perfidy

The guy's a pussy who doesn't like being called on the carpet when he's wrong. Simple as that.

Degeneration? Please.

You don't really want to play a game where I get to go out and find nasty things written by GOP members, do you? I can start with militias and the CCC, if you'd like. Except that I won't, because you and I both know that those kinds of things have nothing to do with mainstream party opinion.

So quit calling one stupid ad in one stupid newspaper in one stupid state a trend. You're grasping at straws, and you're pointing at trivialities like this one in order to avoid talking about the real issues, and the performance of the GOP president on them.

Ross, did you mean KKK?

In any event, this guy doesn't sound like the extremist fringe of the Democratic party - you'll note that I didn't go and find a quote from indymedia, DU, or ANSWER. They would have been criticizing the Dems for not being looney enough, as would the militias for the Republicans.

The reason I linked that essay was that the ad in Florida was an isolated event. However, I felt that it did relate to other things I've seen. That essay touches on things I have observed, but from the perspective of an actual Democrat. As a conservative, it would have been much more difficult for me to write a similar piece, if only because when it comes right down to it, I have many reasons to be happy about it. (Of course, I do recognize the downside, as I mentioned in the comments to that post.)

And further, the fact that I bring these things up has hardly stopped me from commenting and posting (voluminously, over the last couple days) on the other "real" issues so I don't think you can reasonably accuse me of dodging anything. And the fact that we both have issues with the president (admittedly, I have much fewer - but not zero) does not render your side of the political divide immune from critcism or scrutiny.

Also, I don't really understand your criticism of the author of the post I linked. Maybe it's not degeneration, but why is he a pussy?

Buckethead, all you need to read in that article to know that this is one guy's not particularly credible opinion is that he asserted that Kos and his associated "faction of the Democrats represents [the party's] "base;" their most committed and articulate supporters; their most 'connected' in more ways than one supporters; their effective fundraisers; the supporters that can be counted on to craft and broadcast the message of the Democratic Party to the people of the United States."

Bullshit. Right there. Bullshit.

The internet has a way of democratizing arguments (no pun), making fringe ideas seem more commonplace than they are. This is a case in point. Do you REALLY think most democrats are willing to call Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." No fucking way. Ditto using that horrible offensive term "brown sugar" for Condi Rice. Garry Trudeau entered suckland years and years ago, and has long been an embarrassment to just about everyone with a brain in their heads.

So from one weblog, a Doonesbury strip, and a moonbat in Florida, this guy and you are claiming that the denizens of an entire half of the American political spectrum are in imminent and mortal danger of sliding off the deep end forever? That's twice you've said so, and it's starting to sound like you believe it.

If so, eff you, my friend.

Do you want me to trot out the Texas Republican Party's platform for your review again? Do you want me to try to argue that it represents the mainstream of Republican thought? Or how about the latest screeds from anti-immigration naturalist Republicans, or even Little Green Footballs? You can find that stuff literally [em]everywhere[/em] on the internet. Does that mean that the Republican party is in just as much danger?

Hell, well more than half of the weblogs I read on a daily basis argue that liberals in this country are being eaten from within by a cancer of hate and moral equivalence. If that was true, the "Workers World" hawker in the Harvard Square T station would be mobbed every day by wellwishers. But in Harvard Square-- Harvard Square, in the heart of Darkest Benighted Commieland, he is ignored, jeered at, and verbally abused. So big farging deal. Weblogs are just [em]weblogs[/em], and as you know webloggers have an innate propensity for hyperbole, selective editing, and harping on issues.

There is NO doubt that over the last few years politics has become more partisan, more atomized, and more heated than it has been for a while. Is it the fault of the Gingrich revolution? Remember, Newt encouraged Republican congressmen and staffers to break ties with friends across the aisle. You don't see rivals hanging out any more. It's much easier to demonize people when you don't see them every day outside the ring. Is it the fault of the Reagan-hating Democrats? They sure did a good job demonizing the Gip and his supporters.

My point is, sure the Democratic party is having a crisis right now. The party has no strong leadership and its message is diffuse and weak. And yes, because of that you can hear some voices out there who are crazy, offensive, and outrageous. Most of the Democrats I talk to today are disgusted with Bush's policies, and their beefs are far more articulate and credible than the tired old "war for oil," "bush lied/people died" and "bushitler" schtick. Most of them are also fed up with the Democratic party. But they're sticking with it, looking to change it from within, with honor, rather than bailing and leaving the nutballs and morons with a greater say in things.

Great, you are finding validation in one guy's opinion, who's jumping ship from the Democrats, who's disgusted and saying why. I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that there's plenty of disturbing messages out there these days. But why and how does that make "Vanderleun" right, and millions of other registered Democrats, most of whom have never heard of Kos, nor read Doonesbury faithfully, nor given money to ANSWER, the Free Palestine Movement, or some shady Great Left Wing Conspiracy, dupes of a radical, racist Democratic fifth column?

Fair enough - and I wasn't, or didn't mean to, suggest that the masses of Democratic voters (who are reliably centrist as are most Americans) are about to go off the deep end. I should have narrowed my point.

But, going ahead and narrowing the focus, it does seem to me that the leadership of the party seems in danger of going off the deep end. I've gotten this impression not just from blogs, but from watching candidates, and ads, and interviews, etc. And also many liberals that I know, who generally fall into the category of reasonable people, also spout that kind of bile about Bush and the administration. If I call them on it, they usually back down on the rhetoric - but this thing isn't just coming from the isolated preserve of the ANSWER wingnuts.

If I'm wrong, great! And if the masses, who like Vanderleun are upset with that direction to work to change it and bring them more in line with reality and the public, also great! I wish them well.

My perspective, from outside the crisis you admit is taking place, is that the moonbats are in charge. And have been increasingly settign the direction of the party since about 1972. The sane, centrist democrats are marginalized. In the GOP, the extremists are marginalized. Even non-extremists who fuck up (and he did fuck up), like Trent Lott, are marginilized.

And, while that post is from one guy, it appears that there are a lot more people becoming fed up with the democrats and moving right than the other way around.

ps, did I deserve an "eff you" for raising some polite concerns about the direction of one of the biggest political institutions in this country? An institution that you admit is having some problems along the lines that I brought up? I didn't even insult anyone...

B- If you had been arguing what it seemed like you were saying, I would stand by that ad hominem attack, because it's not really like the Buckethead I know, love, and drink whiskey with. Thank you for honing your argument.

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that they spent so long in charge. The Republicans get called so vehemently on things like the Lott affair because they spent so much time as the insurgent party, with the attendant need to police the ranks. The Democrats have yet to learn how to do that. Perhaps what we're hearing now is part of that learning process, and therefore a value-neutral feature of the party's sea change.

You note "while that post is from one guy, it appears that there are a lot more people becoming fed up with the democrats and moving right than the other way around." In response I would offer another ad hominem: in 2003, I cancelled my membership in the Republican party.

Yeah, but you were never serious about it. It's just part of your brownian motion in the lukewarm tea cup that is the middle of American politics.

Smart guy Porphyrogenitus is also [url=http://www.porphyrogenitus.net/archives/week_2004_04_11.html#002349]sym…] to the views expressed by Vanderleun.

Fair enough. But again, I would remark that the blogosphere is an unrepresentative sample of American political thought. Thank God.

"But, going ahead and narrowing the focus, it does seem to me that the leadership of the party seems in danger of going off the deep end."

Sounds like the Bush Administration and the Republican party from Newt "where is he now" Gingrich to the present day. From an attempted overthrow of the American presidency (impeachment proceedings stemming from lies intended to cover up sexual misadventure) to unilateral invasions of third world countries (because their leadership might, just might, have something do do with terrorism), there's plenty of deep end been jumped in of late.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party has degenerated by fielding too many inarticulate candidates that cannot state anything with conviction much less gain a clear majority of the public that bothers to vote.

And nutjobs exist at the periphery of all human organizations.