Conspiracy

Frank Rich: Only Stalinists Use Words Like "Stalinist"

|

One of Jesse Walker's most interesting observations in his already-classic October piece on "The Paranoid Center" is that, in a direct inversion of Richard Hofstadter's theory, the establishmentarians who try to scare us about the terribly dangerous fringe end up aping the tactics and even language of the people they so loathe. New York Times columnist Frank Rich, whose commentary about the political right this year has been among the very stupidest in a remarkably dull-witted season, manages to go one step further: In an op-ed on New York's Dictrict 23 congressional election, Rich embodies Walker's observation at the exact same time as quoting Hofstadter's. Check it out:

By candlelight, I shall murmur to you the collected works of a sociologist who's been dead for longer than the Reserve Clause

[T]he electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we're seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era's equivalent to today's tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society's "ruthless prosecution" of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.

The same could be said of Beck, Palin and their acolytes. Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.

How do you even get to a place like that?

For those of you keeping metaphorical score at home: Stalin's Great Purge (just to name his most famous one) included roughly 1,000 executions a day, over two years. The alleged Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin purge, meanwhile, has resulted…brace yourself…in a moderate Republican suspending her campaign for Congress to make way for a conservative independent. Yeah, totally the same.

Advertisement

NEXT: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 1. Frank Rich is an idiot, on that we can all agree.

    2. What’s hilariously funny and sad about all this is that Doug Hoffman appears to be Bush/RINO-like on a very important and fundamental issue. His position would increase spending, thereby raising the taxes on the tea partiers. His position would also bring in new Dem voters, thereby reducing the electoral clout of the partiers.

    More fail with your tea, partiers?

    P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Dozens of comments here have shown that the phrase “fascist libertarian” isn’t an oxymoron.

    1. 1. “Frank Rich is an idiot.”

      “In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be AD HOMS.” (Emphasis added).

      1. Hey. It’s only an ad hom if someone is calling you the name.

        Dumbass

        1. You’re making my point.

          1. There really needs to be a standardized method for the indication of sarcasm for comments.

            1. Yeah, a sarcasm indicator. That would be real helpful.

                1. I have enough trouble with spelling, grammar, and punctuation. You expect me to be able to do italics in the middle of a sentence? I’m lucky my text is legible.

                  1. A commonly used way on the internet is to say something and add /sarc to it.

              1. Part of the fun is forcing people to figure out for themselves when your being sarcastic.

                1. Stop being so sarcastic, Hazel! Jeez.

          2. you didn’t have a point to start with…dumbass

      2. You my friend are arrogant. without reason.

    2. And Scozzafava is going to do better?

      Politics these days is a very long string of “Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” choices. This is just one of many, I’m afraid.

      1. For GOP hacks, if Scozzafava did worse, then they could point out that she’s not a RealRepublican.

        For Hoffman supporters, instead of trying to retail someone who’s fake, they should try to reform their faker by getting him to take a pledge not to support comprehensive immigration reform.

        The latter also applies to those who put the interests of the U.S. first.

    3. I will not resort to ad hominem attacks; I’m sure you’re a lovely person once one gets to know you. However, the website you linked provides some pretty weak arguments for making Hoffman an amnesty-fan. And, if, indeed, he turns out to be in favor of amnesty then we will only have discovered that he ain’t perfect.

      1. Thank you, “Craig”. However, the website I linked is (pretty obviously) my own, and I’ve written literally thousands of posts about imm. matters since 2002. I can tell a Tanc from a GWB. And – at least with the three sentences he’s provided – Hoffman is definitely a lot closer to a GWB than a Tanc. If you have a specific argument against anything at the link (or the questions link linked from that post), let’s hear it.

    4. great parody of a liberal comment

      1. I guess someone else is linking to this post, since there seem to be a lot of non-regulars about, such as (Dr.?) Sager.

        Perhaps (Dr.?) Sager should check out my site before opining. Here’s a hint: it’s linked from my name in this and the other comments I’ve left on this post. For those who want just a quick idea of the type of coverage I offer that you won’t hear from others, see this.

    5. Frank Rich is an idiot, on that we can all agree.

      Yeah, he’s almost half as stupid as you are. Shut the fuck up, lonewhacko.

      -jcr

    6. Not disagreeing with you – but the article itself above is ridiculous for one very simple reason: the only people – until Rich said it – who have been calling anyone a “Stalinist” have been the RIGHT WING – they’ve been calling Obama a “Stalinist” – including BECK – since the guy entered office. And they’re still doing it.

      Apparently that slipped “Matt Welch”‘s mind. But judging by this insanely glaring omission of fact, I’m sure more slips his mind than that.

      1. can you actually provide any evidence for that? I’ve been hearing a lot of “socialist” rhetoric thrown around, but not so much “stalinist”.

        1. Well, Anita Dunn, the White House Chief of Communications thinks Mao was cool. Dems are obviously cool with killing anyone who disagrees with them.

      2. Of course, on the LEFT WING, they’ve been calling anyone who disagrees with the he-who-must-be-cocksucked-or-you’re-racist-in-chief “unpatriotic” and “Nazis” and “terrorists” and “teabaggers” and claiming we’re part of some vast right wing conspiracy.

        Apparently this slipped out of the brown matter that fills the cranial cavity where your brain is supposed to have been. Judging by your glaring far-left bias, I don’t think we can even be sure of that.

    7. The fundamental issue with respect to immigration is this: Is it true, as our Founders maintained, that ALL men possess the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — OR, are a man’s rights simply a function of where he happens to be born?

      Nothing on earth justifies the second view — nothing justifies the notion that a man born north of the Rio Grande has a right to be in the United States, while a man born south of the Rio Grande can only enter with the government’s permission. Such a view of rights grants the state the power to decide who possesses rights — which makes the state all-powerful. No one who advocates that view can call themselves an advocate of freedom and limited government.

      The government does not own the territory of America — it does not, therefore, have any right to dictate who may or may not enter that territory.

      The Founder’s view of right is the correct view — they correctly identified the fact that man’s rights are inalienable, i.e. they are inherent in his nature as a rational being. A rational being is a being possessing the faculty of reason, whose very survival requires that he have the right to be free to use his reason and the right to be free to act on it, to produce all the material values his survival requires. This truth applies to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, not just those who happen to have been born here.

      And the Founder’s correctly identified the fact that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of these rights — “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men”. Government’s function is protect the rights of all those who choose to reside here — not to arbitrarily decide who may or may not enter the territory of the U.S.

      The typical conservative view of immigration — the view expressed (at least implicitly) by the poster “24AheadDotCom” — grants government the power to punish individuals for the “crime” of simply acting without the permission of the government — which means, it grants government the right to punish individuals who’ve done no harm to anyone else, who’ve neither initiated the use of physical force against others nor defrauded them nor violated their rights in any manner whatsoever. No one who advocates giving government that kind of power has any business posturing as a defender of freedom or limited government.

      Building walls to keep people out of a country is every bit as wrong, and for the same reasons, as is building walls to keep people inside a country. Government has no right to do either.

      1. I think this should be directed towards the Mexican government, no? If anyone is restricting the self determination of Mexican citizens and not protecting their rights to L,L & PH, it’s the corrupt folks in Mexico city, not our own in Washington.

      2. Your argument is flawed and only promotes anarchy, which the founders certainly did NOT advocate. What you are saying basically is that nations cannot be sovereign and if that is your argument, then why not just say we shouldn’t have borders? Borders don’t exist simply so that you know when you have left one place and entered another. One of the intentions the founders have is that government provide for the SECURITY of its people and you can’t have security if all you have is anarchy.

    8. Wow, that’s a new one! You are pre-discounting the responses to your post based on your preconceptions.
      What a bitter, twisted fool.

    9. Could you please write a coherent sentence.

    10. Someone who dismisses any criticism of his or her arguments beforehand while claiming intellectual superiority is de facto intellectually bankrupt and arrogant. It’s so overwhelmingly “intellectual” to make assumptions about what others think while calling them names even before they reply. And I thought profiling was bad? Or maybe intellectual means changing principles by the millisecond for political gain? Or forever tweaking policy to the same sad end? Or perhaps linking to your own story, which is akin to citing yourself in a research article? Wait, you did that!

      Who cares what Hoffman promotes? He doesn’t represent minimal statist or anarcho-capitalist libertarian thought. If he were a true capitalist, he would call for the end of all things prohibiting free trade, starting with the border. But I’m sure, being the intellectual you so obviously are, you already knew that. The point is that he’s a conservative. And as long as he’s a conservative, he has nothing to do with libertarians such as myself. So, how you got it into your head that teapartiers and libertarians are synonymous is beyond me. I do know, however, that libertarians support people’s right to protest, especially when it has to do with lowering government spending and taxes.

      All state decisions, save cutting taxes and spending, increase taxes. That is the nature of government activity.

    11. “P.S. In case anyone replies to this…”

      Wow. Why bit just add, “And if you disagree with me, you’re racist.” Your closing was about as childish and at least when Greg Gutfeld says it he’s joking. You’re serious and that’s just sad.

    12. Doug Hoffman, like many others, is in fact correct. Our immigration policy(ies) is/are broken in the sense that ‘laws on the books’ are not uniformly and actively enforced. The most person most exploited is the illegal immigrant. Employers are likely to exploit the worker in an unsafe work environment. The cartels exploit the immigrant because they instill a fear of ‘being caught’.

  2. How do you even get to a place like that?

    Lobotomy.

  3. Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

  4. 70 years ago Frank Rich would have been writing editorials defending the purges and saying that the “wreckers” must have been guilty since they confessed and that now they had been purged the 5 year plan would be successful.

  5. Everyone Rich knows knows Palin is worse than Stalin.

    To quibble with numbers is to miss the point entirely. Matt Welch is just being a dick on this issue. Maybe racist too.

    1. Matt Welch is just being a dick on this issue. Maybe racist too.

      You need to cut hims some slack. He is Welsh and those people don’t know any better.

  6. Frank Rich = Cunt

    1. Don’t call me a cunt you racist.

  7. But all those millions Stalin murdered are so far away and long ago, and they don’t affect me. Palin’s failure to abort her retarded baby harms the gene pool right here!

    I think we all know who the real monsters are: the baby non-murderers.

  8. That picture creeps me the fuck out.

    1. He has child-toucher eyes.

  9. The moderate Republican in NY-23 just endorsed the Democrat.

      1. Final proof that the two major parties are actually the same thing.

        Fucking amazing.

        1. Better the devil you know and what not. Hell, the Democrats threw Upton Sinclair under the bus when he was running for governor.

  10. Basically you get to a place like that as soon as you define “extremism” to be any uncomprising adherence to any position or principle, regardless of what the position or principle in question is.

    As soon as you decide that, then William Lloyd Garrison is the same as Stalin. It’s simple, really.

    As soon as you decide that, then the act of refusing to vote for a politician who does not hold positions acceptable to you is a “purge”, just like arresting thousands of your comrades and holding show trials for them where they publicly deliver confessions you have tortured them into making. No difference there, nope. Both of them involve being “extreme”, so they’re the same.

    1. Read the article.

      You seem to be confusing the subtext because you don;t know the context. He is saying that in lieu of the comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Stalin by high ranking members of the Conservative party, he finds that their behavior is more eminiscent of extremism than Obama’s.

  11. You want to know where a lot of the “racist” accusations among various leftists come from?

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’?that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me?because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’
    -Lee Atwater, an adviser to Reagan and Bush I, and former RNC chairman

    It’s a mostly idiotic reasoning, but some of these hold a type of validity when applied to sites like ResistNet and Free Republic, though. The comments over there would make you puke.

    1. Why the racist outburst Mike?
      Just want to show your ignorance and small mindedness ?

      1. Apparently, the comments at DU, MediaMatters, and Newshounds are completely void of hate speech…

        1. I figured that’s where he came from.

          1. I’ve never read any of those blogs, but I’m fully aware of the status of DU as the left-wing equivalent of Free Republic, with the other blogs not far behind. And I mentioned that quote because those very sites you mention, TLG, use that quote to justify the whole “Republicans/fiscal conservatives/anyone they don’t agree with Are Racists” bullshit they spew out. I lost count of the number of “kill whitey” posts I’ve seen on various leftist forums.

    2. Sometimes a cigar is just someone’s cock in your mouth.

      Quite a reach around you are pulling on there, Mike.

  12. “maniacal contempt for government”

    Hey, Rich, get yer head out’cher ass. There’s a reason why people are pissed about the government you worship.

    1. 30 years of rightwing propaganda?

      1. Entire adult lifetime of being an idiot much?

      2. 30 years of truthful rightwing propaganda educational material?.

      3. You make it sound like there is no such thing as left-wing propaganda.

        1. That was supposed to be for Tony, one of the resident Democrat Party boot-lickers.

        2. I can’t think of a single major outlet in the country that fits the definition of left-wing propaganda.

          Whatever faults it may have the ‘left’ actually values facts. The right sees them as optional, subservient to ideology. That’s just the way it is.

          1. I can’t think of a single major outlet in the country that fits the definition of left-wing propaganda.

            Well crank up that one brain cell and see if you can do a little more thinkin’.

            Easy answer: MSNBC. Nothing more than a mouthpiece apologist for the Obama Administration and the left wing in general.

            the ‘left’ actually values facts

            Ahh! It’s official – you’re out of your fucking mind. Maybe some psychotropic drugs might help you. Maybe not. You’re pretty far out of touch with reality. The “left” plays faster and looser with facts and truth than anyone else I’ve ever seen. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, facts in the hands of the left are a ball of wax to be molded to suit their needs.

            1. Nope. MSNBC has a few liberal talking heads in the evening. They don’t make shit up out of thin air. They criticize Obama when he has it coming. It’s just not the same thing as FOX, which will find the Obama-is-evil spin to any story.

              1. Perhaps, oh, I don’t know, for starters, Frank Rich? Maybe Keith Olbermann? Also, you may want to keep in mind that history didn’t start when you were born: progressives have been making stuff up since at least the Cold War period, where they defended their precious USSR to the bitter end, and then did an about-face and claimed to despise everything that country stood for as soon as its excesses were sufficiently documented as to make a USSR apologist tantamount to a holocaust denier.

      4. 30 years of consistently ebbing freedom under both republican and democratic governance?

    2. Well, and the comparison to Stalin is so complete inapt. To refer to people as contemptuous of government and by that metric to say they are like Stalin is pretty incredibly dissonant. Now I find Palin and Beck and Rush as repellent as the next guy, but to conflate these people with the liberty movement, such as it is, is absurd. None of those three, none of the right wing version of the tea partiers are anti-government. They are anti-Obama. The right and the left rightfully detest each other, unfortunately those who actually promote liberty get the flack from both ends.

      1. I find Palin and Beck and Rush as repellent as the next guy

        Yes, but how repellent is the next guy?

  13. Frank Rich is passively weeping.

    1. But his tears, they are so yummy.

      1. But do they taste like ham?

        1. They taste like a peanut butter and bacon sandwich.

  14. Frank Rich’s NY Times columns would overqualify him for a job in Stalin’s Pravda.

  15. You are a leftist idiot!

  16. Frank Rich’s using his platform in the NYT to spread blatant propoganda on behalf of the Obama administration is a lot more Stalinist in nature than free people deciding whom they will support in a free an open election. It would seem that Frank Rich and the White House would eagerly squash all dissenting opinion if they could!

    1. And this in reply to the charge that Frank Rich exaggerates! Fuck!

      1. So you don’t think Frank Rich and the White House would squash all dissenting opinion if he could. What is it that you think they’re doing now?

    2. If I’m not mistaken, Frank Rich has given quite a bit of criticism to pretty much all parties.

      I read his column every Sunday. I know what you are thinking “argh, look at this Liberal, all he does is feed off of the media.” Fact is, I know quite a bit about quite a few things, including marketing and propaganda and Political Sciences. I assure you I know where to get facts (try JSTOR and Lexis Nexis), and I very much know about media distortion. It’s pretty plain to see that it is Republicans who are spin doctors (me, being a long time Republican, dislikes the fact that my home party is deserting its true base like myself for Jacobin radicals). Notice the type of media they are and their source of fact. The Republican echo chamber that is visible to the public is the radio/talk show where they control all that goes in and out, and opinion is championed. Also, note that they have a very low rate of true fact on their programs. They rely on sound bites and distortion and almost never cite anything concrete. For some reason, a “real American” is either a white man or an occasional black man (they want to seem diverse), who either farms (farmers have huge incomes) or is a “Capitalist” (man that makes a lot of money and supports Conservative ideals). Not a man who simply wants America to be the country of success, not a Hispanic, not an Asian. No rich, no average worker, no poor man.

      Also I believe the NYT and Frank Rich aren’t FORCING you to do anything, and it seems that if you were to get your goal and make them stop publishing then you’d be impinging on their first amendment rights….

      1. Cogent. Insightful. Thought-provoking. These adjectives and more do absolutely nothing to describe your comment.

        1. And that is neither a refutation of his comment nor it is even a counter-argument.

          Your comment is simply more evidence that the only thing “libertarians” have every accomplished in terms of discourse is to perfect the construction of weak strawmen and to present cowardly, transparent obfuscations when presented with objective facts that destroy their ideology.

          Raise your hands – how many here are currently leeching off the “state” while they’re bitch about the “state”?

          Everyone?

          Yeah, that’s what I thought.

          NEXT.

          1. Unless you have either precise gov’t data, or telepathy, you cannot say ANY of us “leech off the state”.

            Me? I qualify for so much handout shit, yet refuse to take it. Try that one on for size… coward.

          2. And that is neither a refutation of his comment nor it is even a counter-argument.

            Yes it is.

        2. LOL!!!

        3. Wow. What a comedian. I can’t believe I haven’t heard of you. Seriously. You had me filled with happiness with these hand-picked thesaurus words and then shut me down. You should see my face right now. Joke’s on me.

          This is the very behaviour that drives me away from the party I once was proud to be a part of. The saddest part is it’s not just low-lifes such as yourself, stupid is spreading to all corners of Republican leadership.

          1. Turn that frown upside-down. Or leave it where it is, it’s all the same to me.

      2. What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      3. Sheesh, does George Soros pay you by the word? How much longer do you guys think you can get away with these “I used be a loyal Republican, but…” troll posts?

      4. “Fact is, I know quite a bit about quite a few things”

        And I bet your mommy and daddy are real proud of you. Here’s a cookie.

      5. Your comment isn’t even basically coherent.

        First off, I don’t think “Jacobin” doesn’t mean what you think it does. From Wikipedia:

        To this day, the terms Jacobin and Jacobinism are used as pejoratives for left-wing revolutionary politics and more recently for extremist centralist views.

        I wonder how it is that you call yourself “a long time Republican”, and yet have internalized such bizarre Democratic stereotypes of Republican positions?

        Add to that the fact that you could very easily substitute “Democrat” for “Republican” in your comment, and the vast majority of it would read the same.

        Also, do you realize where you’re posting?

        1. I’m a little insulted that you’re challenging my knowledge of the Jacobin radicals, considering I spent 2 years writing a dissertation on the Latin American and French revolutions that was published in two respected Encyclopedias (Encyclopedia of the French Revolution; Latin American History & Culture) about their connection to Bentham’s Utilitarianism.

          Anyways, the similarities I see to the Republican party and the Jacobins of the French revolution is the angry mob mentality that Republicans love to take on in this day and age as well as throwing anyone who slightly disagrees under the bus (the same can be said for high ranking democrats as well, but most Republicans I’ve seen in all shapes and sizes are some of the most stubborn people I’ve ever seen).

          Frankly this is something as basic as High School history, and I’m frightened that you needed to take 3 sentences from Wikipedia.

        2. Also, I am a Conservative Republican for history’s sake. Today’s Republicans seem to only be able to look back for thirty years to the days of Reagan (which were a fluke, according to his own advisors and many economists), but luckily as a former World History major I have the ability to look back to the very beginnings of political ideals and interpret their meaning based on their origins. In terms of politicians I relate to it wouldn’t be Ronald Reagan. It’ bee William Buckley, Klemons von Metternich, Thomas Jefferson and Machiavelli.

          Republicans now seem to believe that a “free-market” means that businesses can do whatever the hell they want, instead of the Buckley idea of smart, calculated regulation that simply kept business activity legal. Republicans love to call themselves pro-life and support the death penalty.

          Don’t get me wrong, run of the mill Liberals piss me off as well because they are ready to throw everything at the government.

      6. The Republican echo chamber that is visible to the public is the radio/talk show where they control all that goes in and out, and opinion is championed.

        So why don’t any Republicans like the the head of the RNC and McCain say the things that I hear on radio/talk shows?

        In fact I don’t think I have heard an elected Republican over the past 8 to 9 years say anything like what I am hearing on Radio/Talk shows.

      7. The Republican echo chamber that is visible to the public is the radio/talk show where they control all that goes in and out, and opinion is championed.

        So why don’t any Republicans like the the head of the RNC and McCain say the things that I hear on radio/talk shows?

        In fact I don’t think I have heard an elected Republican over the past 8 to 9 years say anything like what I am hearing on Radio/Talk shows.

  17. Yeah, How stupid. It’s like saying that social democracy is the road to serfdom or taxation is theft or “at the exact same time” instead of “at exactly the same time.” Fucking morons.

    1. There’s nothing wrong with the usage “…at the exact same time.” It’s grammatically correct, whether or not you find it pleasing.

      The other two statements are, of course, at least debatable. They both defend on how you define your terms.

      1. Sorry, that’s “depend”, of course.

    2. STFU Morris

  18. “Only Stalinists Use Words Like ‘Stalinist'”

    Actually, Trotskyites get to use it, if they dare.

  19. Seems like the only nasty comments I’ve read on this blog are comming from the liberals/dems. I read Frank Rich’s editorials and it sounds like he was educated in some vacuum where logic and common sense are completely lacking. He’s a shill for the commies and socialists–oh, I mean the liberals/dems. If anybody thinks Obama’s socialization of America is going to make this nation stronger, let’s just have a little experiment: We’ll see how it all turns out. Remember, countries that have turned from capitalism to socialism have seen an immediate 40% reduction in GDP. That means, on a personal level, your paycheck will go only 60% as far as it used to. So tell me, liberal-policy lovers (socialists/communists), what will you cut out from your lifestyle? Home payments? Food? Transportation?

    1. That already happened RockyRoad. Real wages in the US have essentially fallen 10% since 1964.

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
      1964-2004

  20. Matt–Sorry to contradict you, But Rich is not a Stalinist. He’s a self-dramatizing prima donna, given to preposterous overstatement as a means of self-advertisement. His last you-can’t-top-this moment was in April 2008, when he (alone) reported on a “Tet offensive” in Iraq that no one else had the guts to mention; that was his description of the Basra operation, which took two weeks to complete instead of one. Now it’s the Stalinist invasion of Saranac Lake. After the 2012 election, I suppose it will be the Mayan prediction of the end of the world come true.

    1. Bob–Since I didn’t (and never would) say Frank Rich is a Stalinist, there is no contradiction.

      1. Matt–sorry. Apparently I misunderstood the purport of the headline.

  21. Rich’s point is valid; Stalinist may be a bit of rhetorical excess, but the manic drive to purge the party of anyone not within the narrow confines of Tea Party platitudes mimics the thinking of the Left during its worst days.
    There aren’t calls to debate the Scozzafavas, or find areas of compromise; it is the politics of hunt and destroy, not accomodation and reason.

    1. Once again, here’s someone with absolutely no apparent awareness that the defining attribute of Stalinism is method.

      I will only vote for a political candidate who reasonably approximates my own views. When a party nominates an entire slate of candidates who pretend to subscribe to my views but then betray them at every opportunity, exactly how, pray tell, am I to change that situation without engaging in “hunt and destroy” operations?

      Sorry, but declaring “I will only vote for candidates who adopt position ‘X’,” is not the same as “Let’s kill everyone in the party who is not in our faction and send their families to labor camps.” It’s more closely related to, “I buy the brand of beer I like, and not the brand of beer I don’t like.”

    2. There aren’t calls to debate the Scozzafavas

      It’s been tried. She calls the cops on ya.

    3. Reason60@4:44p
      Areas of compromise? With Ms.DeDe? The woman is fully supportive of Abortion and Card Check. I don’t even want to be in the same room with such a person. Death and Oppression do not improve the quality of life.

    4. It would appear that less than a dozen NY-23 Republicans tried to put forth Scozzafava as the candidate by acclamation. I would think that an enlightened society would rather defer to a broader consensus of who should represent the Republican party in the district. The preference is now obvious and
      it would also seem that the only narrow perspective on display is your delusion on what exactly constitutes the liberty to exercise the will of the people.

    5. Perhaps because the worst excesses of the past 8 years were from Republicans acting like liberals.

      The base is tired of Republicans who act like Democrats.

  22. Frank? Is he the Rich who got the pardon from Bill Clinton?

  23. Why are libs so weepy and venomous? They control everything, house, senate, oval office, labor unions, media, hollywood and supposedly half the population like them. It will never be better for them. I suppose they’re frustrated because their hero is stalled and stumbling, more like hamlet than a president, and their moment is disappearing over a distant hill. And there’s apparently nothing they can do about it.
    And this is during the honeymoon period of the presidency. Can you imagine what it will be like if the Giant Brain ever actually does anything and begins to anger a few people?

    1. It will never be better for them.

      Hmm, perhaps they know that.

    2. Leftists in general are people who crave emotional validation. They need people to tell them how good and right they are, constantly.

      They are so used to doing this amoung themselves, that when outsiders disagree with them it feels like they’ve been deprived of a moral entitlement. Something is wrong with the world. It must be the product of a giant consipiracy. Possibly by FOX news.

      1. Helen–That comment is sharp. I’ve been wondering what the combination of moralizing and mud-throwing was all about. This is a good explanation.

        1. Thanks. I’ve spent many years quietly observing and analysing the social interactions of leftists in their natural habitats. Sort of like a cultural version of Jane Goodall. The key thing is to fit in but keep your mouth shut so they behave naturally in front of you. The political circle jerks are really something to witness.

          1. Except the chimps throw less shit.

      2. Hazel–Damn fine thinkin’ there, young lady.

        I would add that the other dynamic I’ve observed is that your typical liberal has spent so much time in social cirbles that essentially are little more than self-rationalizing echo chambers, that anyone espousing ideas that don’t conform to the villiage’s ideas must be an outsider and thus, purged from the fold for the safety of everyone involved.

        The herd is life.

        1. One fun thing to do is watch liberals BE elitist, then deny it.

          Real exchange:

          “I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain.”

          “Well, that must be because you’re an inbred Constitution-worshiping hick.”

          One of many, alas.

    3. Why are libs so weepy and venomous? They control everything, house, senate, oval office, labor unions, media, hollywood and supposedly half the population like them.

      You left out academia.

      1. Half is not enough. You will assimilate.

  24. Shall we make an Exception for ALL of those who Called George W. Bush a NAZI??

  25. Most of our political discourse these days resorts to the same tired ‘tu quoque’ arguments. Nobody wants to argue anything on merits any more.

  26. Reason60 is a typical liberal – who was “purged”? Who was not debated? As for reason, it is the Dems who refuse even to consider the multitude of ideas, suggestions, and even bills brought forth by the GOP with regard to healthcare reform. Liberals live in some sort of terrarium in which they cannot see the world beyond the tiny information cage they build for themselves.

  27. Let me see if I got this straight:

    Party leaders select a candidate. Party members do not like their party’s choice and flock to a third party candidate. The third party candidate is tied in the polls with the democrate while the hand picked candidate tanks.

    That is a purge? Silly me. I thought it was called democracy.

    1. thank you for speaking truth to power brother!

      (woops, I must somehow be racist)

  28. Frank Rich is the Eric Mangini of columnists. Or is he the Edward/Morris of columnists? I get them confused.

    1. Mangini actually had a winning season once. Rich is the Rick Venturi of columnists.

  29. Frank Rich is just whining because people haven’t embraced liberalism like the thought they did with Obama’s election.

  30. What Frank Rich is really saying is that conservatives, lest they be accused of being “Stalinists” (or “racists” because they oppose Obama’s polcies) should just lay back and enjoy it. Finally, there is nothing “moderate” about Scozzafava.

    1. Well, Frank knows a lot about laying back and enjoying it

  31. Frank Rich is a poisonous counter-revolutionary worm whose toxic screams and radioactive breath will not sway the luminous coallition of steel workers, revolutionary peasants and progressive intellectuals from marching ahead on the grandiose path to progress blazed by the luminous leadership of the oppressed for a radiant future – the counterrevolutionary infernal dogs sponsored by the international capitalism will be crushed by luminous comrade Rocco and the NEA!
    Long live comrade Obama, friend of the oppressed who gives free shoes and movie tickets to the revolution!

    This is what happens to those who listened too much to Radio Tirana and radio Beijing in the 1980-s – still, what’s worrying is that terminology used by our days American left (the MoveOnOrg types like Rich), is strikingly similar with the one used in the most totalitarian, one-party states in the world of the last century, Albania, Romania and China.
    But is it only the terminology that we should fear in Rich’s rant?

  32. NY-23 is going to be an interesting race. Today, the Republican candidate endorsed the Democratic candidate.

  33. As is apparent by this thread, few regular commenters here have any right to judge others in their use of hyperbole and comparison to historical baddies.

    1. As is apparent by this thread, Tony is a whiny little bitch of a hyperbolic sockpuppet. And I mean that in an affectionate manner, Ton-ster.

      1. oooh, Tony, harder, faster

  34. A turd and a douchebag are neck and neck in the polls, so the douchebag drops out. Win for the Teabaggers!

    p.s. I though the Tea Party movement started out great. But they lost their way, and are now not much more than megaphone for social conservatives. Cluestick: It’s the economy, stupid!

    1. Megaphone for social conservatives? What are you basing that on?

      1. Uh… the latest New York CD23 race. It was not about taxes, not about spending, not about the economy. It was about abortion and gay marriage.

        1. I could’ve sworn they talked about taxes, spending, and the economy too. Well, you’re obviously the expert.

        2. Well, now we know what issues are most important to you, as you obviously stopped listening to the entire case against Scozzafava.

        3. Yeah, it’s not like Scuzz supported card check, the stimulus and cap and trade. Never mind.

  35. You have to wonder if people like Rich, Olbermann, Maddow et al really believe what they say. Their strategies and motives and rhetoric are so utterly transparent, one is almost prepared to conclude that it’s all a sick joke at America’s expense.

  36. Yes, Mr. Welch, the left is very prone to “moral equivalency” which are not equivalent. The other day that comedian Jon Stewart, made a lot of fun of Fox News, making a moral equivalent of the one letter the Bush administration sent to NBC complaining of bias years ago to the whole planned and full court attack of the current WH to Fox News. That is comparing apples with oranges, the left does that all the time. One great expert on doing this is Olbermann, who, by the way, declares as facts, things completelly misrepresented.

    1. The worst part was that the segment was a painfully long 12 minutes. They really wanted to emphasize that “Bush did it.”

  37. “A MODERATE REPUBLICAN SUSPENDING HER CAMPAIGN” ?????

    NO, TODAY WE GOT PROOF THAT DEDE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DEMOCRATIC-PARTY PLANT WHO HIJACKED THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR THAT DISTRICT

    PALIN AND HOFFMAN EXPOSED HER

    1 POINT FOR PALIN
    0 POINTS FOR THE LAIR DEMOCRATS

  38. Reinmoose is back and he’s hunting? VM is hunting and hates Dems? I don’t get it.

    1. Yes, he’s been hunting Cricket. The fool was warned of the dangers of human quarry.

      1. Uh, Solanum, I’d spend a lot less time asking questions and more time running.

      2. A quarry is a type of open-pit mine from which rock or minerals are extracted. Quarries are generally used for extracting building materials, such as dimension stone, construction aggregate, riprap, sand, and gravel. They are often colocated with concrete and asphalt plants due to the requirement for large amounts of aggregate in those materials.

        They’re exhuming people, Solanum?

        1. Possibly. I’m sure Edward isn’t the only necrophiliac on this board, but I was thinking more along of the lines of definition 3.

          Main Entry: quar?ry

          1 obsolete : a heap of the game killed in a hunt
          2 : game; specifically : game hunted with hawks
          3 : one that is sought or pursued : prey

          1. Our handles are very similar.

  39. Kinda annoying when you’re on the recieving end of stupid name calling, ain’t it righties?

    1. Actually, the mudslinging doesn’t bother me that much. I do object to all the spelling mistakes and bad grammar.

    2. Kinda annoying when you’re on the recieving end of stupid name calling, ain’t it righties?

      For at least the past decade, yes.

    3. We’re sorry we hurt your feelings, little lefty. You can go back to your kindergarten classroom now.

      1. Mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm

  40. LOL. Now the Mao-worshiping Obammunists are smearing their opponents as ‘Stalinist’ … how ‘rich’.

    I suppose the old ‘racist’ epithet was no longer shocking to anyone with a brain.

  41. What is with all the scorched earth language? Can’t you folks think of another verb or adjective except those that expose your limited vocabulary skills? Anybody can prove themselves to be a dirtball! Please, clean up the frat boy reactions…you’re melting my retinas while you are dooming your message…

    1. I think you misunderstand the dynamic.

    2. kiss my ass, prude girl (heh heh)

  42. It’s hard to get too upset about what a theater/film critic thinks and writes about politics.

  43. “fear of minorities”

    Hmmm, I don’t remember the tea baggers raiding my house. I do remeber the LA riots in the early 90’s though. So I assume the tea baggers looted businesses, set houses on fire, and caused racial conflict between two etnic groups? Frank Rich might be right in that case.

    Trying to smear the opposition as “right wing racist” even when they’re not – a time honored leftist tradition.

  44. Frank Rich weeps copious tears because the voting public is increasingly alienated from the Kimist Personality Cult that is running the Executive Branch these days. So he’s pushing back against the Push Back led by Palin and others.

    Hoffman has been at 45-46 percent all day and the news of Dede’s flip should push him over 50%. The woman was an Arlen Specter waiting to happen.

    As to Rich? He can kiss my ass, or at least can explain why the New York Times won’t return the Pulitzer that was awarded to Walter Duranty for covering up the Show Trials in Moscow during Stalin’s era.

    1. How DARE you insult dear leader, just wait for the knocking at your door … you have been warned Mr. Counterrevolutionary

    2. How DARE you insult dear leader, just wait for the knocking at your door … you have been warned Mr. Counterrevolutionary

    3. Just for the sake of fairness, and only that because I despise the NYT.

      Here is Wikipedia entry on their attempt to do have the award stripped:

      In 2003, after the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, the Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty’s work. Von Hagen found Duranty’s reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, “For the sake of The New York Times’ honor, they should take the prize away.”[12] The Times sent von Hagen’s report to the Pulitzer Board and left it to the Board to take whatever action they considered appropriate.[13] In a letter accompanying the report, Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. called Duranty’s work “slovenly” and said it “should have been recognized for what it was by his editors and by his Pulitzer judges seven decades ago.”

      Ultimately, the Admin of the board, Sig Gissler, refused to rescind the award because “there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case.

      On a counter argument note, I have been told by someone who has been in their offices that they still have that Pulitzer on display there. I can’t verify it beyond that second hand report though.

  45. Actually, I thought that the entire phalanx of teabaggers raided Andrew Sullivan’s house when they all got to D.C.. Scared the shit out of him. Left pictures of Palin and Trig all over his lawn.

    Those people are terrorists and need to be watched by the Log Cabin Republicans.

    1. Andrew Sullivan lives for being jumped by tea baggers.

  46. Please, clean up the frat boy reactions…

    Dude… he totally cut you off. Flip him some birdage.

    1. My dad owns a dealership.

  47. Israeli forces storm into holiest place on earth:

    http://joshfulton.blogspot.com…..liest.html

    1. R?hmites in 3…2…

    2. Actually, the story says the Israelis did not storm into the mosque at all.

    3. They invaded the Playboy mansion? I hope Hef gave them a good fight.

    4. A moose bit my sister once…

  48. “You have to wonder if people like Rich, Olbermann, Maddow et. al. really believe what they say. Their strategies and motives and rhetoric are so utterly transparent, one is almost prepared to conclude that it’s all a sick joke at America’s expense.”

    Ooh! This is a fun game. Can I play, too?

    You have to wonder if people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh et. al. really believe what they say. Their strategies and motives and rhetoric are so utterly transparent, one is almost prepared to conclude that it’s all a sick joke at America’s expense.

    What the hell is happening to Reason? [drinks]

    1. FU, May hashem stick you dead

      1. Why would the G-d of our fathers, may He continue to bestow on you every goodness, do such a thing over a piddling political disagreement?

    2. Ooh! This is a fun game. Can I play, too?

      Not very well, apparently.

    3. Only one problem…people actually listen to and watch Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

      1. idiots do.
        And besides ifa few million of RW extremist morons listen to Beck, what does it prove for the rest 80% of sane Americans?

        1. People who disagree with you are stupid and insane. Repeat it like a mantra. It will protect you in the days and weeks and months ahead.

          1. it is not about disagreeing, moron.

            Disagree away all you want.
            Stop lying and propagandize fascistozoid crap to American people

            1. it is not about disagreeing, moron.

              Yes it is, genius.

      2. Yup.

        Because what they can succeed in is being entertaining (Although on the radio Maddow had a sufficient following and Rich also has an incredibly large readership).

        Also, how does it feel to know that out of the four leading Neo-Con voices (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly), only one finished college?

      3. Yup.

        Because what they can succeed in is being entertaining (Although on the radio Maddow had a sufficient following and Rich also has an incredibly large readership).

        Also, how does it feel to know that out of the four leading Neo-Con voices (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly), only one finished college?

  49. writers like frank rich are why the times is bankrupt. frank rich rich is a dolt and a fraud. what an ass!

  50. If party purges are the now the rage, I’ve got some suggestions for the Libertarians.

    Troofers and Birfers are just the beginning.

    1. As long as the animal rightists go first.

      1. “animal rights-ists”

    2. Second. After them, Dondero.

  51. It’s funny that Rich said Arlen Spector was driven from the party on ideological grounds. I wonder what he think happened to Joe Lieberman.

    1. Actually, the reason is rather simple:

      Joe Lieberman is an absolute warhawk and gets a buttload of money from pharmaceutical companies who just happen to all have their headquarters in Hartford.

      Also, I believe he simply became an independent, not a Republican.

      1. I think your snark detector is on the blink. The point is that Rich probably doesn’t want to address how Lieberman was driven out of the Democratic party in a primary election, for ideological reasons, but it’s only ideological if Teh Other Party TM does it.

        1. The situations don’t seem analogous. On one hand, you have a man who has consistently identified with the opposite party for years and, most likely against the will of his lobbyists, switched, while the other has extreme corporate ties against only one of the core values of his party and therefore chose to be “Independent.”

          1. Lieberman was vilified by his party for wanting to stay the course in Iraq and to support Bush in doing so. I don’t really care one way or another about that particular spat, but he was accused of being too much like Bush, which in general, is hardly the case. Rich claimed Spector was driven out for ideological reasons, I would say the Dems treatment of Lieberman could also be seen as punishing him for not strictly towing the party line, hence ideological.

            1. The Dems’ didn’t “treat” Lieberman badly. He left of his own accord due to the money he has been receiving. Considering the Republican Party is the “big money party” (receiving most funds from corporate lobbyists i.e. Halliburton, PHaRmCo.) I wouldn’t see how the Specter situation is the same.

          2. Every argument you give justifying the purging of Lieberman is ideology based. Is it really so hard for you to see that?

            1. alan, is that directed at me? If it is, that’s exactly my point.

              1. Threads are getting out of hand!

                That was aimed at his ‘huh?’ness who doesn’t seem to realize he is making your point for you. He may be a sock puppet but if not, it would not be the first time that I have witnessed an irony impaired liberal.

                1. Exactly. If, as huh? says, Spector consistently voted with The Democrats, then it would seem appropriate he and The Republicans parted ways. If Lieberman was ostracized by Dems for only one issue, as huh? says, then it looks more like he was driven out. And Lieberman didn’t choose to become Independent, unless doing so in order to keep his seat was a choice.

                  1. Lieberman did so to please his main campaign contributors and the main constituent of the Connecticut economy which are pharmaceutical companies.

          3. The only significant issue on white Lieberman dissented from the Democratic party was Iraq.

            Other than that, his voting record is solidly liberal.

            1. **Except when he took down Clinton’s attempt at health reform in 1994 (which didn’t even include a public option…)

    2. cannot wait to vote against spector. another fraud.

  52. Scozzofava’s endorsement of the Democrat is merely the cherry on top of Rich’s sundae of stupidity. If nothing else, it certainly validates what those evil right wingers feared about her, no?

    1. That she was at least partially sane?

      1. That she was at least partially sane completely retarded?

  53. Validates what those evil right wingers feared about her and oh by the way completely INvalidates Tubby’s thesis.

  54. What a cool post thanks for sharing.

  55. I usually don’t expect many actual casualties in re-enactments of bloody atrocities.

  56. So then all the Tea Baggin’ dipshits and all the Republicant talking heads, and a good portion of Republican politicians who’ve used the term ‘Stalinist’ are Stalinists?

    1. Presumably you can name names.

  57. Hey Liberty Mike! We found your Ad Hom – it’s Vinny!

  58. I can’t wait to see how the libs try and spin what could very well be a SWEEP in the BIG BLUE Northeast on Tuesday. They TRY and make it sound like a Republican civil war. The bigger story is that the moderates and the independents are RUNNING AWAY from Obama, Harry and Nancy. This will be a major factor on the health care debate as the Blue Dogs see their future. Grab some popcorn and we’ll buy you libs some tissues!

  59. Pardon my ignorance of pseudo-intellectual-speak, but what the heck is a “Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses”?

    What serious psychologist or shrink still cites Freud’s theories?

    How does such drivel get published, let alone given serious thought?

  60. I also think McDonnell in Virginia has the winning formula for Conservatives going forward. A strong focus on WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO LEAD. A limited Govt. free market focus, and playing down the social issues that scare off the moderates. We can take back the house and make a huge dent in the Senate with this platform. Read it and WEEP DEMS. As Jimmi Hendrix said “I’m comin to getcha”

  61. Anyone who doesn’t have a picture of President Obama on the wall is a Stalinist.

    1. A picture of Stalin is OK too.

    2. Way to totally miss the point of the article.

      If you have not been living under a rock for the past few months or so and actually read the entire Rich article, you’d understand that he is saying that they are undergoing Stalinist tactics more than Obama has, while THEY are the ones undergoing name-calling propaganda techniques by likening Obama to Hitler, Stalin, etc.

      1. Anyone who compares Obama to Stalin is a Stalinist.

        1. That statement is so profound.

          You should run for president.

      2. Who’s “THEY”?

        THEM!

        THE OTHERS!!

        UNLIKE ME/US!!

        THEY are to be loathed, feared, derided, scorned, opposed, mocked, ostracized. Because they are THEY!

        1. lol.

          I meant Neo-Cons.

  62. Does Stalin count as a Godwin?

  63. Let me save everyone some time by simplifying this issue:

    Everyone who doesn’t agree with me, on every issue, is a commie nazi speaking in bad faith.

  64. “A limited Govt. free market focus, and playing down the social issues that scare off the moderates.”

    So, to win, the Republicans should pretend to be for things that they’re not really for and avoid mentioning the things that they actually are for? In other words, they should lie to get elected?

    And that’s different from your categorization of the Democrats exactly how?

    [drinks more]

    1. No, I’d rather tell the truth, that as far as I’m concerned most social issues neither are nor should be Federal issues. I may have opinions on these issues but these opinions play no role at all when I’m thinking about Presidents, Senators or representatives.

      1. Then you’re neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Would that there were more like you.

  65. Rich, That was an inane column. We are living with an Obama administration that cannot take criticism, demeans those that dissent and declares war on media. Those who call for tolerance the most are the least tolerant of all.

    1. …he says while he ignores the fact that Obama has favor in nearly every demographic while under 20% of the nation identifies themselves as Republicans….

      1. …he says while he ignores the fact that somewhere in the fever swamp of a leftist retard’s imagination Obama has favor in nearly every demographic while under 20% of the nation identifies themselves as Republicans….

      2. Hard data, please. Otherwise, it’s all bare assertions. Stating a proposition as if it is so does not make it so.

        1. Of course, I read this in a Rich article, so you will refute it.

          But the last time any poll as such was taken only 27% of the country identified themselves as Republicans

          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…..index.html

          This, although not a graph with hard data, enforces Obama’s favor in a lot of demographics. Although I cannot cite a web source, I DO know that Obama had favor in minority voters, women, and young people, and the only demographic he lost in were white men over 65. Considering Obama’s demographics are only getting bigger, I think it’s safe to say that he still has overall favor. While it may or may not happen in the future (depending on the success of his policy) they could just as easily drop.

  66. “Today’s tea party cells”

    Cells. See, because they’re terrorists.

    Hey Frank, Walter Duranty just called. He’s wondering why you’re being so nice to those right-wingers by calling them “Stalinist.”

    By the way, Matt, what’s moderate about Dede Scozzafava?

    1. Cells. See, because they’re terrorists.

      I’ve got them on a watch list.

  67. I think the point Rich was trying to get across is that while the Republicans consistently liken Obama to various totalitarian dictators while they are the ones dabbling with true exrtemism. Obama came to power through the system, was elected fairly (at least more so than Bush, but that’s a different story), and his policies are witnessed in stable countries across the world. People seem to think that the United States’ bailout package, health care package and Cap-and-trade system are Socialist when in fact they lean closer to the right than really any other developed nation. Also, people throw around words like “Stalin” and “Hitler” to describe him, but we’ve yet to see any Final Solutions or systematic killings yet. By the way, he’s exerting less executive power than the previous administration, which seemed to get what it wanted no matter what the circumstance.

    Meanwhile, Republican talk shows hosts (mainly those devoid of any real education, i.e. Limbaugh, Palin, Beck) and even politicians yell all kinds of crazy comparisons, encourage bringing firearms to meetings with the President, and Republican officials are going the route of Jacobin extemisms a’la Stalin.

    1. Your screen name is entirely fitting.

      1. you’re not Socrates’ idea of a genius yourself, there.

        Honestly, why the hostility? I have no clue who you are, and you to me, I don’t see why you need to be a dick. Seriously you’re not exactly going to convince anyone anything if your just some angry asshole.

        1. The only hostility here is coming from you.

          1. Can you see anything in my first post that could be considered hostile?

            I mean you COULD have just said nothing, but you said (presumably in the most asshole accent possible) “your screen name is fitting” How does this advance anything in any way? It SEEMS like the intent would just to be a condescending asshole.

            1. I don’t see anything in your first post that’s coherent enough to be discerned as hostility.

              1. Coherent is the word of the week isn’t it?

                You must be pleased with yourself.

    2. By the way, he’s exerting less executive power than the previous administration, which seemed to get what it wanted no matter what the circumstance.

      Link?

      Obama’s kept pretty much all the expanded unconstitutional executive powers Bush seized, and doubled down on spending.

      If your point is that Obama so far has been incapable of getting the worst part of his agenda enacted, such as card check and socialized medicine, ummm, OK.

      It’s not that Obama’s not exerting less executive power, it’s that his power grabs are so outrageous that opposition is mounting.

      People seem to think that the United States’ bailout package, health care package and Cap-and-trade system are Socialist when in fact they lean closer to the right than really any other developed nation.

      Apparently you didn’t read the threads where European leaders criticized Obama for being too radically leftist even for them.

      1. Pardon me I do not have a link to specifically warrant my claim that he is less power seizing, but I can simply say in response that yes, he is not nearly as intrusive into legislative activity as Bush. Part of this is because he hasn’t even had a year in office, and this may change over time (although not necessarily), he hasn’t done anything that is downright illegal like the Bush administration. If you will, please tell me how he EXPANDED the Bush administration’s offenses? Or what power grabs you are talking about?

        Also, please link me to these threads. I’d love to read them.

        My point is, I don’t think Obama is the greatest president ever, far from it so far, but I DO believe that he is probably our best option at this point. I sure as hell don’t see any good GOP candidates (I try so hard to look in my own party for someone good but it never works), or any other Dems to speak of either. For a person still in his first year, I’m impressed that he’s already making strides in Iran and North Korea, and that he is pushing the health care package that he is which is supported by most physicians, scientists, health organizations and insurance moguls that I know, but I do believe his TARP package is odd, I’ve yet to see how he will handle Israel and Afghanistan (dear god will those 40,000 troops be a waste), and I don’t see why he is building his economic team out of such odd characters.

        We’ll just have to see I guess….

        1. So the measure of “power-seizing” is how intrusive he is into legislative activity?

          I presume you mean how he let’s Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid set the agenda, but I’m not exactly sure that should qualify as a good thing to an Obama supporter.

          Anyway, the measure of expanded executive reach ought to be how many powers the executive branch claims for itself. Since the election, that’s included expanding the powers of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve bank (both falling under executive purview), the addition of several new “Czars” (presidential appointees granted broad regulatory powers), the apparant belief that the President gets to decide who qualifies as a news organization, and the complete failure to roll back any of the wire-tapping, executive privledge, and secrecy policies that Bush advanced.

          1. Anywa, setting the legislative agenda is actually one of the powers enumerated to the president in the constitution. Bills may be introduced by the White House, not just members of congress. So, if anything, “interference” in legislation doesn’t even qualify as an expansion of executive authority anyway.

          2. The Bush administration often intruded a bit too far into the making of bills, manipulated the language to do their bidding, and did many illegal things off the record.

            Nobody thinks Obama’s decision is th be-all end-all in terms of media. This is blatant exaggeration. Also, rolling back any such activities as peviously mentioned is filled with complex bureaucracies and would take significant work that distracts from bigger issues such as the economy, health care reform, climate change, and foreign relations.

            Look, I don’t think he’s the perfect president, I just think these extremist comparisons are ludicrous and half-assed.

          3. “I presume you mean how he let’s Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid set the agenda, but I’m not exactly sure that should qualify as a good thing to an Obama supporter. ”

            I do really dislike Reid and Pelosi, but hell at least he’s following the constitution, and if he wants to use his veto power its within his right.

        2. For a person still in his first year, I’m impressed that he’s already making strides in Iran and North Korea

          You’re easily impressed, I guess. What strides has he made with regard to those countries?

          he is pushing the health care package that he is which is supported by most physicians, scientists, health organizations and insurance moguls that I know,

          1. He’s not pushing any health care plan. He’s pushing the idea of a health care plan.

          2. I thought the eeeeeeeevil insurance companies were fighting tooth and nail against those poor underdog Dems who want to rescue the middle class from their evil clutches. If you admit that the insurance companies are on board with “reform”, then you’re fresh out of bogeymen to blame for the stalling, and possible defeat, of health care “reform”.

          1. “You’re easily impressed, I guess. What strides has he made with regard to those countries? ”

            The United States, Iran and Russia have agreed to terms of a deal that I am not toally clear on, but uranium has been EXPORTED from Iran.

            Also, North Korea is actually willing to SPEAK to us instead of being extremely shady and hostile which is a huge step.

            “He’s not pushing any health care plan. He’s pushing the idea of a health care plan. ”

            He has proposed a plan to Congress, that is false.

            “I thought the eeeeeeeevil insurance companies were fighting tooth and nail against those poor underdog Dems who want to rescue the middle class from their evil clutches. If you admit that the insurance companies are on board with ‘reform’, then you’re fresh out of bogeymen to blame for the stalling, and possible defeat, of health care ‘reform’. ”

            I’ll ignore the snark. Anyways, you seem to paint a picture of me that I feel sympathetic for Democratic members of Congress. I don’t. I hate every congressperson equally. Also, you’d be making a generality to say ALL insurance companies are bad ones. Most businesses that have people I’m familiar with are small ones who can’t really afford to manipulate consumers. The problem is MOST of the market of insurance and pharmaceutical are using dirty taxes to maximize profit maliciously.

            Not everything is as black and white as you’d like to think.

            1. He has proposed a plan to Congress, that is false.

              That is not the case.
              Both the House and Senate health care bills were creations of the congressional Democrats, not the White House. The White House has very notably (and to significant commentary you seem unaware of) not crafted it’s own proposal. It has merely encouraged congressional Democrats to come up with one. They have also pointedly refused to take a side on the public option.

            2. ” The United States, Iran and Russia have agreed to terms of a deal that I am not toally clear on, but uranium has been EXPORTED from Iran.

              Also, North Korea is actually willing to SPEAK to us instead of being extremely shady and hostile which is a huge step. ”

              Even if the Iran story is correct (and that requires a link, friend), it’s pretty weak tea. NK is still shady and hostile and “talk” doesn’t count as much of a foreign policy stride in my book.

              So, I repeat, you are easily impressed.

              1. This is not the article I read it in, but it sums up the whole Iran thing right now.

                http://www.alarabiya.net/artic…..88802.html

                Also I think the North Korea situation was at a point in which there were no comms, and now there are.

                I also find it great how the Lee & Ling situations weren’t escalated but were resolved, and we now could be closer to a true peace agreement that Bush totally screwed up for us.

              2. This is not the article I read it in, but it sums up the whole Iran thing right now.

                http://www.alarabiya.net/artic…..88802.html

                Also I think the North Korea situation was at a point in which there were no comms, and now there are.

                I also find it great how the Lee & Ling situations weren’t escalated but were resolved, and we now could be closer to a true peace agreement that Bush totally screwed up for us.

    3. I take issue with your implication that Bush was not legitimately elected. Given the amount of Democrat voter fraud that has been ongoing for years, he probably received a plurality, if not a majority, of the legitimate vote. Likewise, Obama’s majority was probably more like 51% of the legitmate vote. I also seem to remember eight years of leftists mindlessly throwing around the words “Nazi” and “Hitler” in conjunction with Bush. As I remember it, Bush merely commented that the beauty of our country is that everyone is allowed to express his opinion, no matter how onerous he found them. Not to say Bush was a good president – he wasn’t; he set the table with comments like “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”, run-away spending, TARP, etc. and Obama sat down to dinner with a “stimulus package” that is nothing more than pork for favored constituencies, cap and trade, and the healthcare debacle, all designed to expand government and disempower individuals.

      You apparently confuse indoctrination with the ability to think clearly. Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck all point to specific examples of Obama administration attempts (so far) to centralize power among themselves – plans to control media (including the internet), to cite only one area, and attack their attackers with their own words… which is more than I can say for your condescending but uninformed ad hominem attack on them.

      1. Although it’s now water under the bridge, there exist, without any dispute, far more questions about the legitimacy of Bush’s first election than Obama’s. The stupid conspiracy theories about ACORN or whatever you are invoking have no factual substantiation whatsoever. Ah, how I long for the days when facts weren’t optional in forming a respectable opinion.

        So TARP was Bush’s big mistake? Invading a country on false pretenses and making torture a policy of the US didn’t bother you?

        Do you feel that your individual liberty is threatened? Or are you just parroting the rightwing bobbleheads you approvingly cited?

        1. Although it’s now water under the bridge to 0bama’s fellators, there exists, without any dispute, far more questions about absolutely no credible objection whatsoever to the legitimacy of Bush’s first election than whereas O0bama’s COLB is not a legitimate document for proving citizenship. The stupid conspiracy theories about ACORN Bush’s election or whatever you are Fat Tony is invoking have no factual substantiation whatsoever. Ah, how I all leftists must long for the days when facts weren’t optional in forming a respectable opinion as long as one was on the left.

          So TARP was Bush’s big mistake? Yes, yes it was. Invading a country kleptocracy and brutal military dictatorship known to have murdered up to a million of its own people on false pretenses premises of which the majority proved to be true and a bare few proved to be mistaken and making torture interrogations no harsher than the endurance tests to which we subject our own soldiers a policy of the US didn’t bother you? It sure doesn’t bother me.

          Do you feel that your individual liberty is threatened? Because if you don’t, you must be either stupid or evil; or both. Or are you Perhaps Fat Tony here is just parroting the rightwing bobbleheads left-wing Chicago thugs you he approvingly citeds on a regular basis?

          Honestly, Tony, are you using your head to store stained blue dresses, or what?

          1. You’re making a lot of effort to defend the one of the least popular presidents in history.

            I’ll not hold my breath while all the true freedom lovers here tear you apart for being in favor of the GOVERNMENT TORTURING PEOPLE.

            1. Yeah just keep repeating that ‘torture’ mantra to yourself, it’ll help you get to sleep at night, and keep obvious facts out of your head like how what we did to captured terrorists was the EXACT SAME THING we put our own troops through. Now, if you want to argue that the US tortures its own troops, go for it, little brain. You might want to look up the acronym SERE sometime in relation to this. Actually, I know you won’t, because facts contrary to your worldview roll off your brain like water off a duck’s back, but everyone else who’s interested can look that up and see what a blithering fool you are.

    4. I think the point Rich was trying to get across is that while the Republicans consistently liken Obama to various totalitarian dictators while they are the ones dabbling with true exrtemism.

      So, the Republicans are the real extremist while Obama hired a real honest to God Maoist to be his communications director.

      Okay.

      1. Explain how the effect of this appointment is extreme?

        1. Given the uncomfortable truth of the matter, I don’t blame you for your attempt to move to the goal post. I admire the supple insistence on casuistry where prima facie is already established.

          1. Well that’s all well and good but have we been moving closer to Maoism policy-wise in terms of Comms under the administration?

            And why is it that for some reason most people educated on the issues at play tend to simply disagree with everything you hold dearly.

    5. There’s a lot of begging the question going on here, and also several completely unfounded and easily controverted assumptions.

  68. STFU Huh.

    Go give some incontinent homeless person a rimjob, u fucking asshole.

  69. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

  70. Let’s remind Mr. Welch that only Nazis call Obama a Nazi, then. Perhaps he could pass that message on to the right. This is such inconsistent and unREASONable reasoning that this specific piece deserves no other comment. Perhaps it would helpful if everyone would stop calling their opponents anything. I swear, political debate in this country today sounds more like two eight-year olds having a childish argument during recess than mostly very rich and educated adults trying to solve the problems of the country and the world. “Did!” “Did not!” “Did!” “Did not!” “Your mother’s so fat…”

    1. Name-calling is so facist.

    2. You sound like the six year old who wants to play with the eight year old kids, but he gets ignored by everyone.

      Awwwww.

      I responded out of pity so go ahead, I know you want to think me, but if you damn me instead for public appearances, I’ll play along because I’m just that nice of a guy.

      1. Damn homonym impaired asshole!

  71. A partisan hack piece by a partisan hack columnist accusing and criticizing his opponents of being partisan hacks. No wonder the New York Times is in the shitter.

    1. No wonder the New York Times is in the shitter.

      Actually, there’s market for left-wing partisan hacks. The NYT is in the shitter because the left-wing partisan hacks who run it are lousy businessmen.

      -jcr

  72. “the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society’s “ruthless prosecution” of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.”

    It’s stupid if Rich thinks this is to the same degree as the Stalin era, where they KILLED many people, but he’s probably trying to make an analogy about “ideological purity”, one libertarians and conservatives (and liberals) alike should listen to. Fanatics, DESPAIR (yes, you know if you are a fanatic or not, I’m talking to YOU but not YOU).

    1. There is a difference between having principles and being a fanatic. Being a fanatic involves beliefs as well as the means and methods to attain beleifs. If you have a set of principles that you do not compromise but restrict the methods you use to voting and participating in the political proccess, you are uncompromising not a fanatic. You are only a fanatic when you begin to believe that any means or extreme means are justified in attaining your desired ends.

      There is nothing fanatical about what is going on in NY23. The Republican Party ran someone who violates many of the principles people in the Republican Party hold dear. So they responded participating in the lawful election and voting and giving money to someone they found more agreeable. They are not fanatics. Fanatics would be resorting to violence or other extreme measures.

      For you to call them fanatics is wrong and frankly disgusting. You only say that because you apparently have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you in a persistent mannor.

    2. That’s right, sweetie, everybody is a fanatic but you.

    3. Nothing remains ’round the abandoned NYT building.
      The potholed and weedy concrete stretches far away…

  73. I thought this was America, when did it become purging to voice your personal opinion by voicing support for any candidate? The republicans who came out to support hoffman looked at the candidates and supported the one who most closely represented their views, and now that Dede has suppoted owens we know why she lost the confidence of so many conservatives. I could not find a single issue she espowsed that would make her claim to be republican.

    1. Because in people like MNG’s world, conservatives have no right to voice and vote their principles. If they do, they are fanatics. Conservatives are only allowed to vote for fake moderates who agree with MNG. In the end, in MNG’s view, it is his world and the rest of us just live in it.

  74. Isn’t the real point that, if it’s ridiculous for Frank Rich to call the most vocal members of the American right “Stalinists,” then it’s also ridiculous for the right to call Obama and Pelosi “Stalinists”? Who has been executed by the Obama administration? Where have the show trials been? This doesn’t seem like that difficult a concept to me, but it seems that people expounding it only like it applied to themselves and their ideological allies.

    1. Who has called Obama and Pelosi Stalinists? I know Beck has made jokes(?) about communism, but has he gone so far as to label people Stalinists?

      1. Rush Limbaugh uses the word to describe them literally every day. Stalinist, Fascist, Communist, Leftist, Socialist…these are all dropped daily by Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity does so as well, though perhaps not with the regularity of Rush (though I can’t say for sure, since he says something to that effect almost everytime I am subjected to him, which is much less than I hear Rush’s antics). As for Glen Beck, he makes some out-there comments, but I can’t say for sure because I don’t watch him regularly.

        1. Do you have a direct quote of Limbaugh calling anybody a Stalinist? You might have noticed that people have had trouble backing up their assertions about him lately.

          1. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho…..guest.html

            Headline:
            Democrats Launch New Stalinist Stunt Aimed at Silencing El Rushbo

            1. Thanks, DeepOmega. Jim, the answer is yes. I had tried to indicate that I was speaking from first-hand experience, but the link makes difficult inferences unnecessary.

    2. Several million babies so far.

      “Executed” on the grounds that the 0ne doesn’t want his (apparently) eminently bangable preteens “punished with a baby” if they ever take to whoring themselves out in a more literal sense than his administration has been.

      Gotta kill all those little babies! They’re a terrorist threat to the New World Order in which we’ll all be banging anything that moves (and some things that don’t) while singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” and getting free plastic surgery down at the newly opened Fidel Castro Free Clinic, which will be powered entirely by windmills driven by unicorn farts.

  75. I have a rule in my classroom during class discussions. The first one who makes a Hitler comparison loses all credibility, unless their subject happens to be interwar Germany. I think the same should go for Stalin and any politician of the USA. There are no comaparisons to be made there. If you’re going to make an analogy, don’t make an outlandish one.

    However, it is fair to make comparisons between the John Birch Society and the Tea Party movement – both grassroots right wing movements with much of their thinking grounded in conspiracy theories.

    1. The only conspiracy theory in which the Tea Parties are grounded is that our elected officials have conspired to deliver huge amounts of taxpayer money to their friends and colleagues in big banks and on Wall Street.

      Which isn’t really a conspiracy, since conspiracies are supposed to operate in secret, while this arrangement is mostly out in the open. So I guess you do have a point.

      1. Tulpa is right, the tea-party movement is about the rise in the size of government and the deficit. These are the people who because of anger over the republican spending stayed home in 06′ and werent energized until sarah palin. however it wasn’t enough to over come countries desire for change. they just didn’t know what obama was talking about.

  76. Are Mao comparisons okay?

    🙂

  77. “However, it is fair to make comparisons between the John Birch Society and the Tea Party movement – both grassroots right wing movements with much of their thinking grounded in conspiracy theories.”

    any evidence to back up this outlandish claim?

    or does your libertarianism keep you above all those little things like facts and evidence?

    or would you rather just keep your seat at the Debate Club than go outside and get involved in the fight?

    and it is a fight, a street fight for the soul of the country.

    1. The beliefs that Obama is a Muslim or not lawfully president or a communist or intent on destroying individual liberty are not exactly fringe thoughts in the Tea Party movement, though they are in general.

      You do know that those are stupid conspiracy theories and not reality, don’t you?

      1. Destroying individual liberty is the President’s job description Tony.Why do you think Harding was such a shitty President?

        1. And Obama’s doing a bang-up job. Bush didn’t get it done on schedule.

      2. Like i just said, the tea party movement is all about the size and scope of gov. and deficits. I am sure their are some birthers in their or racists but they are a small slither and ignorant. Just like in liberal rallies their are plenty of nutjobs like the truthers. the biggest difference is in the civility of the teaparty rallies compared to liberal ones. of the hundreds of thousands in dc no arrests were made.

        1. That might have to do with the civility of the authorities toward the right (as opposed to their civility toward the left) more than it has to do with the civility of the right in general. Arrests do not mean incivility (remember the anti-Bush demonstrators who were arrested for tee-shirts, while Tea Partiers carry guns to healthcare debates and burn elected officials in effigy).

          Of course, my hope is that those on the left are a little better acquainted with the English language than gentlemen like turhan on the right. What’s ironic is that it is the right who would prefer to make mandatory a language with which they are so unfamiliar.

  78. I have seen enough nazi references. Because of the mass atrocities and genecide comparisons to hitler allways backfire but putting aside the violent nature of the nazis the obama administration is the closest america has ever seen. Allow me to esplain.
    Hitler had the hitler youth, voluntary but very seductive. during the campaign groups of young youths marched through school hallway is fatigues chanting pro-obama slogans. teachers are teaching our children to sing songs announcing their devotion to the furor. The obama administration inititialy put out worksheets for our kids to go along his speech decribing how they plan to help the president. The NEA sought through taxpayer funded grants ways the art community could develop adminstration supporting propoganda.
    Hitler surrounded himself with eugenisists who planned to grow the arryan race through genicide and experiamentaion. One of obamas czars, I think the science czar wrote a book promoting forced sterilization. he probably forot to vet that guy.
    hitler used control of the media a highly publisized passionate speechs.
    Obama’s fcc diversity czar praises hugo chavez on how ushered revolution. He is attempting to shut down any media that critizes chavez. This guy is promoting the fairness doctrine and community-standards doctrine to shut down media they view as hostile.
    I would like anyone to attempt to rebut anything i just wrote. its one thing to throw around the nazi label its another to show examples on why you believe what you do.

    1. Are you capable of having a thought that wasn’t fed to you by the Drudge report or Limbaugh?

      1. I witnessed everything i claimed with my own eyes and ears. i saw the video of the schoolchildren chanting, I heard the remarks of the fcc diversity csar, and I saw the quotations from the science csar’s own writting. I took all that information to draw comparions to the tactics of the third reich. knowone ive seen has made that comparison because of how sick the nazis were. and i said put aside the violent atrocities and look how they are governing.

      2. Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.

        1. Are you capable of having a thought that wasn’t fed to you by the Drudge report or Limbaugh?

          1. Go back to masturbating to the works of Chairman Mao, you prick.

        2. Please rebut the facts. Calling my view extreme because i used people in their own words to make a loose comparison, I said Obama comes closest than any other american president which is still not even close because of all the nazi statements. At least I tried to back the claim with examples.

      3. Yeah, really, everyone knows that the real news is on Jon Stewart.

        These right-wingers are so dumb it’s funny.

        1. First, jon stewart is a comedian who plays clips of people and makes jokes. Then he tries to interview people. If you get information from your an idiot.
          Second, why I am dumb. Please back up your statement if you can.

          1. You’re dumb because you right wingers are fat and ugly and eat at McDonald’s and unhealthy buffet restaurants. Also you drink commerial beers like Bud Light.

            I bet you tards have never even heard of ‘organic’ or ‘microbrew’.

            1. If that is how the human race should classify their peers, then I doubt the we will last another 1000 years.Anyone who does not know what “microbrew” or organic is should just be marched to the showers and executed, right? I can’t believe how abusive the people are to each other here. It really makes me question the intelligence of the average American, as my chief resident in Orthopedics said thirty years ago!

              1. “But… we’re not elitists!”, they bleat after saying something elitist…

    2. Come on, everybody. Give the man a chance to esplain. You were saying, Ricky?

  79. I am still waiting for someone to rebut, that is how debating works.

  80. i think we ran them all off, lol

    buncha pussies

    1. Well, you’re still here.

  81. Off subject,
    There is only one way to bring down the cost of healthcare. Everyone purchases Health saving accounts with a high-deductible catastrophic insurance just like car insurance. Premiums would vary based on age and pre-existing conditions just like how safe drivers get lower premiums than drivers with bad histories. If ins. companies had to pay for oilchanges tuneups and other low cost expenses premiums would be much higher. Since anyone who experiences a medical emergency they would only have to come up with the deductible which would eliminate the medical bancrupcies. Since you would pay the doctor directly for everday services you could negotiate a lower price with the doc. who would be happy since they would recieve a check from the patient. For low income people on medicaid the gov. would just fund their account and the would pay for med. expenses to the doc. lowering costs. Ins companies would compete nationwide to provide the catastrophic cov. much like Geico, allstate ext compete for car ins.

  82. Its hard to rebut facts

  83. Did you see those black kids in highschools marching in fatigues through hallways chanting”Obama obama.” That made me cringe. No elected official working for the American people should ever be treated like that like some totalitarian dictatator.

  84. I guess my rhetoric is just too much for everyone.

  85. Hey shoey, how is my rhetoric. It one thing to make statements its another to back them up with examples.

  86. I feal like a talkshow host with no listeners.

  87. No elected official working for the American people should ever be treated like that like some totalitarian dictatator.

    I disagree.I look forward to the day when they are treated like Mussolini and Ceausescu.

  88. Frank Rich calling anybody a “stalinist” is an utterance so rich with irony and arrogance, it defies all probability. And Mr. Rich, Harvard notwithstanding, is most assuredly an idiot….

  89. If anyone can give me a better thought plan for h.care without 1900 pages then try.

  90. and wasnt it the dem who ran a primary candidate to leiberman who was their v.p. nominee just 6 years earlier.

  91. http://flagwhitehouse.blogspot…..nt-to.html

    A conservative is a citizen who wants to choose his own toilet paper.

    You can add ginger and mustard and soy sauce and season it anyway you want. Intellectualize and sip your vodka martinis. Your problem is the intellectual Maoist Marxist left has evolved to a level they can no longer communicate with the average homo sapiens. We don’t give a hoot about your explanations. We know tyranny when we see it, we know socialism isn’t social security and we know Obama is a communist.

  92. Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.

    1. Do you feel that your individual liberty is threatened? Or are you just parroting the rightwing bobbleheads you approvingly cited?

      1. When radicals start talking about community standards and the fairness doctrine that is an attack on a free press and free speech just because they cant get anyone to listen. By requiring everyone to purchase h. ins thats infriging on my freedoms. By pushing for cardcheck they are taking away the secret ballot they are attacking right to a secret vote on unionization.
        need anymore

  93. Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.

  94. Um –

    A) The Right Wing started all of this by calling OBAMA a “Stalinist”, which they STILL DO, in case you haven’t noticed.

    B) Rich wasn’t referring to EXECUTIONS, idiot, he was referring to their purist philosophy itself.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your “article” or anything.

    1. Um –

      A) The Right Left Wing started all of this by calling OBAMA Bush a “Stalinist” Nazi, a chimp, a terrorist, a mass-murderer, etc., which they STILL DO, in case you haven’t noticed.

      B) Rich wasn’t referring to EXECUTIONS, idiot oh stupid columnist who’s nevertheless not half as dimwitted as Mark, he was referring to their purist philosophy itself anyone daring to speak out against leftist policies; dissent of any kind is evil, and therefore must surely be on a par with gulags and death camps.

      But don’t let the facts get in the way of your “article” “posting” or anything, Mark.

  95. Um –

    A) The Right Wing started all of this by calling OBAMA a “Stalinist”, which they STILL DO, in case you haven’t noticed.

    Um… where is this happening?

    1. Did we just have this conversation?

  96. B) Rich wasn’t referring to EXECUTIONS, idiot, he was referring to their purist philosophy itself.

    Nobody refers to a purist philosophy when Stalin is referenced, that is what Leninism is for. In fact, Stalinism is quite the opposite, a destruction of principle for the greater means.

    The argument does not hold.

    Rich was referring to what occurred in the NY-23 in the terms of a purge, and comparing it to the historic Stalinist purges, so not only does your argument not hold, it is either dishonest, or ass backwards.

    1. “Purist philosophy?” And what do Democrats do to pro life Democrats? They are treated like dirt since the DNC is run by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

  97. B) Rich wasn’t referring to EXECUTIONS, idiot, he was referring to their purist philosophy itself.

    So when I compare you to Pol Pot, I’m not accusing you of slaughtering millions of people; I’m just saying you’re kind of a creep. That work for you, Pol Pot?

    1. What is so wrong with supporting the candidate closest to you regardless of party. Knowing is telling moderates not to run but if someone joins the race not in your party that shares your beliefs how is supporting them anything like purging poltical oppenents.

  98. If memory serves correctly I believe that Frank Rich’s back ground was as the NYT’s theater critic.
    We would all be better off if he were to confine his observations to the merits of the latest Andrew Lloyd Weber offering and various bon mots overheard at whatever upper eastside diner party he may have attended.
    As a political/social commentator he displays his intellectual weakness.

  99. bleh, who cares. The GOP is killing itself, I’m pretty okay with that to be honest. I wouldn’t mind if they helped take down the Democrats as well. Both parties are corrupt and stand on no ascertainable principle aside from “more power for me now”. I’m from around the 23rd just a bit south of it and to be honest Scozzafava wasn’t all that bad, she’s replaced by anti gay, pro-life, pro-war guy. I’m anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-drug legalization. So basically the only thing I have in common with Hoffman is I want lower taxes. Well that’s a fuckin novel idea what politician hasn’t promised that in the past 300 years… who has actually delivered? sigh..

    1. I’d probably feel the same if it was my congressional district, except Scozzafava is pro-check card so voting for her is not a legitimate option either.

      What makes it interesting is what a razz-berry it is to the GOP establishment, and Newt in particular.

      If by some means that are not entirely clear to me, this race strengthens Huckabee’s hand in 2012, we are worse for it in the long run.

      I could see voting for a number of people I would normally turn my pious little nose up to in order to rid the world of the current political climate, but Huckabee is beyond the pale, big government compassionate conservatism mixed with a double heaping of the social-con stripe? It is like going through the last eight years and not learning any lessons from the misadventure.

    2. If tax cuts are your only concern then dont ever vote dem. The 2003 tax cuts lowered all marginal rates from 39 and 15% to 34 and 10%. it cut the cap. gains tax from 28 to 20% icreased the child tax credit from 600 to $1000 and lead to the greatest increase in tax revenues ever. The problem with bush was he didnt control spending. This made the annual deficits to climb from 100 billion to almost 500 billion last year. The ten year budget obama just passed creates i trillion dolloar deficits for the next ten years.
      If you want to see jobs pick up pass a two year payroll tax holiday just for businesses and cut the corp tax from 35 to 20%. you could pay for it with whats ever left in the stim. An employer must pay a matching cost of 9% on every employee it employees. If you had 10 employees ave. 50,000 a year thats almost 50,000 in savings that could be used to help hire new people or buy new equip.

    3. When you put it like that, ” anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-drug legalization”, it makes sense you’re a stoner.

      1. Never mind the legitimate arguments for all cases….

  100. And I look at the candidates record and views not party affiliation. I am a limited gov. pro growth conservative. I am personally pro- life but that issue isnt big on my list. I wanted rudy in 08′ but i do love sarah palin. she wasn’t the only reason i was excited to vote. She is what this country needs, a commonsense small town girl who never wanted to get into politics till her kids got into school and should got into the pta.

    1. Disadvantages of Palin

      1) No international experience besides the whole “Look ma, Russia!” thing.

      2) She hasn’t really dealt with much public responsibility at all. She was the mayor of a near desolate town that didn’t even have its own school system (yet she found the money to build a state-of-the-art hockey rink). She was governor of Alaska for all of two years, where everyone is pretty much happy because of oil money, and there is only one person per square mile.

      3) No real education in politics. According to wikipedia she grew up in Sandpoint, Idaho. Now, it’s a beautiful place (I’ve been there), but when she was a kid there was just about nothing there. To call her a small town girl is an understatement. She lived in rural Idaho. She went to U of Idaho (suggesting that she wasn’t a spectacular student; not bad but not that good either) and didn’t study politics or history there. If you asked her who Metternich was she might talk about toblerones.

  101. Here’s a thought. Why don’t we just reduce the Federal government back down to the Enumerated powers? Then tools on both the Left and Right can take over their preferred state and run it into the ground instead of the whole country? Less partisan asshattery, less campaign money needed to run for far less powerful Federal offices, less corporate influence peddling and crony capitalism, we’re all be much freer to do what we want to do without having to worry about the lunes in the other party telling us how to live, and we all have alot more money in our pockets assuming we are attempting to pursue happiness rather than believing we’re entitled to it. What’s not to like? 🙂

  102. Frank Rich realized he could spew more venum doing op-eds for the NYT than laying open the latest Andrew LLoyd Webber musical.

    The internet, for better and worse, has allowed us to observe the very best and very worst of human behavior–and in the case of Frank Rich it has given him a platform he never would have had given the slippery slope the NYT is now on.

    Whether it’s Palin or Bush, it all comes down to the same thing for Rich: he is still a theater critic at heart but now the world is the stage he critiques with the same haughty, self-importance.

  103. In the U.S., Democrats purge over three thousand 3000 a day, unborn, largely black & poor minority. Then there’s the ‘hood, another purging area for the “unfortunate born”. How to keep the poor oppressed?
    How to befriend a dog? Feed it!

  104. Lawrence O’Donnell was just on “Morning Joe” urging viewers that “if they only read one article on NY23 they should read Frank Rich’s November 1st column. Lawrence say it is full of “facts”.

    How do these guys keep on getting work?

    1. O’Donnell, the guy who hates Mormons, would not know a “fact” if it hit him in the face. He is a Democratic hack.

  105. While “GOP Stalinist” is an oxymoron, Frank Rich is simply a moron.

  106. We don’t need Frank Rich telling us conservatives how to vote or what to believe in. He is a “theater critic” who used to destroy plays and put people out of business. He is also just not a nice person.

  107. This is just the latest talking point sent down to libs by Dear Leader. They are pi$$ed that Republicans have the nerve to not back the candidates who are obviously liberals. So now, they are trying to demonize conservatives enough that the moderates will vote for dems in NY. Obvious tactic and getting way too much play in the media.

    1. I think the consensus is that the least favorable outcome in that election for Dems would be the moderate Republican winning. That might (but probably wouldn’t) have tipped off the GOP that going moderate is the way to win nationally. Now if Hoffman wins, the story goes, they will continue purging all moderates from the party–which is a good way to continue losing nationally for the foreseeable future.

      1. Tony: Some may have seen it that way a week or two ago, but since most people have learned Scozzafava’s views now, which are more in line with Democrats than Republicans anyway, I think they see this for what it is. Hoffman was really the only Republican in the race to begin with. Perhaps NY Republicans will ask actual party voters for some help in picking a candidate next time, huh?

        1. The entire problem is that you can’t be a Republican if you don’t hold all the right views on a few cultural issues. There are conservative Democrats. Why can’t there be liberal Republicans? The purging is a recipe for a generation of minority status.

          1. Now tell us what a big fan you are of Joe Lieberman.

            1. I want to know where all the pro-growth, small-government Democrats are.

              I’ve got one of those old-time phone booths, and I figure they could hang out there.

  108. RE: Frank Rich

    You are reading Rich all wrong.

    You don’t read Rich to find a coherent argument.

    You read Rich to find out the tone of the current upper-west-side political conversation.

    What Rich says is the current glib responses you would encounter if you were by some mistake present at an upper-west-side cocktail party. The fun of Rich is to imagine yourself in a fashionable penthouse overlooking The Park sipping on your brew while Rich giving his imaginative justifications of Leftist Intellectual Supremacy.

    Imagine, if you will:
    Rich finishes, the room pauses, you belch lightly and having drawn the attention of the entire room you waive your Bud bottle and say?.[insert crushing rebuke].

    I love Rich. I play this game whenever he writes a ‘good’ column. Sometimes I even drink beer when I do it 🙂

  109. Rich finishes, the room pauses, you belch lightly and having drawn the attention of the entire room you waive your Bud bottle and say? “Mohammed on a moped, Frank. That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. Nobody’s paying you to be an idiot here, so I have to assume its congenital. Was your mother a heavy drinker, or did the nanny hit you over the head with that silver spoon?”.

    1. Rich was the kind of guy who got wedgied in grade school, high school, AND college… so his “revenge” was to grow up and become the man he is today.

      To paraphrase Paul Harvey:

      “…and that little boy that nobody liked, grew up to be… Frank Rich. And now you know, the rrrrest of the story.”

  110. What a drama queen.

  111. So all the useless Czars in the government has led to stalinism?

    1. Stalinism, communism, and apparently czarist monarchy. When they’re not Nazis and fascists of course. Also I think Obama eats puppies.

    2. Stalinism, communism, and apparently czarist monarchy. When they’re not Nazis and fascists of course. Also I think Obama eats puppies.

    3. Not any faster than we’re headed towards now, but having non-elected/accountable pseudo-Cabinet members could lead to more liberal-style despotism – which isn’t that much worse/better than conservative-flavored despotism.

  112. Weren’t conservatives just calling Obama Hitler a while ago?? Jeez, look in the mirror for once. Do you people even listen to the crap that comes out of your mouths??

    1. Both sides do it.

      I think it’s amusing.

  113. He he… Republicans are funny; funny like people picking up their dog’s poop in a plastic bag kinda funny.

  114. Interesting article.. I believe this to be farely true.

  115. “Stalin’s Great Purge (just to name his most famous one) included roughly 1,000 executions a day, over two years.”

    Where is the evidence, or do we all just go on blindly accepting the fact that Stalin was a monster?

  116. Who the heck *is* Frank Rich? LOL Does anyone read these naval-gazing progressive illiterates at the New York Times is UP?

  117. He certainly has embraced all the Hitlerian methodologies — take overs, brainwashing, threatening the media, taxing, what’s next?

  118. So, how exactly is this suppossed to make us less fearful of cranky, old Conservative people who care little about the facts because they have nothing left to live for?

    The argument is about the rampant misrepresentation of facts, and fear-mongering which Conservatives, and obviously Libertarians seem all too willing to engage in.

    Look, here’s the reality: Reason Magazine defends these types of tactics because they have, and want to continue to use similar tactics to scare people into listening to them. So, it’s obvious that when Right-Wing scare tactics are criticized by the mainstream, then their livelihoods feel threatened as well. Also, they are aware that their readers are made up of many Teabagger types, and so they have to indulge their share-holders, and give them comfort.

    They should change the name of this magazine from “Reason” to “Deluded Rationalizations.”

    It’s like the whole FOX “No Spin Zone” tag line. Simply name your racket after something righteous (Reason), and stack the deck before the viewer has had a chance to decide for themselves.

    In general, it seems that outfits that engage in these tactics tend to have the least amount of integrity, and shouldn’t be trusted.

  119. Rights are not privileges; privileges are not rights. You have a right to travel; it’s an aspect of liberty, but there is no right to travel to a particular place. It is quite reasonable for the US government to require application for the privilege of entering the USA, and a duty to carry out proper background investigations on every applicant to determine whether they’re in the habit of initiating force or fraud, and to determine whether they’re likely to initiate force or fraud within the USA.

  120. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.