« 300 Lies | Main | Midnight Basketball »

March 13, 2007

Quote of the Day

From Air America's kind offer to host or co-host a Republican debate:

[we] would allow Republicans to differentiate themselves from Democrats – embracing a debate hosted by a progressive media outlet after Nevada Democrats canceled a debate scheduled to be hosted by the conservative Fox Cable News Channel. The MoveOn organization spurred 265,000 people to complain about the original plan, calling Fox a “mouthpiece for the Republican Party.” In reply, Fox’s Mort Kondracke called the Nevada Democratic Party's rejection of Fox a “Stalinist” violation of “free speech and free debate.” So should you accept Air America's offer, Republicans would both embrace free debate and stick it to Stalin at the same time.

The right does hate Stalin...

March 13, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Is Air America still on the air?

Sean Hannity wasn't going to moderate the debate. The reason I mention him is because he is not as vile and dispicable as those on Air America, but he is partisan.

Will the Democrat presidential nominee boycott the presidential debate that FoxNews sponsors?

Of course the Dem nominee will, he/she is not going to miss out on the biggest cable news audience on the planet. And at that time, the base no longer matters.

FoxNews Channel, The Most Watched, Most Trusted Name in News.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 13, 2007 2:56:59 PM

Only problem is, many people watch Fox, alomst nobody listens to Air America.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla | Mar 13, 2007 3:06:57 PM

The right does hate Stalin...

Well, it's more of a love-hate relationship.

Posted by: Jason | Mar 13, 2007 4:08:55 PM

Actually, the listernership of Air America is roughly the same as the average evening viewership of Fox News. 24-hour cable TV news networks actually have miniscule audiences compared to regular TV, even the biggest cable news network on the planet doesn't compete with a 10 year old ER rerun in primetime.
It's a clever offer from Air America. Doubtless it will be ignored.

Posted by: sprocket | Mar 13, 2007 4:32:17 PM

cappy toke...sean hannity...ZZZ Z Z zzZ z Z zZ z z z z Z z Z

Sorry, I must have dozed off there for a moment.

republicans would never go for it. Ever. Not even by mistake. It is funny.

What's even more funny is that there is no democratic analog to fox on tv.

Now that's hilarious.

Posted by: ice weasel | Mar 13, 2007 4:46:05 PM

Here's how it might have gone:

Moderator: Senator McCain, you first. Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2007 5:15:03 PM

I thought the right hates Stalin because they are Trotskyites.

Posted by: BillCross | Mar 13, 2007 5:25:06 PM

EVERYONE hates Stalin. But the right still finds him useful.

Posted by: dale | Mar 13, 2007 5:37:29 PM

His daughter Svetlana might not hate him. She lives in Wisconsin, so it's possible to ask her.

Posted by: sidereal | Mar 13, 2007 7:36:53 PM


This
should clear things up

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2007 7:38:11 PM

MoveOn should host a Republic party debate--with subsequent commentary by Air America.

Posted by: dell | Mar 13, 2007 10:42:05 PM

its cute, i'll give them that. and the poster above is totally right. the funny thing is foxes numbers are very smal. just like the other cable news companies. the only reason why fox stays afloat is niche marketing in an already small market (cable news). so don't expect them to change soon. it's neither idealogically or business wise going to happen. they count despite the claims of folks like toke on the wingnuts to keep their numbers from plunging more than they have in the the last 2 years (yes the fox numbers are actually down not that cable news has ever been good to begin with). they can not afford to be fair and balance because that's not what toke and co wants- so they give the peo (their audience) what they want- namely wingnuterry (is that a word?)

Posted by: akaison | Mar 14, 2007 12:44:38 AM

Fred said, "This should clear things up".

Uh, it's an article on the history of the American Communist Party, and appears to be completely unrelated to anything mentioned above. Could you clear up what it clears up?

Also, about your earlier "Here's how it might have gone" post. "Fox Moderator: Senator Barack 'Osama', you first. Why do you hate America?" is what we already got.

Posted by: William Bollinger | Mar 14, 2007 9:09:49 AM

EVERYONE hates Stalin.

Well, not everyone. The article shows the deep roots of the American left as communists and socialists and how popular they were as well as their support for Stalin.

And during the "Popular Front" era of the later 1930s, when Communists sought to build a broad-based American movement not so explicitly tied to the Soviet model, the Communists developed a considerable political base and measure of influence within the Democratic Party in such states as Washington, Minnesota, and California, and in the American Labor Party in New York.

If you read the rest of the article, the left was in love with Stalin and this support fractured only after Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Of course some left over this and some didn't. These millions of collectivists didn't just disappear and they still rail against capitalism, seek big government solutions to all problems, and attempt to redistribute the wealth. They just vote under a different banner now.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 14, 2007 11:03:09 AM

Uh, it's an article on the history of the American Communist Party, and appears to be completely unrelated to anything mentioned above. Could you clear up what it clears up?

To be fair, it's an article by a Socialist scholar on the history of socialist groups trying to constitute themselves as the left wing of the Democratic Party.

What it "clears up" is that Fred wants to revive the McCarthyite tactic of redbaiting Democrats and Liberals. The logic appears to be that since Socialists (not just the Communist Party) have attempted to influence the Democrats at various times, Fred thinks it completely reasonable to compare the "Left wing" of the Democratic Party to Stalinists.

Of course, by this logic, it is also perfectly reasonable to compare the GOP to the Nazis, since the historical "connections" between the GOP Rightwing and fascist sympathizers are equally well established.

Rubbish of course but I don't expect Fred to understand that.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 14, 2007 11:09:22 AM

BTW, the highest figure I have ever seen for membership in the American Communist Party was around 80,000. That was at its peak more than half a century past. Hardly millions.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 14, 2007 11:42:28 AM

Of course, by this logic, it is also perfectly reasonable to compare the GOP to the Nazis, since the historical "connections" between the GOP Rightwing and fascist sympathizers are equally well established.

Really? I had no idea that the GOP was infiltrated and demonstrably influenced by the Nazis as the Democrats were by the communists. I know that certain individuals such as Henry Ford and others sympathized, but that's certainly not the same thing. If that is your standard, then you need to seriously think about getting rid of Senator Robert Byrd for his active participation in promoting the Ku Klux Klan.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 14, 2007 5:42:16 PM

Not the same thing? How so? You had Communist sympathizers active in Democratic Party in the 1930's You had Fascist and Nazi sympathizers in the Republican party at the same time. This while the GOP was pandering to the America First Movement. Likewise, it was the hey day of the German-American Bund and the Italian-American Friendship league. So please, explain the difference.

If you're hanging your hat on the phrase "infiltrated", that suggests that the effort was covert. That in turn would exclude any open advocacy of Communism or devotion to Stalin, undermining your argument that the leftwing of the Democrats were overt Stalin lovers and completely destroying any basis for making the same assertion in the present day.

In any case, we are discussing events over 3 decades past. Which, assuming the participants were of voting age, would mean any veterans of that era, if living, would be in their eighties or nineties by now. You might as well argue that the GOP is anti-Catholic because the nativist Know Nothing Party formed part of its original nucleus.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 14, 2007 6:49:20 PM

No, I'm 'hanging my hat' on the fact that communists and socialists were *not* covertly infiltrating, but openly influencing....out in the open, and it was systemic.

In any case, we are discussing events over 3 decades past.

True. However, the left wing of the Democratic party being true to its roots, advocates lots of collectivist solutions to social problems as its first option. The left wing of the Democratic party is also the champion of wealth transfer schemes such as the soak-the-rich-taxation scheme, socialized medicine at the hands of big government single-payer provider scheme, and the Environmental movement resulting in shitty agreements like the Kyoto Protocols which, if fully implemented, would do little to nothing for the environment and everything for the shifting of wealth and power from the US to smaller nations...and everyone knows it.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 14, 2007 8:27:26 PM

True. However, the left wing of the Democratic party being true to its roots, advocates lots of collectivist solutions to social problems as its first option. The left wing of the Democratic party is also the champion of wealth transfer schemes such as the soak-the-rich-taxation scheme, socialized medicine at the hands of big government single-payer provider scheme, and the Environmental movement resulting in shitty agreements like the Kyoto Protocols which, if fully implemented, would do little to nothing for the environment and everything for the shifting of wealth and power from the US to smaller nations...and everyone knows it.

I got to "True. However..." but everything after that is just noise. Like a two year old who got his hands on a piano.

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Mar 14, 2007 11:44:28 PM

Fred, if Communist activism was open and transparent then either they weren't pushing an explicitly communist program or they didn't get much traction, since it was the Truman administration that inaugurated the Cold War policy of Containment and introduced the first loyalty tests in Government service. In fact, the Democratic Party was so inhospitable to the CP that they abandoned it for a third party in 1949.

No Fred everyone doesn't know it. You make that assumption. In fact, you make a great many assumptions.

For example, your claim that the left wing of the Democratic Party is "being true to it's roots" is only credible if you believe there was no "left wing" in that Party prior to the advent of the CPUSA. This is manifestly false since it completely ignores the impact of the Progressive movement led by figures such as Robert Lafollette as well impact of Populism as typified by William Jennings Bryan. Both of which preceeded the period in question by decades.

Your plaint about "collectivist" solutions assumes a general agreement as to what collectivism is and that it is always and in every case a bad thing. Again this is demonstrably false. Some folks consider any instance of collective action to be collectivist. Others do not. Even most right Libertarians will concede that the government has the responsibility of maintaining military and police agencies, despite the fact that these are collective endeavors directed by the State which can and have impinged on individual liberty. Government initiative has played a major role in national developement throughout our history, the Louisiana Purchase, the Homestead Act and the building of the railroads to cite a few examples. Our Constitution itself enshrines the power of Government to seize property so long as it pays what it determines to be "just" compensation. Do you consider the Constitution to be a left wing, collectivist document?

The question is what do you mean by Collectivist? Do public schools, public roads, public sanitation and water qualify? If so, how are these distinguishable from the other instances of collective action carried out by Government initiative? Do you consider business licensing, zoning laws, etc. to be collectivist?

If by soak the rich wealth transfer schemes you are refering to the income tax, you should know that the first President to endorse the idea was Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. His successor Howard Taft endorsed it as well and it was passed by constitutional amendment in 1913 by a bi-partisan vote in Congress. It was ratified by the States in 1916. It wasn't even a Democratic initiative much less a product of that party's left wing. If the left wing of the Democratic Party supports such taxation today, they are simply treading in the footsteps of those rock ribbed Republicans Roosevelt and Taft.

Since you cite "socialized medicine" as one of your collectivist bugaboos I suppose you believe that the US alone amongst the economically advanced nations is non collectivist seeing as every other such country has some form of universal care. I've visited a few of these countries and the odd thing is that a great many of their citizens don't consider themselves to have less liberty than we in the US. In fact, they seem to believe themselves to possess a greater degree of liberty since they don't have to choose between health care and bankruptcy.

At any rate, before this charge of collectivism merits serious consideration, you're going to have to specify precisely what you mean and what you do not mean by the word.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 15, 2007 12:56:15 AM

are you still freeloading off your "wife" cap'n toke?
why don't you get a job instead of sucking off hannity?

Posted by: merlallen | Mar 15, 2007 8:50:56 AM

The Republican't Party has a lot of pedophiles in it. So, I guess they are exactly like NAMBLA

Posted by: merlallen | Mar 15, 2007 8:53:57 AM

Mr. Reeves,

Again, it's a strawman you construct when you say that I want to supply my own national defense and police protection. Of course, I want those services 'collectively' that are impossible for me to produce alone.

...how are these distinguishable from the other instances of collective action carried out by Government initiative?

See above

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 15, 2007 9:45:46 AM

Again, it's a strawman you construct when you say that I want to supply my own national defense and police protection. Of course, I want those services 'collectively' that are impossible for me to produce alone.

Actually Fred, it is your statement above which is a strawman. I never said that. I didn't impute any position to you. Quite the opposite. I was pointing out that it wasn't all clear what you meant by "collectivist" and asking you to clarify your position. Something you evidently don't feel competent to do.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 15, 2007 10:23:54 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.