the top down order
takers comment, and now this, you've clearly got no clue what
happens in conservative circles, so stop talking about it.
|4.16.09 @ 1:25PM|#
"I like the beaches, but it's a cultural hole in the ground.
More importantly for this discussion, the kind of politics that
reigns there is very far from the national political scene, which
is my point."
Why is it a cultural hole in the ground? What makes it that way? I
don't see it. Charleston is probably the nicest city in America
under a million people. Further, what do you mean by culture? I
would consider New York and California to be cultural holes in the
ground in many ways. Yes, the Met is fantastic. But, culturally
both states are wedded to big government liberalism that is
destroying the country. California ought to be paradise on earth.
Indeed, fifty years ago it damn near was. But thanks to its
disfunctional political culture it is turning into a third world
country.
Who is really the backward hicks here? The people in places like
South Carolin and Texas who have responsible government and live
within their means or the people of California and New York who
have managed to go bankrupt despite being two of the richest places
on earth?
|4.16.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Tony just does not live in or recognize the three dimensional
world. For him, it is all two dimensional.
Tony, there are many of us here who screamed about September's
socialism with equal fervor. Most of us here are libertarians. We
do not like socialism. It does not matter whether the socialism is
practiced by a democrat socialist or a republican socialist or a
caucasian socialist or a negro socialist.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 1:41PM|#
I have no idea what Dick Armey's overall record was in terms of
opposing the expansion of the state during the Bush years. I
presume, absent other evidence, that it was pretty terrible.
But he did quietly kill the TIPS program designed to create
volunteer citizen informants during the worst of the terrorist
craze, based on a solidly principled view that citizen informants
are a crazy-ass police state idea. And that counts for him.
Here's a news article from 8/2002 on the TIPS program, noting
Armey's opposition:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-08-06/news/ashcroft-s-master-plan-to-spy-on-us/
Paul|4.16.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Get used to it, Matt. Lately, the left is willing to say
anything...anything to defend Obama.
Two things I heard on NPR withing 12 hours of eachother.
One guest noted that Obama is seeing a backlash from the left
because of his continuation of Bush policies on terrorism, wire
tapping etc. This guest noted that afterall, Obama is being
presidential and has to "govern". The guest saw this as a good
thing. No explanation as to why it's good for Obama to do this, but
bad for Bush to do it.
Shortly thereafter, they spoke to a writer from the New Yorker who
proclaimed that Obama has taken a 180 turn on every Bush policy,
and that's why the GOP is in a snit over Obama. He didn't name a
single policy. Because. He. Can't.
So, in summation:
Obama's continuation of Bush doctrine is being
"presidential".
or
Obama has summarily rejected everything in the Bush doctrine.
|4.16.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Paul,
The NYT story today on the NSA going past the legal limits set by
Congress in 2008 is pretty bad. They tried to wiretap a
Congressman. WTF? I don't see how anyone who was concerned over the
last 8 years about wiretapping can justify not being up in arms
over this.
|4.16.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Where the hell were Republican's when Bush was spending? Right where the anti-war Democrats are now. Around the corner from the Easter-bunny, Santa Claus, and the principled party loyalist fairy.
|4.16.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Tony, are you implying that the Bush administration was in favor
of rounding up the opposition and putting them in camps?
'Cause I'll need a link on that.
Now anyone who thinks South Carolina is in step with the rest
of the nation, please raise your hands.
I'll bet its got lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate than
average, so, no, its probably not "in step" with the collapsing
industrial midwest and urbanized coasts.
|4.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#
"Now anyone who thinks South Carolina is in step with the rest
of the nation, please raise your hands."
To second RC. You say that like it is a bad thing. Since the rest
of the nation is in the midst of going mad and spending and taxing
itself to oblivion, I don't see how being out of step is anything
but a good.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 2:26PM|#
R C Dean: According to this CNN.money article, South Carolina
had (as of 12/2008) the fourth-worst unemployment rate of the 50
states and DC:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/
Admittedly, California edges it out with a rate that's presumably
some hundredths of a percent higher, but New York has a solidly
lower rate, as do, obviously, most other states.
|4.16.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"Admittedly, California edges it out with a rate that's
presumably some hundredths of a percent higher, but New York has a
solidly lower rate, as do, obviously, most other states."
Califonia has a lot of advantages over South Carolina. It has a
better climate. It has huge entertainment and hi tech industries,
yet it still manages to have a higher unemployment rate and a state
government about to go bankrupt.
|4.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Of course mainstream republicans and FoxNews will try to co-opt
any genuine Ron Paul inspired movement. Of course the democrats and
their networks will try to paint any ron paul inspired movement as
religous, conservative right wing extremist.
Libertarianism is not to be acknowlegded and discussed on MSM.
Nevertheless, there are a lot more anti-war, anti-police state,
anti-tax, anti-Fed, pro-freedom Rothbard reading people out there
now than there was two years ago. Many of these people are still
spreading the message. I am encouraged and surprised by the numbers
of people and the quality of people I saw yesterday.
|4.16.09 @ 2:45PM|#
re South Carolina, why does anywhere have to be 'in step' with
any where else? That's why we have fed vs state balancing of
powers. The finacial meltdown of lending was caused in part by
Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae spreading the systemic risk of mortgage
failure from a local problem to a national one of much greater size
(until the last 5-10 years a mortgage ws the SAFEST loan a bank
could make).
If everyone is thinking alike, someone ain't thinking. You would
think the left would be for the diversity and nuance that differing
areas of this great country have, but alas, these ideas are just
talking points to hammer the opposition with when convenient as
opposed to a real ideology to adhere to.
|4.16.09 @ 2:56PM|#
So it's your position that Dick Armey fought the Bush administration's expansion of state power, Matt?
You're arguing that the House Majority Leader fought against the President from 2001 to 2003? Really? REALLY?
Yes, Fluffy. Dick Armey is the House member responsible
for the sunset legislation in the Patriot Act. He refused to
pass the legislation without it. Obviously as just one member, he
couldn't do everything. But he did a heck of a lot more than most
members, Democrats or Republicans, an a lot more than you give him
credit for.
Fluffy, you don't know what you're talking about.
|4.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
the post in my name at 11:26 a.m was not me. If the author of that post wants to be all douchey and such, they should at least grow a set and attack me with their own handle.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Califonia has a lot of advantages over South Carolina. It has a better climate. It has huge entertainment and hi tech industries, yet it still manages to have a higher unemployment rate and a state government about to go bankrupt.
Look at those goalposts shift! R C Dean said, "I'll bet [South
Carolina has] got lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate than
average, so, no, its probably not 'in step' with the collapsing
industrial midwest and urbanized coasts."
I took 30 seconds to Google state unemployment rates, and not only
does SC not have a lower unemployment rate than average, it has a
REALLY bad unemployment rate. That's the matter under discussion. R
C Dean thought it was better than average. It's much worse than the
average, and particularly, it's worse than most states that R C
Dean though it would be better than.
R C Dean presumably chose unemployment rate because he thinks it's
significant, and I presume that you're speaking up in his favor
because you do, too. Now that you know that your assumptions were
wrong, does that affect your opinion of South Carolina as an
earthly paradise? If not, why are we talking about unemployment
rate?
|4.16.09 @ 3:06PM|#
You know, it's ridiculous the way people on the left make these
blanket statements about the beliefs of every conservative writer
or commenter, without even bothing to look up what these people had
to say about Bush and his policies.
Anyone who has even been paying modest attention ought to know that
most Republicans voted against TARP. Just as they ought to know
that George Will is not a torture apologist.
|4.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Hazel Meade, we tend to think the newsmedia here is the best and
most accurate and most trustworthy and most unbiased in the world.
Doing a factcheck that might turn out to refute our stance is way
too much like work.
We just want to be right, and won't dig very deep if it might prove
us wrong.
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#
the post in my name at 11:26 a.m was not me. If the author
of that post wants to be all douchey and such, they should at least
grow a set and attack me with their own handle.
Are you expressing handleism? :)
No, that was not me spoofing you.
|4.16.09 @ 3:15PM|#
"R C Dean presumably chose unemployment rate because he thinks
it's significant, and I presume that you're speaking up in his
favor because you do, too. Now that you know that your assumptions
were wrong, does that affect your opinion of South Carolina as an
earthly paradise? If not, why are we talking about unemployment
rate?"
Because the unemployment rate is not comparable between every
state. Some states have more advantages than others. A state like
Maryland that sites next to Washington DC and gets 1000s of
government bureaucrats with stable recession proof jobs living in
it, ought to always have a low unemployment rate. A state like
California or New York with a million built in advantages and 100s
of years of accumulated wealth ought to be better off than a state
like Utah that is mostly desert and mountains.
But it doesn't always work that way. The problem is that states
like New York, California and Michigan have backward, corrupt, and
outdated political cultures. The poor and backward political
cultures of these states causes them to waste the natural
advantages they have.
I am not claiming South Carolina is some kind of earthly paradise.
In fact I am claiming just the opposite. There is no earthly reason
why a small state like South Carolina with not a lot of accumulated
wealth, no big industries and few natural resources should have
anywhere near as low of an unemployment rate as a place like
California does. But it does.
The people on the West Coast and the Northeast may not like hearing
it but the truth is that they are the ones with the corrupt
backward political cultures, not the South and the Moutain states.
Living in Maryland, I can definitely say that no one living here
has any right to throw stones at Texas or South Carolina or any
state outside of maybe Michigan or California about having a
backward and corrupt and ignorant political culture.
Fluffy|4.16.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Thacker, your standard for "fighting Bush's big government ways"
is obviously a lot, lot, lot, lot lower than mine.
As majority leader Armey helped shepherd Bush's legislation through
Congress, including his budgets.
Here's a list of Dick Armey's votes:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000217/votes/
Count the number of times he opposed the President and the GOP
establishment. There aren't a lot, because the guy WAS the GOP
establishment. You can't hold a leadership position and not be
responsible for the legislation produced by your caucus.
Maybe Armey holds completely different opinions now. Great.
Fantastic. I cut Bob Barr slack, I can cut Dick Armey slack. But
that doesn't change the fact that when people point at Dick Armey
[or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck] and say, "These people who want to
hold these small-government protests are the same people who helped
George Bush expand government or cheerleaded as George Bush
expanded government" are telling the truth.
|4.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#
R C Dean: According to this CNN.money article, South
Carolina had (as of 12/2008) the fourth-worst unemployment rate of
the 50 states and DC:
Damned inconvenient facts. Still, if getting Nancy Pelosi, Rahm
Emanuel, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner* to STFU
is the price of disqualifying politicos from making federal policy
if they are from a state having high unemployment, then its a price
I'm willing to pay.
*All from states at or below the median for unemployment.
|4.16.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Tony, are you implying that the Bush administration was in
favor of rounding up the opposition and putting them in
camps?
No, just Muslims.
I just don't want to hear any of the folks who sat around twiddling
themselves or actively cheering while Bush subverted the
constitution in unprecedented ways whine that their constitutional
rights are in jeopardy.
Believe it or not, liberals have their backs when it comes to civil
liberties. The evil ACLU has defended the KKK and Fred Phelps for
god's sake. It's not controversial among liberals that rightwing
nutjobs have the right to free speech like the rest of us. But that
doesn't mean we don't also have the right to call them nutjobs,
which they are.
|4.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#
"Believe it or not, liberals have their backs when it comes to
civil liberties. The evil ACLU has defended the KKK and Fred Phelps
for god's sake. It's not controversial among liberals that
rightwing nutjobs have the right to free speech like the rest of
us. But that doesn't mean we don't also have the right to call them
nutjobs, which they are."
I am so sure. Then I guess you are outraged over this right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30238492/
You are going to really let OBama have it aren'tyou? YOu and Glen
Greenwald and Christ Mathews. I am sure BO will have to get a stern
talking to over this right?
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Because the unemployment rate is not comparable between every state.
So your beef was with R C Dean for comparing unemployment rates
between states? And you just accidentally stumbled into replying to
my posts instead? That's quite a typo you made, when you selected
my text, copied it, pasted it, and replied to it, when you meant to
reply to R C Dean. You should get that looked at.
|4.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Yes, John, that disturbs me, and if you read Greenwald you'd know he's at the forefront of criticism of Obama for his scary unwillingness to reverse a lot of Bush's secret police state.
|4.16.09 @ 3:54PM|#
"So your beef was with R C Dean for comparing unemployment rates
between states? And you just accidentally stumbled into replying to
my posts instead? That's quite a typo you made, when you selected
my text, copied it, pasted it, and replied to it, when you meant to
reply to R C Dean. You should get that looked at."
No my beef is with you and your implying that the fact that South
Carolina has a higher unemployment rate than New York means that
South Carolina has a worse government than New York.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Here's a list of Dick Armey's votes:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000217/votes/
Count the number of times he opposed the President and the GOP establishment. There aren't a lot, because the guy WAS the GOP establishment. You can't hold a leadership position and not be responsible for the legislation produced by your caucus.
For those of you who don't want to count, here's the summary:
Of the 101 votes, 51 had bipartisan consensus (ie, the GOP Opinion
and the Dem Opinion reported in that article are the same as each
other). So, 50 votes that had a partisan fight.
Dick Armey never in that data set voted against the GOP opinion. He
did not vote in 9 votes. 8 of those were votes in which there was
bipartisan consensus (I assume that there was no chance that such a
bill would fail, and so abstaining does not meaningfully constitute
bucking the opinion of the party). One of them was a partisan bill
(I assume that this is more relevant).
Of course, as House Majority Leader, Dick Armey presumably had a
lot of influence as to which bills came up to vote: it's at least
possible that bills where he disagreed with the GOP position died
in committee, due to his influence.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 4:05PM|#
No my beef is with you and your implying that the fact that South Carolina has a higher unemployment rate than New York means that South Carolina has a worse government than New York.
At risk of sounding pedantic, what you inferred says a lot more
about you than what I implied. R C Dean made a factual claim that I
thought was questionable. I looked up the fact, and found it not to
be true. I reported that this fact was not true.
To the extent that I implied any contextual meaning to that fact, I
was simply passing along without judgment whatever meaning R C Dean
intended to apply to his claim. If you have an issue with R C Dean
using a comparison of state unemployment rates as a proxy for
whatever you feel that he is using them as a proxy for, then
take it up with him.
The only three value judgments I've made in this thread are:
1. I made the claim that it was to Dick Armey's credit that he
killed the TIPS program.
2. I implicitly criticized R C Dean for making an incorrect claim
the truth of which was easily findable on Google.
3. I mocked you for being such a tool.
|4.16.09 @ 4:55PM|#
"I looked up the fact, and found it not to be true. I reported
that this fact was not true."
And I pointed out how it doesn't matter if it is true or not since
it doesn't tell the whole truth. Go back and read my posts. They
were nothing but reasonable. I never insulted you or even said you
were wrong. I only pointed out that the UE rate doesn't tell the
whole story.
Why do you feel the need to call people names? It doesn't advance
the conversation and just makes you look like an asshole.
Michael B Sullivan|4.16.09 @ 5:02PM|#
And I pointed out how it doesn't matter if it is true or not since it doesn't tell the whole truth.
Which would be great, if you were actually doing that, but
you aren't. If you actually cared about whether or not the
unemployment rate was relevant, you'd do what I've repeatedly
suggested, and take it up with R C Dean, who is (again!) the person
who brought up the unemployment and ascribed it meaning.
But you don't actually give a rat's ass about that. What you're
interested in is advancing your view that South Carolina is full of
good, honest, reasonable people, and California and New York are
godless degenerates (or whatever -- that SC is better than CA or
NY, for whatever reasons that you have in your pointy little head).
That's why you repeatedly refuse to attack the argument of someone
who agrees with your actual point (despite disagreeing
with the point that you pretend you have: that the unemployment
rate is relevant), and continue to respond to me, despite my
repeated disclaimers that I'm not trying to ascribe meaning to the
unemployment rate one way or another.
And that, my dear, is why you're a tool.
|4.16.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Tony, are you implying that the Bush administration was in
favor of rounding up the opposition and putting them in
camps?
No, just Muslims.
WTF?
You do realize that Bush came out right after 9/11 saying "Islam is
a religion of peace.", right?
I challange you to substantiate for a second the assertion that
Bush wanted to "round up Muslims and put them in camps".
And no, Guantanamo doesn't count. You are suggesting he wanted to
intern them like the Japanese in WWII.
That's just an egregious lie.
|4.16.09 @ 6:14PM|#
Hey Libertarians, who is paying to clean up your tea bags?
In a Libertarian society everyone has awesome driveways that lead
from their home to a dirt road.
There is no Black/White. It takes all kinds. Most developed
countries are a BLEND of Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism.
Pretty sure some of the older teabaggers would shit their pants if
someone fucked with their Medicaid without offering a viable
alternative.
Most of the signs at the teabaggings I saw yesterday were just sore
loser Obama hating signs. How, exactly is he responsible for the
Bush deficit expansion over the last 8 years? How, exactly is Obama
responsible for TARP, AIG bailout and the Fed's actions. He has
been in office just over 3 months. His budget hasn't even been
passed. The stimulus package (TAX CUTS FOR MOST OF THESE TEABAGGING
IDIOTS) is his only fiduciary action thus far.
The whole thing is a last ditch effort by the GOP to capitalize on
the message of Ron Paul (whom they vilified during the primaries)
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING but that, AND HATE.
Admit it. You teabaggers are just mad the colored guy won. I can
tell from your misspelled, crude, moronic, handheld signs.
Gene Berkman|4.16.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Getting back to Marc Cooper's column, he attacks tax cuts as a
giveaway to the wealthy, then defends an actual giveaway to the
wealthy as a benefit for all Americans. I guess he has joined the
Democrats in accepting "trickle-down" economics, as long as it
involves a subsidy rather than a tax cut.
And to think I knew Marc Cooper when he claimed to be an anarchist.
At San Fernando Valley State College, he was part of the Student
Revolutionary Anarchist Family (SRAF) which became the Social
Revolutionary Anarchist Federation.
He's not much of an anarchist anymore.
|4.16.09 @ 7:02PM|#
Pointing out that someone criticized Bush last October and last September really doesn't mean much. His approval rating was in the 20s. People needed to speak up at the beginning of Bush's tenure, not the ass end of it.
Xeones|4.16.09 @ 8:30PM|#
hyperblue:
Given that Obama's entire term thus far (and may it be his only)
has been themed on "Do What Bush Did, Only More So," what the fuck
is your point?
|4.16.09 @ 9:02PM|#
Come on Xeones. At the very most it's "do what Bush did, only
less so."
Did you notice they released the unredacted torture memos
today?
radar|4.16.09 @ 9:14PM|#
hyperblue, what was that about budget deficits again?
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg
So what was that again?
Mr. Chartreuse|4.16.09 @ 9:42PM|#
ow, exactly is Obama responsible for TARP, AIG bailout and
the Fed's actions. He has been in office just over 3 months. His
budget hasn't even been passed. The stimulus package (TAX CUTS FOR
MOST OF THESE TEABAGGING IDIOTS) is his only fiduciary action thus
far.
Obama supported TARP to the point where he threatened to veto any
cutting off of TARP funds once he became
POTUS
President-elect Barack Obama told Democratic senators in a closed lunch today that he needs the second $350 billion authorized by Congress as part of the TARP legislation last year and that he'll veto any move by Congress to cut that funding off.
He also has supported the Federal Reserve's
actions:
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said on Friday he supported efforts by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to shore up confidence in the financial markets and said he would hold off from presenting his own economic recovery plan.
He wasn't the POTUS, yes, but he still supported many of the same
BS things that got passed by Dems and Republicans. Additionally,
his stimulus package was another $800 billion dollars spent that we
don't have, in addition to the money he is planning to
spend over the next four years:
And the federal budget he unveiled last month projects even faster increases in the National Debt. It'll hit $12.7-trillion by the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. The Administration's four year estimate shows that by the end of September 2012, the Debt will have soared to $16.2-trillion - which amounts to nearly 100% of the projected Gross Domestic Product that year.
Bush was a free spending jackass and Obama will be as well. Is that
the kind of change you want to believe in?
Matt Welch|4.16.09 @ 11:51PM|#
Pointing out that someone criticized Bush last October and
last September really doesn't mean much.
Unless you mean to point out that saying
These same conservatives, however, were mum when George W. Bush erased our budget surplus and put us deep in the red by drunken spending on a pointless war [...] Another bothersome detail: The bailouts were also initiated by Bush.
is bullshit.
wayne|4.17.09 @ 6:05PM|#
"Califonia has a lot of advantages over South Carolina. It has a
better climate. It has huge entertainment and hi tech industries,
yet it still manages to have a higher unemployment rate and a state
government about to go bankrupt."
John, I live in CA. I agree with your characterization. CA has been
drive to the brink of bankruptcy, perhaps beyond, by liberal
spending policies created by Democrats. Don't get me wrong, I hate
Republicans just as much. I have long been of the opinion that the
only solution for CA, and the country, is to kick all incumbent
politicians out in every election for the next twenty years, at
least, maybe for the next 100 years.
Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante, etc. Douchebags each and every one of
them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245