At what point...

[Kirobaito]

... does the GOP, both the leaders and the voters, begin thinking differently about their association with the Tea Party?

This is a question I have for the folks here who are reliably Republican. Take today's primary in Delaware for example - Christine O'Donnell beat Mike Castle in the primary. Mike Castle was a likable and electable Republican in a blue state who was going to wipe the floor in November, picking up a seat for the GOP. Instead, they elected one of the fringiest folks imaginable, and Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee, will win in a walk. This is an example of the Tea Party costing the GOP a win, based on the fact that their ideas aren't nearly as popular among the general populace as they are among the hardcore Republicans that vote in the primary.

We see it in other places. In Nevada, Danny Tarkanian or even chickens-for-care Sue Lowden would be annihilating Harry Reid, but because they elected a rank-and-file Tea Party supporter in Sharon Angle, that race has become a toss-up. In Kentucky, Trey Grayson would be destroying Jack Conway, but instead they nominated that despicable piece of trash Rand Paul, and that race is significantly more competitive than it ever should have been in a state as red as Kentucky. Also today in the New Hampshire primary (for retiring (R) Judd Gregg's seat), Kelly Ayotte would have likely beaten Paul Hodes (though polling on that race was not very prevalent). The votes so far have Tea Partier Ovide LaMontagne winning, though there's awhile to go, and the chances of keeping that seat are far less with LaMontagne than with Ayotte. It's a similar situation in Colorado, where Ken Buck beat Jane Norton in the primary there.

There's a lot more room to mess with in the House, where the Tea Party's effect can be felt much more - you don't have to actually win statewide to get a Congressional seat.

The leaders have already questioned this - they're not funding O'Donnell at all, apparently. But the question I have for you, conservative Republicans of Dallas-Mavs.com, which is more important? Nominating Tea Party folks who potentially cost you seats because, well, they're fringe, or actually nominating still-dependable conservatives like Mike Castle who will win?

I'm not looking for an argument. Just thoughts on what good the Tea Party will actually do for remaking the GOP.

As for me, I'm perfectly happy seeing these Tea Party folks win in their primaries, because I don't think the majority of them will win in the fall. I think once we get closer to the election and the voters really get an idea of how (IMO) crazy these people are, they won't want them.

[92bDad]

If your playing a game, then you are perhaps correct...but this is much more than a game.

If anything, we are seeing people who are taking responsibility for their vote and voting for who they believe best represents them. Unlike the Democrats or the GOP in general.

The system has been hijacked by Party Politics, with both parties manipulating their own moderate agenda...basically they are on a power play for money.

The best hope, at this stage that America has is to get some Tea Party politicians elected perhaps as a GOP candidate, but who will build a track record on genuine conservative values.

It would be nice to see this happen in the Democrat party as well, but I have my doubts as to Democrats being free thinkers as they tend to just be sheep and do what they are told.

I've said it before, the 2 party system is destroying America as it causes voters to vote for a party rather than the individuals to represent.

This should not be about a majority party in the House or the Senate. Most everyone can see a bill and predict how the votes will take place for the bill based on who the majority party is. That is no way to govern.

For our government to truly work, these walls of division called Democrat and Republican must be torn down.

Perhaps the Tea Party is a way of getting the two parties to re-examine, as well as getting individuals currently elected or running for office to re-examine who they are.

[dude1394]

IMO your premise is sort of off-base. The only reason that the republicans are anywhere close to taking the senate and possibly the house is because of the energy of the tea-party. Mike Castle winning would have been irrelevant if the rest of those races were not going like they are now. So the choice between having Mike Castle win in deleware (if he would have) and having the tea party is not a contest.

The republican party also had better tread very,very lightly. They are already a huge part of the problem here as they love to spend taxpayers money to buy votes like every politician does. Not as bad as the dems imo but it's there. I read somewhere that the tea-party is a group of folks who have been thinking our government (and their public-sector supporters) have been spending way too much money ever since ross perot talked about it.

Now the republicans tried to do the same thing to Perot as they try to do to anyone who doesn't play the game they want to play, it bit their rear ends then. It'll bite 'em again if they keep it up.

They've talked for years about how the primaries are the place the make a stand, we'll the tea party did but the ruling republican class doesn't like it so much now, they'd best get their head right with ball.

[dude1394]

I didn't want to start another thread. But I liked this paragraph from a commenter.

Listening to the President who bankrupted a generation prattle about all the wonderful things he could do with another $50 billion reminds us that his blind ideology will never consider a solution that makes the government less powerful. Even his idea of tax cuts are targeted to preferred constituencies, or awarded only in exchange for compliance with a political agenda… in other words, more control.

[alexamenos]

IMHO the better question may be 'how can the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Republican Party?'

To the extent Tea Partiers are crazy, whacky, even dispicable....well...that's not necessarily a bad thing. Crazy is relative...that which is abnormal is only so because it is different from the normal. And what has "normal" in the political realm given us in the last decade or so?

Two wars, trillions in deficits, torture and extraordinary rendition, massive unfunded liabilities, trillion dollar boondoggles to wallstreet banks, a burgeoning police state, and Nancy Pelosi.

This ^^^ is what we get from "normal". I'll take my chances with crazy.

[Usually Lurkin]

I think the republican party has already sent a check to Odonnell. They'll stop backing the far right when

1) they think they are losing more seats than they gain and
2) they think they've shifted their own philosophy far enough right to satisfy the general population.

I don't think they are close to either right now.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think the republican party has already sent a check to Odonnell. They'll stop backing the far right when

1) they think they are losing more seats than they gain and
2) they think they've shifted their own philosophy far enough right to satisfy the general population.

I don't think they are close to either right now.

So the Republican national leadership doesn't financially support a Republican primary winner for a national office chosen by the Republicans of that State to make the Party stronger.

Not sure that'll work.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

So the Republican national leadership doesn't financially support a Republican primary winner for a national office chosen by the Republicans of that State to make the Party stronger.

Not sure that'll work.

Yea they already sent here the maximum allowable contribution of 42K. However since she was elected she's racking up dough pretty quickly.

She's currently up to 1.5Million in just the few days of being elected.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

So the Republican national leadership doesn't financially support a Republican primary winner for a national office chosen by the Republicans of that State to make the Party stronger.

Not sure that'll work.

what?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea they already sent here the maximum allowable contribution of 42K. However since she was elected she's racking up dough pretty quickly.

She's currently up to 1.5Million in just the few days of being elected.

Make that 2.5 Million..Pretty amazing really.
http://christine2010.com/

[aquaadverse]

Not real sure where the "crazy" tag comes from. People are pissed at how the current regime punted probably the best shot in a generation for making true and fundamental change.

Using a group of people that were primarily concerned about about passing complex and expensive legislation without debate or being vetted by the public, after all the promises of transparency and open processes, for a political fulcrum will go down as one of the stupidest strategies ever.

There isn't any reason these candidates can't win and taking those races only drives home many people are done treating politics like a big fantasy league where you base your choice on the next election.

The point of "abandon all hope, there be monsters" was probably when the backhand bitch slap of Brown snagging the seat of Camelot generated all of those "Jobs are now priority one" including Obama's State of the Union Address then promptly returning to the "any bill is better than no bill" Health insurance reform. Reid's needing to use blatant bribery of his own Party's Senators and the ensuing " If your Senator didn't get your State some swag they aren't doing their job" made being a career Pol a liability.

I've been through 2 voter revolts. The first was the Reagan election in '80. The second was the midterms after the Clinton election. Neither approached this potential carnage.

I think you are dead wrong in your assessment that these candidates will cost the GOP seats. The Democrats are basically down to their hardcore lefty base and much of the country is convinced that the moderate Democrat is extinct in DC.

The Tea Party movement has gained it's present status because the majority of the participants aren't the angry racist birthers that sleep with livestock with the sound track from Deliverance as mood music and have no opposing thumbs. They aren't angry because of Obama's complexion. They started out attempting to inject a check back into the Congressional balance.

Most are just regular people who feel the Government has stopped listening to them and these last Primaries are just more evidence that they really don't care if a D or R comes after the name.

We won't really know how much those winners appeal to a broader general population of voters util the election but if the Democrats continue to push Bush Derangement Syndrome as an economic plan and season it with the don't sweat much for a fat girl spice of "Hey it could be worse" jobs saved nonsense it's going to be a long election night.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

There isn't any reason these candidates can't win . .

Odonnell was ahead of the democrat among independents in a recent Rasmussen poll. She was behind in the poll because fewer republicans claimed her than democrats claimed Coons

[alexamenos]

an interesting take on the Tea Party v. Big Government Republicans...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrcIW...layer_embedded

and I mean interesting in the 'omg the japanese are strange' kind of way, not in the insightful sense of interesting.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

an interesting take on the Tea Party v. Big Government Republicans...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrcIW...layer_embedded

and I mean interesting in the 'omg the japanese are strange' kind of way, not in the insightful sense of interesting.

wow. That's going to be a Palin/Odonnell 2012 campaign ad.

[alexamenos]

Steve Chapman on the craziness of the Tea Party....

[the Tea Party candidates] didn't get nominated because they look and sound like the popular image of a savvy, experienced, well-informed, practical-minded U.S. senator. They got nominated because they don't.

They are often accused of craziness — one MSNBC commentator said Angle "sounds like a mental patient." But to the tea partiers, that's not a bug; it's a feature. If a $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit represents sanity, they would prefer a candidate who escaped from the psych ward.

These outsiders profited from a belief that established ways of doing things have led us off a cliff...

I don't think the tea partiers will amount to squat, but on one thing they're absolutely right -- the political status quo is what's f***ing crazy.

[dude1394]

Here is what the tea party sees..

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Here is what the tea party sees..

And if we look closely at that history....

From 1967-2000, the spending trend is very steady regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are running the show. This is no surprise at all -- Republicans and Democrats are virtually indistinguishable on the question of how big should the big government be (as big as we can get away with!!!).

From 2000-2008, spending exploded with plenty of leadership by Republicans and/or tacit consent from Republicans--Republicans of the "still-dependable", presumptively sane variety.

Democratic Party -- Tax & Spend
Republican Party -- Spend & Spend (and let the Dems raise taxes when they're back in power)

As for the Tea Partiers....

....bunch o' wankers....

I mean I'm sympathetic to the TPs, but jesus guys get a clue. Does 1994 ring a bell? By 1998 the only congressmen elected in the class of '94 that were still around were among the biggest spenders on the hill. At most the TPs will elect a handful of congressmen (or congresspenislessmen) who will either do nothing or plant their nose(s) deeply into the Washington feedtrough.

I guess where I'm going with all this is that this election will be as meaningless if not more meaningless than every other election where incumbents win 99% of the time (I read somewhere that retention rates in the US are comparable to the old Communist Party in the Soviet Union, ba dum bum...Democracy is so over-rated). This election-->full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

[92bDad]

Are you saying that politicians/elected officials, don't understand SELF-Sacrifice?

In other words, they are unable to reverse action, make honest cuts and reduce spending? Regardless of Democrat or Republican?

Be Careful, you are starting to sound like Glenn Beck...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Are you saying that politicians/elected officials, don't understand SELF-Sacrifice?

No, I'm saying you specifically are an excessively simplistic tool. I'm saying this in a roundabout way, but this is the gist of my message.

Picture a massive locomotive train hauling ass down the tracks, then imagine two gnats vying for the job of either pushing the train forward or slowing it down. The tea partiers, at most, will introduce a third gnat into the equation.

The thing about Washington is this --> there are right around 40 bazillion career bureaucrats, about umpteen gazillion dollars of deeply rooted financial interests...set against (or with) these powerful and entrenched interests are 600 elected twits who spend most of their time campaigning for re-election*. The twits are mostly irrelevant...or maybe I should say that there relevance is hardly relevant. Those elected twits will either dance to the tune of the deeply vested interests or they'll be gone. That's the way it works -- that's why Obama hands trillions over to Wall Street bankers and why Bush massively expanded the welfare state with his pharmaceutical boondoggle. They're twits, but by-and-large they're not twits with (political) death wishes.

For example, there's the the Department of ***Defense*** ....

(and I say ***Defense*** like one might say the Ministry of *Truth* or the Ministry of*Love*)

Even if, after hell freezes over, conservatives (and TPers) nation wide were to suddenly recognize that our glorious military is just another really, really big government program that causes most of the problems it purports to fix, it wouldn't really matter....the military industrial complex - a revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors - will march unabated so long as they have enemies to fight and money to spend....

Enemies are easy -- there's nothing easier for a military with bases in literally every time zone on earth to do than find more enemies. And obviously the MIC will always have money to spend because the *You Know What* can create zillions of new dollars by stroking of a couple of computer keys.

As long as the MIC has enemies and money, they'll have votes in congress. As long as we have Fox news, we'll have plenty of public support for the MIC. It's frankly a hopeless situation. The only *hope* is that the system will collapse under its own weight (ala the Soviet Union), and this is a very dismal hope at best (in lieu of the likely concommittent carnage from the collapse).

As a dear friend and wise older fellow sometimes says, 'just because you have a bad problem doesn't mean there must be a solution.'

anyhoo....

Saying that the politicians don't understand SELF-sacrifice is like saying the gnats aren't sufficiently committed to slowing down the train. Even if the statement is technically correct, it's still a pretty useless observation. Saying that the problem is the gnats are divided into two parties is just really, really stupid...


-----------------------


*in the case of the Republican party I should say that they spend all of their time campaigning for re-election except for when they're trolling public bathrooms for gay sex.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Picture a massive locomotive train hauling ass down the tracks, then imagine two gnats vying for the job of either pushing the train forward or slowing it down. The tea partiers, at most, will introduce a third gnat into the equation.
.

all this would make a lot more sense if 2000-2007 looked anything like '67-2000 on that graph, and if 2007-2009 looked anything like 2000-2007. There have been massive changes relatively recently, and momentum isn't as grand as you say. Republicans were losing support throughout the past decade precisely for the reasons represented on this graph. That kind of spending was going to have to change if the republicans were to ever regain power (and they want that even more than they want big government). Continuation of the growth of the last decade was not inevitable. Neither is growth at the pace of the last couple of years. Now, the better question is whether the last few years can be reversed, not whether the last few decades can be reversed.

It'd also sound a lot less kooky if the military hadn't done anything useful for us.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

all this would make a lot more sense if 2000-2007 looked anything like '67-2000 on that graph, and if 2007-2009 looked anything like 2000-2007. There have been massive changes relatively recently, and momentum isn't as grand as you say. Republicans were losing support throughout the past decade precisely for the reasons represented on this graph. That kind of spending was going to have to change if the republicans were to ever regain power (and they want that even more than they want big government). Continuation of the growth of the last decade was not inevitable. Neither is growth at the pace of the last couple of years. Now, the better question is whether the last few years can be reversed, not whether the last few decades can be reversed.

Do you realize this doesn't rebut anything I've said?

Yeah, the train has come off the tracks in the last few years, but that doesn't mean that electing the *right* gnats can get it back on the tracks....

It'd also sound a lot less kooky if the military hadn't done anything useful for us.

I recognize that what I'm saying about the military sounds kooky....

...of course all the sane and serious people thought that launching an invasion of Iraq and it's commie-secularist leader on the slim possibility that he had some weapons rivaling WWI era mustard gas was an appropriate response to an attack by 19 religious whackos from Saudi Arabia who attacked US while armed with boxcutters....

I can't say it any more plainly than this: What commonly passes as "serious and sane" is so f***g off the charts crazy that I really, really aspire to insane, or at least kooky.

For example....

If a fellow were to stand on a stage and sing:

Bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran

I'd tend to think that guy was a nuts, and moreover the last thing anything anybody should do is nominate him for Republican Party candidate for President.....

....obviously my views are out of the norm -- I'm really ok with this.

But more to the point, yeah the military has done some good things along the way. This could be said of any giganto government program.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Do you realize this doesn't rebut anything I've said?

Yeah, the train has come off the tracks in the last few years, but that doesn't mean that electing the *right* gnats can get it back on the tracks....

I thought you were saying the train had 50 years or more worth of momentum. If we agree that it's a couple terms worth of laws, then we just disagree about what it will take to change it.

I recognize that what I'm saying about the military sounds kooky....

...of course all the sane and serious people thought that launching an invasion of Iraq and it's commie-secularist leader on the slim possibility that he had some weapons rivaling WWI era mustard gas was an appropriate response to an attack by 19 religious whackos from Saudi Arabia who attacked US while armed with boxcutters....
.

The insane people didn't want us to win the cold war, push Saddam out of Kuwait, or to remove those two murderously oppressive, terrorist-supporting regimes from the middle east.

I think Bush->McCain growth would be easier to push back than Bush->Obama. The train was sliding and needed to be slowed. The last 2 years have put it off the tracks.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I thought you were saying the train had 50 years or more worth of momentum. If we agree that it's a couple terms worth of laws, then we just disagree about what it will take to change it.

You're really missing the point.

The point is that the gnats symbolize representatives of "we the people" and they (and by extension, we) are pretty much irrelevant. Whether they are good gnats or bad gnats doesn't really matter -- the train has its own motive force.

The train is deeply entrenched and powerful *interests*--

The treasury / federal reserve & wall street banks;
The pentagon / defense contractors;
The myriad of lobbyists (who write the laws which go unread by congress) and the major corporations they represent;
Regulatory agencies and the beneficiaries of the manner in which they regulate competition;
The national security apparatus (CIA, FBI, DEA, Homeland Security....);
Etc., etc., etc...;

The train is where the money and the power is.....and the train is off the tracks. Perhaps the deeply vested interests can restore some balance (I doubt it, but perhaps). Regardless, we the people (we the gnat shit, more or less) can't do much one way or the other, short of armed revolution which is a really bad idea. Our task ahead will be in picking through the wreckage, not in restoring or preventing anything.

[Kirobaito]

That view is hardly kooky. Eisenhower said the same thing when it was first starting to roll.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The train is deeply entrenched and powerful *interests*--

The treasury / federal reserve & wall street banks;
The pentagon / defense contractors;
The myriad of lobbyists (who write the laws which go unread by congress) and the major corporations they represent;
Regulatory agencies and the beneficiaries of the manner in which they regulate competition;
The national security apparatus (CIA, FBI, DEA, Homeland Security....);
Etc., etc., etc...;

yes, yes, and trilateral commission, and martians from the planet Venus, and the grey goo and all that.

Our task ahead will be in picking through the wreckage, not in restoring or preventing anything.

You lost me there with your metaphors of doom. We'll be picking through the wreckage to do what, other than to restore something good and prevent something bad. But when did anyone restore anything without building something of their own? And just what kinds of wreckage are you assuming? A restructuring of the philosophy of the republican party, or the disintegration of all concrete structures and the melting of Cincinnati?

[Usually Lurkin]

Never mind everything I've said here.

Stephen Colbert has been called before congress as an expert witness on immigration and farming, or something http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_100924.html

alexamenos is right. We are all doomed.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

That view is hardly kooky. Eisenhower said the same thing when it was first starting to roll.

Yeah...Eisenhower said the exact same thing in his farewell address. The point I'm making is shamelessly plagiarized from the very public comments of a multi-star General / President / Republican. I've only expanded upon the point a little (because the military isn't the only entrenched and powerful thing marching around Washington these days).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

And just what kinds of wreckage are you assuming?

A breakdown in the federalist system of government. A collapse of our Federal Government / massive retreat from the empire akin to what happened to the Soviet Union ca 1991. Yeat's Second Coming:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

That view is hardly kooky. Eisenhower said the same thing when it was first starting to roll.

What? Eisenhower said "that our glorious military is just another really, really big government program that causes most of the problems it purports to fix"? Was he really trying to scare everyone by suggesting that our enemies are just made up figments taken out of an Orwell novel? Was Eisenhower's point that all is lost and that the only solution is the collapse of the United States? Cause I thought Eisenhower's point was that the military had done a lot of good, that the military-industrial complex was necessary, but needed to be watched.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Was he really trying to scare everyone by suggesting that our enemies are just made up figments taken out of an Orwell novel?

I'm not saying that our enemies are imaginary things, I'm saying they can be blowback....

Al Qaeda, for example, has it's roots in the Mujahideen, a group greatly supported by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war.

(interestingly.....for a very long time the US provided textbooks for Afghani children that were aimed at instilling jihadi passions -- the radical muslims folks we're fighting in Afghanistan today were likely schooled with textbooks that your taxdollars and mine provided....which were aimed at teaching them to be radical fighting muslims.)

Also, our enemies are often our enemies because empires have a logic of their own....eg, one of the reasons Rumsfeld cited for invading Iraq was because Iraq posed a threat to our troops stationed in the middle east --> the logic that someone is an enemy because they pose a threat to our troops which are located half-way 'round the world is a sort of logic that can only apply to an empire.

......

From Eisenhower's farewell address:

As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.

I'd say we're a good 40 years into "plundering, for our own ease and convenience" and part of the cost has been a significant loss in political heritage.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

What? Eisenhower said "that our glorious military is just another really, really big government program that causes most of the problems it purports to fix"? Was he really trying to scare everyone by suggesting that our enemies are just made up figments taken out of an Orwell novel? Was Eisenhower's point that all is lost and that the only solution is the collapse of the United States? Cause I thought Eisenhower's point was that the military had done a lot of good, that the military-industrial complex was necessary, but needed to be watched.

His point was that the military-industrial complex needed to be watched. It never was. It is now out of control, and yes, causes a great deal of our problems. The inability for either party to sensibly call for cuts in defense spending (remember that deficit thing? Yeah, military spending is a huge cause of fit) is a symptom of the problem.

Quoting:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

I think alexamenos' point is that the situation that we are in now is a result of failing to ever check or curb that power of the military-industrial complex - we sat there and watched the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" and "unwarranted influence." Of course the things you listed weren't his point in 1959, because the things he was warning against hadn't actually happened yet, fully.

Considering Eisenhower's prescience in 1959, when no one else was really warning about such a construct, I can only imagine what he would say today. But yeah, something akin to "Holy crap, we really effed up; did you listen to me at all?" would seem to be in order.

I don't think it's kooky because I think that the complete overreach of the union between the military, defense contractors, and politicians is a problem that I don't see any real solution for.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm not saying that our enemies are imaginary things, I'm saying they can be

so the Orwell references are just for frightful color? No doubt our meddling (good will and otherwise) has had consequences that we'd rather not have to deal with, but that's a far, far cry from saying that our military has caused most of the problems that it purports to fix. Troubles between Muslims and Christians, for example existed for quite some time before the military-industrial complex got all mixed up with the grey goo.

one of the reasons Rumsfeld cited for invading Iraq was because Iraq posed a threat to our troops stationed in the middle east --> the logic that someone is an enemy because they pose a threat to our troops which are located half-way 'round the world is a sort of logic that can only apply to an empire.

How many reasons for that war should we go through until we find one you like? For me, it stops at "removing a mass-murdering tyrant from power." That, to me, is a worthwhile endeavor for capable nations.

I'd say we're a good 40 years into "plundering, for our own ease and convenience" and part of the cost has been a significant loss in political heritage.

I'll agree, and Eisenhower probably would wring his hands, too. Do you think Eisenhower would suggest that collapse of the United States complete with apocalyptic imagery of the second coming is now the only solution?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I don't think it's kooky because I think that the complete overreach of the union between the military, defense contractors, and politicians is a problem that I don't see any real solution for.

I think to tell people that the world is collapsing because you can't think of a solution is a pretty good definition of kooky.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I don't think it's kooky because I think that the complete overreach of the union between the military, defense contractors, and politicians is a problem that I don't see any real solution for.

yeah, to mix in yet another metaphor....

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to wonder how we may avoid a crash when the front bumper is wrapping around the tree and the airbags are deploying.

And again I'd emphasize that this isn't just about the military-industrial complex -- there's also the...umm...hyper-incestuous and symbiotic relationship between the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street Banks. The AIG bailout, for example, was a backdoor bailout of Goldman Sachs, carried out former Goldman Sachs employee / US Treasury Department head, *financed* by the Federal Reserve.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

so the Orwell references are just for frightful color?

The Orwell reference is for the Doublethink that is necessary to imagine that our Department of Defense (formerly called the Department of War), is in the defense business.

Do you ever wonder, for instance, why a company that makes Stealth Bombers, a purely aggressive military weapon, is called a defense contractor?

It's very instructive to recognize that not only do we have a Department of Defense, but we also have a Department of Homeland Security. What (where) exactly is the Department of Defense defending if we need a whole 'nother department to provide security in the homeland?

On 9-11-01, a day which surely we could have used a little defense, what exactly did the Department of Defense do in the way of defending anything? Was it some sort of a rope-a-dope strategy to stand idly by and take a jumbo jet straight to HQ instead of actually doing anything? (I think not)

Let's insert here the rationalization that the best defense is a good offense...that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, etc., etc.... This is the part that makes my analyst pants go crazy, because now we're really getting into the seriousness and depth of Doublethink...

....a little digression....in 1984, The Ministry of Truth (MiniTru) was responsible for re-writing history in accordance with Party interests -- MiniTru's job was to falsify the past. The really interesting thing is that the true believers in the party generally know that the past is falsified and at the same time they believe the falsified past to be the truth. Hence the job of MiniTru wasn't so much to tell lies to the proles (who knew better or didn't care), but instead to construct lies for the Party's own consumption.....

....back to the best offense is a good defense....

There's two matters: 1) The Moral; and 2) The Tactical.

From a moral standpoint, Defense is clearly preferable to Attack. "He started the fight, I finished it" is a very widely and reasonably accepted kind of moral position. Defense -- we're abiding by the non-aggression principle, and that's cool.

At the sametime, it is possible to behave in a manner that is tactically very effective as a defense, but at the same time morally reprehensible....

...Let's suppose that we wish to remove the threat that Kerblackistan, which has not done one thing to us, might do something bad in the future....so we nuke the ever living shit out of it, wiping Kerblackistan from the face of the earth....

This is undeniably an enormously effective TACTICAL means of defending ourselves from Kerblackistan and at the same time an act at complete odds with the aforementioned non-aggression principal. It's an amoral act, or quite reasonably we might say that it is a repudiation of morality.

So....when we say that the "the best defense is a good offense" we're simultaneously laying claim to the morally preferable non-aggression principle even while violating it by initiating force. As Orwell defined Doublethink:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it..."

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The Orwell reference is for the Doublethink that is necessary to imagine that our Department of Defense (formerly called the Department of War), is in the defense business.

then the whole part about "finding enemies is easier than blah blah . . ." was just confused into the whole mess.

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it..."

I think leaving someone like Saddam Hussein in power is more immoral than removing him from power, so I really don't get all the contortions you went through to reach this punch line. I mean, we didn't nuke a whole country to eliminate the threat of Kerblikistan. We removed a morally reprehensible murdering tyrant in order to eliminate the threat of Kerblekistan. We didn't do a wrong thing for a right end. We did the inarguably right thing of removing a murdering madman from power for an arguably right end of strengthening our presence in a region halfway around the globe.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think leaving someone like Saddam Hussein in power is more immoral than removing him from power, so I really don't get all the contortions you went through to reach this punch line.

Iraq 3.0 was sold as a preventative war. One of the chief justifications for the war in Iraq was the so-called "flypaper theory". You personally may not have thought this was important, but the idea that we were fighting them over there so as not to fight them over here was very, very prevelant.

(What kind of proof are you waiting for? Do you need to see a mushroom cloud over Manhatten before we act?)

As for the "we removed a mass-murder from power" POV, this is a silly and naive position...it's akin to the uber-Liberal arguing for nationalized healthcare because everybody ought to have free health care and you must be a really evil person if you don't want people to have free health care. The obvious problem with the Liberal's argument is that the free health care is extremely expensive, and likewise we had to murder massive numbers of people in order to remove the mass murderer from power.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Iraq 3.0 was sold as a preventative war. One of the chief justifications ...

There were lots of reasons given at lots of levels, and liberation of Iraq from an Evil Dictatorship was one of them. Its the one that had me convinced that it wasn't a bad idea.
Here's a large graphic: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/photos...ized/21rat.jpg

The obvious problem with the Liberal's argument is that the free health care is extremely expensive, and likewise we had to murder massive numbers of people in order to remove the mass murderer from power.

If you can't see the differences, then you have no business arguing morality of anything. Or would you also suggest that removing Hussein would limit the freedom of choice for Iraqis (another "obvious" problem with forced health care), and that police shouldn't arrest hostage takers (or hey, that we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler) because someone would likely get hurt as a result.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

There were lots of reasons given at lots of levels, and liberation of Iraq from an Evil Dictatorship was one of them.

Yeah, there was an extended marketing campaign to sell the war and that marketing campaign had a variety of components.

One of the components of the marketing campaign was the 'liberate iraq from the tyranny of Saddam' sales pitch -- as silly as it was this pitch was nonetheless effective amongst a gullible crowd who also happened to be quite convinced that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda.

The problem with this pitch (amongst the less gullible and naive) was that too many people know that the US (like other States) doesn't hesitate to support mass-murdering dictators when it suits US interests, and also of course that the carnage arising from an armed invasion would far exceed the worst paranoid fantasies about what Hussein might do or has done in the past.

(estimates of Iraqi civilian dead since 2003 as a result of our invasion generally run from 100k - 500k with the displaced measuring in the millions....It's quite safe to say that we've killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever thought about killing)

Or would you also suggest that removing Hussein would limit the freedom of choice for Iraqis?

Like this kid --> link.

Yeah I'd say his options are somewhat limited these days.

[alexamenos]

....and to get the subject back on track.....

The point I was making earlier -- that the Republican rank-and-file is very much pro Department of "Defense", and so long as this is the case (and indeed long thereafter) the Republicans won't cause any meaningful reduction in the size of the Federal Government.

In a sense the Republicans are no more "small government" than the most liberal of liberal democrats -- liberals who would probably be quite happy to reduce the size of the military or war on drugs or something along those lines. That is, Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of Democrat pet programs, but not Republican pet programs.....when push comes to shove, they'll vote for the Dem program if the Dem will just add a little cream to the Republican program. (The welfare state and the warfare state -- they're like stink and shit. We're not going to get rid of one without getting rid of the other.)

Whatever the tea party may do, at the end of the end of the day I'd bet we'll have some coalition of the military industrial complex and flag-waving jingoists at the helm.