Semi-Daily Journal

Mmmm.... I suggest reading the whole Brooks piece. Some choice bits:

" While most Washington Democrats expect that Dean will get trounced in the fall, they are not trying to head off the catastrophe."

Is this true? Seriously, because that is not the message I get through the mass media and (admittedly) a few blogs.

"Last week, I asked Lieberman if he would pick a fight with Dean on values. I asked him if he had formed any conclusions about Dean's temperament. I asked him if he would run commercials pointing out that if Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power, filling mass graves. No, no, no."

He has a pretty good point here. Lieberman could bring up some touchstone issues like Saddam. There are moderate dem/undecided people who would be swayed by such a commercial as Brooks is suggesting. Of course, the problem is, those people don't usually vote in primaries. There is some wisdom in supporting the candidate you don't agree with when you weigh the costs of supporting a more radical candidate who is less likely to win. Such is our democracy. Now, the tactics Brooks is espousing are downright disgraceful. Outright lying without conscience is considered bad form, but according to Brooks it is required to maintain the soul of the Democratic party. The political realist in me sees an argument here, mostly because I despise Bush so much I can live with a compromise (Lieberman). I'm still hoping Clark can get some momentum.

"In David Brooks' world, decency is weakness."

They get more and more like the historical fascists every day. See Orcinus passim.

Orcinus: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

You aren'f following the script?

Please read about Murdoch in Australia, it really is nothing new. "Left Wing" Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, I am quite sure, was the model for Clinton and Blair.

The Murdoch and (soon-to-be-formerly?) Black empires own MORE than 90% of the press in Australia.

They are the model for media control that we must reject.

Amazingly, John McCain still chairs the Bush 2004 campaign in Arizona.

"In David Brooks' world, decency is weakness."

Began miserably, becoming ever more so. Yuch!

What do you expect from a bobo?

Interview with Brooks on the McNeil Lehrer NewsHour in 2000 ("Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper-Class and how They got There." The author is "NewsHour" regular David Brooks, senior editor of "The Weekly Standard."):

GWEN IFILL: I would never call you "yuppie-bourgeois," but I have to ask the question: Are you a bobo?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I consider myself a bobo with bad grades. If I had studied harder, I could have got into Harvard, and really made all the money and had the really big kitchen.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/jan-june00/brooks_5-9.html

Decency isn't a weakness, but naive do-gooding is. And sanctimonious diatribes about 'who is less selfish' are ultimately selfish attempts to arrogate moral superiority. Attributing good motives to your intellectual enemies is more fruitful because it's more realistic--for either side.

eric: Attributing good motives to your intellectual enemies is more fruitful because it's more realistic--for either side.

Really? Even when they have a track record of being intellectually dishonest? Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Funny how the NYT conservative columnists have been obsessed with Dean as of late is it not? I think this is three Brooks columns in a row that is a big steaming pile of crap about Dean. One was that Dean is some kind of Governor Moonbeam. Another was how Dean wasn't nearly as honest and forthcoming as our Dear Leader, and that Dear Leader should be less forthcoming because his opponents will take advantage of his charity like the unscrupulous weasels they are. Now there's this one that says the DLC needs to start spreading nasty untrue rumors about Dean or it just proves they are weak.

Safire's got one of his own now with some rumor that he claims is from the lefty blogs--this is the first I've heard of it BTW and I'm pretty much addicted to lefty blogs--that if Dean doesn't get the nomination he's going to split. Oh, and that he's angry.

So... follow the theme's here, people, and resist. Dean is angry. He's a soft, loopy, granola-crunching, Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging spaceman. He's a liar. He's trying to take over the party or destroy it trying and right-minded Democrats should beware of this loose cannon. I can only wait with baited breath for the next big steaming pile of crap to come next week from the Grey Old Hag.

When Uncle Tom Sowell makes a statement like:

"Profits are certainly without honor among the intelligentsia. The very word produces negative reactions, even from people who cannot give you a single reason why money carrying that label is worse than money called by other names."

Is he being intellectually honest? Does he really believe this crap?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031223.shtml

Or is he merely trying to provoke a reaction like "Well durn them pointy headed intellectuals, I always knewd that they were all Communists. Uncle Rush told me."

Why should I take someone who says shit like this seriously? Hell yes, I'm impugn his motives! He's a paid shill. And I'll continue to refer to him as Uncle Tom Sowell.

Brooks: "Say what you will about G.O.P. elites, they do not lack self-confidence."

GOP elites? Now there's an oxymoron.

It's not a true oxymoron, because it can be true. Of course, for most of the people who support the GOP, it's a delusion - they're not the elites, they're the ones carrying the chamberpots.

As for the GOP NYT columnists fearing Dean, it's pretty obvious why. The odds favor Bush - he's the incumbent, the hero of 9/11, the hero of Iraq and the favorite of the SCLW media. If the economy picks up enough for real people to notice, the only questions will be how big a landslide, and what long-term horrors will the second Bush II administration bring us.

Of course, the right-wing being the right-wing, having the odds on their side is never enough (after all, it's their birthright). Given a nice, juicy opponent like Lieberman, Bush could get all 50 states. It'd be really nice to have an opponent who's three rules of campaigning are (1) "Don't criticize Bush", (2) "Condemn any- and everybody who does criticize Bush" and (3) "Death to those who criticize Our Maximum Leader Bush!". However, with an opponent who's actually in opposition, like Dean, it'd merely be a lopsided, unfair fight. A prospect which offends the innate love of injustice which is at the core of those such as Safire and Brooks.

you guys are really paranoid. I'm on the right/libertarian side, and I really really want life to be better for everyone, and I'm especially partial to those who are currently worse off. But I'm still not a Democrat. Oxymoron?! Not in my mind. And I'm an educated Phd who knows some history. If you really want to get your side across, you have to stop demonizing us, it only rouses the rabid base that needs no effort.

Eric, maybe the problem is you and not us. If you don't want to listen, we can't force you. Threads like this one always attract people who tell us we're wrong without giving any reasons why, and who object to our tone, and who explain to us what we should really be doing instead, and they almost always claim not to be Republicans. Not much to work with there.

Putting on my Granny Grammar hat, let me remind all that oxymoron does not mean contradiction.

The easiest way to get it straight is to remember oxymoron is to contradiction as synthesis is to antithesis. An oxymoron is made up of contradictions, but is a new whole in its own right -- as "bittersweet" is neither bitter, nor sweet, and of course is in no way self-contradictory.

And always remind yourselves, "Army intelligence is an oxymoron" is a joke, not a definition, a much funnier joke if you really know the meaning of the key word.

to think that democrats spin more honestly is an assertion that defies credulity. They both think they are truly right and omit and exagerrate appropriately. I'm think all collectives (political parties, corporations, nonprofits, bureaucracies) present the facts as adversaries do in legal battle. That's clearly an equilibrium, and thinking your side doesn't do it ("lying traitorous dudes", etc), seems a stretch.

But I was specific in my question: you are prioritizing motives, which I think has proven throughout 20th century intellectual history to be a nonstarter. It's an easy trap, but a like a moral failing: seemingly advantageous but in fact cancerous.

All fine by me. The more 'you guys' emphasize motive as opposed to substance the less successful you will be, which is better for my vision of lower taxes, less regulation and fewer trade barriers.

Eric, the difference is that the Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. The Republicans just make shit up.

Eric, the difference is that the Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. The Republicans just make shit up.

Eric, the difference is that the Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. The Republicans just make shit up.

Eric, the difference is that mainstream Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. Mainstream Republicans just make shit up.

Eric, the difference is that mainstream Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. Mainstream Republicans just make shit up.

Eric, the difference is that mainstream Democrats generally "lie" by omission -- i.e., they select the facts to fit their ideological narrative, as any partisan group does. Mainstream Republicans just make shit up.