posted
Sheesh. There's all kinds of interesting stuff going on with the administration these days. White House staffers could be indicted soon (and Bush hasn't said if he'll fire them if they are, contrary to his original remarks about what he'd do with someone who was involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name and role in the CIA to the press...). It doesn't look like anyone is happy with his Bush's Supreme Court nominee. Republicans are sniping at each other in the ways that Democrats tend to be famous for.
Guess I must be the only political junkie here, since I don't see much discussion of the Rove's multiple grand jury appearances and other interesting developments.
But anyway, I found this article that was just too good not to share. It was published in the NY Times, but I found it on the International Herald Tribune, which doesn't seem to require registration for access.
Just another sign that we live in "interesting" times...
quote:As conservatives split, research group dismisses Bush critic By Richard W. Stevenson The New York Times TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005
WASHINGTON In the latest sign of the deepening split among conservatives over how far to go in challenging President George W. Bush, Bruce Bartlett, a Republican commentator who has been increasingly critical of the White House, has been dismissed as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group based in Dallas.
In a statement Monday, the organization said the decision was made after Bartlett supplied its president, John Goodman, with the manuscript of his coming book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."
posted
Pretty gutsy move, writing a book like that. You're right in saying that he almost certainly knew he'd lose his position over it. But he also risks vilification by the group of folks in the GOP who value unity over substance. I mean, really, attacking the President and stating right up front that he has harmed the "Reagan legacy!"
It's torches and pitchforks for this guy, IMHO.
I wonder if the party disintegration is just a natural byproduct of actually being in power. The Democrats fell apart because of internecine squabbling and basically gave up the last couple of election cycles as a consequence. Couldn't pull together to achieve anything.
Now we see the GOP self-immolating.
It's political chaos theory in operation, IMHO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not really surprising that fascist*organizations such as the NationalCenter for PolicyAnalysis would support Dubya.
* And I do mean that quite literally. Follow the contributors and their money trail from the preWWII US GermanBund groups through the PioneerFund to the current neo"conservative" "think"tanks.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is very interesting news. One thing DeLay did when he gained power was turn K Street into a Republican only district -- he punished lobbying firms that hired Democrats, rewarded the ones who hired Republicans, and obviously wouldn't even speak with the Democratic firms.
What we haven't see is what happens if these lobbying firms and think tanks and advocacy groups begin to splinter over ideological differences along with the party. It might not matter so much with lobbyists, who do a job regardless of what their personal affiliation may or may not be (not the same with thinkers and advocates), but you never know.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an interesting discussion on this on McNeil Leher where David Brooks was talking about the split in the Republican party between the Conservatives (who were generally well educated and committed to conservative ideals) with the Republicans (who were generally more concerned with loyalty than anything else). Brooks said that these two sides came togather through the 90s but have been becoming more and more distant throughout the Bush presidency, as the President keeps violating conservative principles and also just making poor decisions that the Republicans support anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The factions making up the Republican rightwing are a bit more complicated than that, MrSquicky. There are conservatives, neo"conservative"s, the "religious"right, the former proAmericanApartheid Dixiecrats, etc. Conservative Republicans made a devil's deal -- which especially includes the NixonSouthernStrategy -- and lost the Party.
Interestingly, the "religious"right was also put together via MorrisCerilloMinistries connection to folks associated with the PioneerFund. Interesting because the PioneerFund has always been pro-eugenics; eg their funding of TheBellCurve, etc.
posted
No, not surprised at all, EricJamesStone, since that is a point that dittoheads constantly harp upon. But then the ACLU has always strongly supported the right to free speech, even for Nazis who oppose it.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The point is that by the same criteria you use to label the NCPA as fascist, the ACLU is also a fascist organization.
I have plenty of differences with the ACLU on policy, but based on its policies it is patently clear to me that it is not a fascist organization.
If you're going to label the NCPA and neoconservative think-tanks as "literally" fascist, you need to show that their policy positions are fascist. If their policies are not fascist, then it is misleading to call them fascist organizations.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it would be too hard to claim that the positions share a lot of common ground, rather than just a shady past...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
> I don't think it would be too hard to claim > that the positions share a lot of common > ground, rather than just a shady past...
It's not too hard to claim that Bill Clinton is a humanoid robot from the Andromeda Galaxy, come here to earth to steal our water and our women.
It's not too hard to claim anything you want. That doesn't mean it's true.
But if the NCPA is a fascist organization in its positions, then all you need to do is go to the NCPA's publications page and find some examples of their advocacy of fascist policies.
In case anyone's a little unclear on just what fascism is, you could look here for an explanation of fascist policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism .
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's not hard to find ties to eugenics and Nazi ideology to philanthropic organizations of the early 20th Century. I don't have time to go digging right now, but Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Kellogg all supported American eugenics organizations that had ties to the Nazi movement - no surprise, since Hitler admired the eugenics movement here in America.
None of which really has much relevance to current events I mentioned.
(But maybe I understand now why there are so few political threads going on right now, in spite of the wealth of really fascinating developments.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
to me, the irony is that Bush is really accomplishing what Reagan tried to do - Dig us so deeply into financial debt that we'll cut all the safety nets we've built over the years for the old, ill and disabled in our society. That's where things are headed very rapidly right now.
Squick,
Brooks has written a couple of interesting columns in the past few months. I hadn't read him before. I saw him on one talk show where he even seemed to be hinting that he personally - even as a conservative - might not think this is the right time for more or sustained tax cuts.
I am finding this all very interesting in a "train-wreck about to happen that I can't prevent" kind of way.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: (But maybe I understand now why there are so few political threads going on right now, in spite of the wealth of really fascinating developments.)
I know I love having to constantly answer accusations of bigotry, ignorance, deceit, homophobia, misogyny, and fascism before my position is even heard (or, in cases, before it is even *formed*).
If you think I'm overstating the problem, consider just how many conservatives posted on this thread before aspectre dropped the F-bomb ("fascism", not *that* f-bomb) on us? I have no idea who the National Center for Policy Analysis is or what they support, and evidently, I don't need to because I have such enlightened, open-minded people to tell me.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
except that I get everybody used to my having the grace of a charging, pregnant water buffalo and then when I am subtle it catches everyone off guard...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, David Brooks is one of the few political commentators on any side that I consistently feel it is worth while to read. Even when I don't agree with him (and that's not that often as he tends to espouse what I was hoping for when I registered Republican and volunteered on the McCain campaign), he presents clear, cognent, non-hysterical arguments for what he's saying. I don't know much of anything about his views on disability issues and the like except for some political commentary during the whole Terry Schiavo thing, but I wouldn't be suprised that you would find him somewhat in agreement or at least receptive to what you have to say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Democrats were the conservatives, as opposed to the "radical republicans."
Before that, the republicans and democrats were the same party "The Democratic Republicans."
Who knows how it will all shake out, but the idea of a "two party system" is just an artifact of polarization. If the republican party polarizes enough, they'll split, form two new parties and the democrats will be a third party. Then we'll have three major parties until two of them define themself as polar opposites, and the third will fade away. And so on.
Might take a hundred years or so, but....
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:David Brooks is one of the few political commentators on any side that I consistently feel it is worth while to read. Even when I don't agree with him (and that's not that often as he tends to espouse what I was hoping for when I registered Republican and volunteered on the McCain campaign), he presents clear, cognent, non-hysterical arguments for what he's saying. I don't know much of anything about his views on disability issues and the like except for some political commentary during the whole Terry Schiavo thing, but I wouldn't be suprised that you would find him somewhat in agreement or at least receptive to what you have to say.
Squick,
Truth is, disability issues aren't on the radar of most folks in politics - or at least in ways that are viewed as disability issues. So, in the long run, it's mostly a matter of looking at the individual politician and their overall record to figure out if they're approachable...
Here in Illinois, we have some allies on long-term care issues (shifting funding from nursing homes to home-based assistance) from some Democrats. But we have some very strong supporters on these issues in the Republican party here as well. Note - these are not Republicans cut from the Tom DeLay/Dennis Hastert cloth - they're closer to McCain types. My biased and cynical opinion is that the radical branch represented by DeLay et al would be happy ending all those programs they sneer at as "entitlements," (otherwise known as "safety nets").
Some people I know just refer to them as "what I need to survive - barely."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
