I don't often read Josh Marshall, but he had a reputation for being a reasonably objective lefty (was willing to point out that the Rathergate memos were, well... not really evidence of anything negative about GWB) so I decided to see what he has to say about the Democrats' "that bad man tricked us, mommy" meme. Alas, there isn't even a mustard seed of objectivity now. To whit:
There's one point that's important to remember about the White House's pushback to cover up its collective dishonesty about Iraq. We've noted before that in scandals or political nominations the decisive issue is not the number of opponents, the intensity of their opposition or even the quality of their arguments. The decisive issue is most often whether the scandalee or the nominee has some committed base of support, even if it only amounts to a distinct minority.
So, if you were thinking some semblance of objective truth has any relevance, well just grow the heck up you impossible romantic. Because even though Joe Wilson's CIA debrief said the opposite of his NYT piece, we know what he meant, right? Because within the boundaries of the hermeneutic circle the phrase "the Iraqis were seeking uranium in Niger" means the same as "the Iraqis were not seeking uranium in Niger." Nobody's counting anyway. Do you see anybody counting? I don't see anybody counting. Relatively speaking...
A parallel dynamic is in play with respect to what the White House is trying to accomplish with this current pushback.
Isn't this a misuse of the term "parallel?" I mean, isn't he saying that the decisive issue is whether or not Bush has a committed base of support? Which, strictly speaking, would be the same, rather than a parallel dynamic... right? But maybe he means something else?
Virtually all of the arguments the White House is now advancing are transparently ridiculous on their face to anyone who has closely followed this evolving debate over the last three years.But that doesn't matter. The White House doesn't need to win any debates. What they need is for their core supporters to have something to say. Anything. And to be able to say it loudly. The one thing that would be fatal for the White House from its defenders would be silence.
Nope, that's pretty much what I thought he meant:
1. The President's "push back" is transparently so ridiculous that we needn't even reiterate its content here... because it's so ridiculous... and just silly... and not worth our time at all. No way, no how!
2. And all of those arguments we can't hear through the flesh and bones of our thumbs might as well be a chorus of airhorns at a football game, because we're not even listening... na na na na... can't hear... na na na na... a word... na na na... just noise... na na na... to impress... na na na... the evil Bushitlerburton's base... na na na na na na!
Not circular reasoning. It's really not. With two centroids it's more like... elliptical. Yeah, definitely not circular.
I don't say this as a counsel of pessimism or futility. It's just important to understand, to know what they're trying to achieve. The good news is that most Americans have already figured this out. Clear majorities of the public now believe this president misled them about Iraq. And they'll certainly grow. The key is to press these on the specifics, why they said these things they knew weren't true.
You mean, specifics like these, Josh? Yeah, somebody's being transparently ridiculed alright. Don't take out any bank loans based on that projected "growing majority," because sticking your thumbs firmly in your ears won't make those unfamiliar oppositional words any less meaningful. That's why they call it "pushback."
Posted by Demosophist at November 17, 2005 12:25 PM | TrackBackYep, the left's arguments boil down to "na na na."
Posted by: PatC at November 17, 2005 03:55 PMTo be fair to Marshall, he isn't part of the left in any real sense. He's essentially a purist DLC partisan. In the year and a half to two years in which I followed his blog, and in the subsequent matters in which he came once again to my attention, his positions could always be predicted tightly by a simple analysis of the expected interests of the more dovish elements of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Ideology never comes into it - it's all party positioning, and oppo research.
As an oppo researcher Marshall's pretty good, but on the level of political analysis, he never really gets past a milquetoast liberal version of the paranoid style.
Posted by: Mitch H. at November 18, 2005 11:16 AMWould true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?
One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.
You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.
If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:
All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.
The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).
Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.
George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.
And conservative columnist George Will points out that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion. Does that sound like fiscal discipline to you?
You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.
Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?
Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html
dsl hughson http://dsl-hughson.acton-aa.info/
2004 utah high school film festival http://20042uhsff.adhedoria.info/
whistler mp3 http://whistler-mp3.haotronic.info/
free acting scenes http://free-acting-scenes.addamslaw.info/
funny segretaria merda http://funnysm.adcarton.info/
multiline video slot http://multilinevs.actdi.info/
waterfront property miami http://waterfront-property-miami.adlersberg.info/
roaming on prepaid tmobile http://roamingropt.addeasy.info/
virginia beach florists http://virginia-beach-florists.adnego.info/
free tmobile sidekick http://free-tmobile-sidekick.actess.info/
taste of home cooking school http://tastetohcs.happper.info/
best bet limited http://best-bet-limited.acuition.info/
free windows ftp server http://freefwfs.adidu.info/
fuyu no sonata lyrics http://fuyufnsl.haoisu.info/
t mobile sucks http://t-mobile-sucks.adminmed.info/
usb pen http://usb-pen.actess.info/
college blankets http://college-blankets.adietya.info/
2000 buick lesabre power window repair http://20002blpwr.happper.info/
winnipeg computer stores http://winnipeg-computer-stores.adjoe.info/
how did star jones lose weight http://howhdsjlw.adageinc.info/
testimonianze extracristiane testimonianze giudaiche http://testimonianzeetg.adam-paros.info/
3in1 credit reports http://3in1-credit-reports.actology.info/
ontario jewelery stores http://ontario-jewelery-stores.adinabox.info/
unione latina http://unione-latina.adcarton.info/
cellular call accounting http://cellular-call-accounting.adikts.info/