August 25, 2005

PRO-DEATH, BUT IN PRIVATE:

Party discomposure (Donald Lambro, August 25, 2005, Washington Times)

In recent polling data, Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found growing fissures throughout the Democrats' base -- particularly among Hispanics on social issues -- which could cut into their overall vote in 2006 and 2008.

Reviewing what led to the erosion in the Democrats' Hispanic vote last year, when Mr. Bush won 40 percent of this pivotal minority vote, Mr. Greenberg's findings on key social issues have shocked party strategists.

Hispanics who voted Republican, he said, were "slightly more pro-life and slightly more favorable to pro-life groups. A pro-life Democrat runs better than a pro-choice one, and almost half of Hispanic voters [48 percent] say they would be more likely to support a pro-life Republican."

I'm sure that data, when first reported, surprised party leaders. The pro-choice movement has been one of the Democrats' strongest voter-turnout constituencies, but even now there's a rift opening among that party's subset.

Party strategists say its leading advocacy group, NARAL Pro-Choice America, is bitter Democratic leaders turned on NARAL's incendiary TV ad accusing Judge Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

This time, though, Republicans found themselves outgunned by Democrats, who vehemently condemned the ad. "We have to define the reckless left of our party and differentiate ourselves," Clinton White House adviser Lanny Davis told The Washington Post, calling the ad "smear and innuendo."

What's interesting is that this more closely fits the model that Robert Barro described yesterday than does the religious appeal of the GOP. Democrats have to keep their abortion extremism hidden from the public lest they alienate the general population.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 25, 2005 8:18 AM
Comments

Howabout "Pro-Death, but only if they're Muslims"

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 10:56 AM

I like how because Republicans can call themselves pro-life, because they want to save embryo's and fetuses, they can get away with violent murders around the world for the benefit of their corporate supporters.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 10:59 AM

Ken:

Yes, there's innocent life, which must be protected, and lives which serve evil ends, which can justly be taken. That's the Judeo-Christian morality you objected to in the Berger piece.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 11:05 AM

Islamicist, not Muslim. We're liberating Muslims, killing Islamicists and Ba'athists.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 11:06 AM

That argument might be a little too nuanced for him, OJ. Shades of grey and all that. After all, nothing's black and white.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 25, 2005 11:29 AM

OJ - Its easy to call someone evil after they're dead. We're killing a lot of innocent people, too, I don't know if you're aware or not. It feels good to pretend like we aren't, but read up on some Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian history of the past 100 years, and you'll find that the number of innocents that have died directly or indirectly because of US policy far outweighs the number of "evil" people we've killed. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cambodia, the list goes on and on. I could go and do some more specific research if you want. We went to Iraq for one person and ended up killing 100,000.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 11:52 AM

"Violent murders"??

Quday? Mohammed Atef? Usay? Sheikh Yassin?

I daresay that we could kill 10,000 extremists this afternoon, and it wouldn't be murder.

And Ken - what exactly is a 'corporate interest'?

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 25, 2005 11:56 AM

Yes, violent murders. I don't know why you are so surprised. There is a reason why most of the rest of the world hates us, especially the Middle East, and its not just because their governments are more crooked than ours. Its because we have a long history of supporting tyrannies outside the US. Yes, the four you mentioned are terrorists, but their crimes dwarf in comparison to that which has been committed by or supported by the US military and its allies.
Its very ignorant of people to actually believe that everyone we are killing in Iraq is an extremist.
Corporate interest is a lot things, but in this case usually when profits are threatened, or there becomes a possibility for their growth, the military is deployed. If you don't know what I mean, then I dont even want to take the time to explain it to you. Go read Chomsky, Zinn, or Parenti.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 12:05 PM

>Go read Chomsky, Zinn, or Parenti.

Yawn. I was 17 once too, but I already knew history, both the pretty and the not, so I didn't waste my time on such drivel.

Oh, and your mention of Panama above shows the degree to which the left can invent and perpetuate myths. That there was a "massacre" there is a joke on par with the Jenin farce.

Posted by: b at August 25, 2005 12:10 PM

Ken;

Yes, but Saddam had killed a million and sanctions had killed 500,000, so we saved lives in the long run.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 12:14 PM

Oj - i dont understand you. By the way, how many of those million were killed while we were buddy-buddy with Saddam? We saved lives with the sanctions that we imposed?

B- Granted, those three are but easy example of authors who have dedicated themselves to exposing US brutality, but for your point about Panama is wrong. We did kill people in panama, and in almost every other country in Latin America. We went to war in Guatemala over banana's, in the interest of the Internation Fruit Company. We assassinated several popularly elected leaders, influential religious officials, nativist and nationalist groups; pretty much anyone who opposed our imperialism. And this is not oddball, far-left Communist jargon; the history of Latin America is out there for every to go look up, and see if I'm wrong when say that since the last 19th century we've been meddling in their politics for the interests of various groups and companies in the US. Because labels like "Communist" or even just "Socialist" have been so demonized in American public discourse, we have been able to get away with a lot of murder.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 12:26 PM

Ken:

No, the buddying and sanctions aided in the deaths. Bush ended both.

Killing isn't murder by the way.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 12:30 PM

Ken: Yes, we invaded Panama to install the legitimately elected gov't of Guillermo Endara. People got killed. I assume, however, that your inclusion was referring to the lunatic claims such as those in "The Panama Deception" (which won a Best Documentary Oscar, after which I never troubled myself with caring about those awards), which claim that thousands upon thousands were killed and that there was a massive cover-up. This is utter nonsense.

Posted by: b at August 25, 2005 12:38 PM

Oj - i still dont get what you mean. Saddam was our friend, along with a lot of other tyrants in the Middle east, until he invaded Kuwait. Before that happened, he was doing most of his various evil deeds, and while the US turned a blind eye. I'm not just condemning Bush in my comments, I'm condemming every president and Congress that has used the military as an unjust tool. And because the Republican Party is seen as the ultimate guardian of human life via its views on abortion, somehow you are able to gloss over the far more numerous examples of killing in our foreign policy.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 12:41 PM

Ken: So I assume that you agree that France, Russia, & Germany are way more evil than we are since they gave Saddam far, far more military and economic assistance than we ever did and never showed any inclination to make up for it by removing him from power?

Posted by: b at August 25, 2005 12:45 PM

Ken;

Yes, we should have helped the Iranians get rid of him in the 80s.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 12:46 PM

Ken:

A) What do China, Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Spain and possible even Britain have in common? Answer: They have all killed more "innocent" people and supported more tyrannies than the US. Met a lot of people of late who hate them for it?

B) What corporate interest do you think the US mobilized the military for in Iraq? It must be Boeing, because why else would you keep going half way around the world to ultra-hostile territory when everything you could possibly covet is available much closer to home? Just take out Canada, Columbia and Venezuela and you stop drugs, grab the oil and keep Haliburton busy for decades (We will demand reconstruction). C'mon, even you fellow-travellers don't think the corporate world is into high-risk operations for thrills and adventure, do you?

C)What do you mean by "innocent victims" Do you just mean they didn't do anything wrong, like most of Germany and Japan in WW11 (think that war was an atrocity?), or do you mean ignorant and naive and incapable of enjoying the finer things in life like freedom, democracy and triple mocha latte, and therefore undeserving of assistance beyond a UNESCO project?

D) Whatever gave you the idea that most of the world hates you? It is certainly true that a sour chippiness pervails among intellectual elites and at the political level, but you may have noticed that rather a large number of talented folks are desperate to get to your shores. Kind of like lawyers--everybody hates them and every mother wants their kid to be one.

There are many reasons for anti-Americanism, most having to do with power and success, but one major factor is the aid and encouragement self-loathing Americans like you and your high-profile heros give to the rest of the world.


Posted by: Peter B at August 25, 2005 12:54 PM

b - they didnt remove him from power because they're his allies; just like we won't go after Saudi Arabia. Im not saying that those three countries are any better than the US; they along with the UK and the US and China have pretty much imperialized the whole globe. We have other buddies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, who commit human rights violations much like Saddam. There are massacres in the Sudan right now, and I suppose that will come up a few years down the right when it becomes convenient for us to invade.
So I assume you agree with my points about our destructive influences in Latin America?

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 12:54 PM

Ken:

People don't hate countries for killing people - they fear them. Leftists especially fear them, and begin to apologize and appease.

People hate countries (the US) because it is the biggest (in all the ways that count) and richest country on earth.

If people in the Middle East hate the US for killing so many, then why don't they hate the PA, the Syrian government, the Iranian government, and the Sudanese government more? Why aren't there massive protests and marches and riots against these super-killers?

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 25, 2005 12:56 PM

Jim - They do hate all the above. But what they hate more is our support for the various tyrannies in the region, namely, Saudi Arabia and Israel (the two countries that contain some of the most important cities and sites for Muslims); Osama said so himself. And rather than face up to the fact that it is our foreign policy that is the reason why we are so hated, we are given answers like "they hate us because of our freedom." But there are many unhappy Iranians, etc, who are mad at both their country and the US.
I don't know what to make about your leftist response, so I'm just going to let it lie. Rightists are silent as people die, I guess...I dunno...I try to resort to easy labels as much as i can, but sometimes they are just so convenient. This isn't about right or left anymore, Republicans and Democrats both share the guilt (that is, if you believe that Democrats actually represent the left.)

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 1:08 PM

Ken-
So you hate the US, the UK, China, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, uh - I'm losing track here. Perhaps it would just be simpler for you to name the countries you DON'T hate. You know, all the countries that have never gone to war with another country or played hardball in a political or economical fashion or roughed people up for what later turned out to be bad reasons. The leaves Antarctica, so I assume you'll be moving there shortly in order to live in ideolgical purity. You can unionize the penguins.

PS: Referencing unrepentant Stalin apologists like Zinn and Chomsky is probably not the best way to get your ideas taken seriously in a forum like this. Try to find a real historians who say the same thing and quote them instead. You'll find it's a lot less divisive. Of course if you can't find any other historian who agrees with your fellow travelers, shouldn't that tell you something. And no, it's not that all the other historians are in cahoots with Chimpy vonBushitler.

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 25, 2005 1:20 PM

Ken:

We're forcing the Sa'uds to liberalize, beginning with elections. War won't be necessary to change their regime. It was in Iraq.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 1:39 PM

Chimpy McVonBushHitler you mean. We chewed on Zinn a couple of weeks ago or so here. Don't think we've ever had a Chomsky thread.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 25, 2005 1:46 PM

Ken:

So from this and the Berger post I take it you're anti-Zionist?

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 1:47 PM

Mr. Shropshire:
Yeah, but Zinn is so much fun to whale on. Even my aged father (who had never heard of Zinn before a week ago) is getting into the act.

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 25, 2005 1:50 PM

Ken thinks Israel is a tyranny. The only democracy in the Mid East. The one with Moslem Arab members of its legislature. Hey Ken, how many Jews in the governments of an Arab state? Or how many Jews period. You're the history maven, how many Jews in 1946 lived in Arab countries?

Posted by: Bob at August 25, 2005 1:52 PM

How old does anyone think Ken is? High school I'd guess, although Chomsky in high school might be a stretch. Doubtful high school teachers would have even heard of him?

I know, one or both of his parents are card carrying members of the NEA. He's to be pitied more than censured.

Posted by: erp at August 25, 2005 2:07 PM

Man! This is better than watching boxing!

Posted by: John Resnick at August 25, 2005 2:16 PM

Ken:

The Allende Myth - Val e-diction 7/20(?), 2003.

Posted by: Sandy P at August 25, 2005 2:18 PM

Tough nut, vilified cos we support tyrants, vilified cos we get rid of them.

Or they hate us because we don't help them overthrow 1 dictator for another.

Ken, outside The Revolution when no one would give us any credit, WWI and WWII, when were we liked?

Posted by: Sandy P at August 25, 2005 2:22 PM

erp:
Punk rocker/spoken word guru Jello Biafra is a huge disciple of Chomsky. That's where I first heard of him back in '89 when I was still in high school.

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 25, 2005 2:24 PM

Ken--

Don't forget the Chomsky's introduction to Robert Faurisson's Holocaust-denial book . Make sure to remind us that Chomsky isn't anti-semitic, he's just "Anti-Zionist." After all, he's Jewish too!

Maybe you can even get him to participate in this thread. He owns an estate on Martha's Vineyard and I imagine he summers there. Try to look for a house with a red Audi A6--that's what his wife drives.

Posted by: at August 25, 2005 2:26 PM

Ken--

Don't forget Chomsky's introduction to Robert Faurisson's Holocaust-denial book . Make sure to remind us that Chomsky isn't anti-semitic, he's just "Anti-Zionist." After all, he's Jewish too!

Maybe you can even get him to participate in this thread. He owns an estate on Martha's Vineyard and I imagine he summers there. Try to look for a house with a red Audi A6--that's what his wife drives.

Posted by: at August 25, 2005 2:26 PM

Do the Palestinians really hate the PA? Everytime I see them on TV or on the Internet, they seem to be cheering and shooting and stomping on the Star of David or the Stars and Stripes. And, always wearing their green headbands and black balaclava masks. And always cheering for the thug of the month. Is that how you perceive their hatred of the US?

Ken - you don't know what hate is. Your petty mewling "hatred" (towards the US and the West in general) is a drop in the ocean compared to that which would slit your throat and pull your head clean off in about 3 seconds, given the opportunity.

Hatred is killing your sister because she was raped. Hatred is killing yourself and dozens of others in a pizza shop, because you are too cowardly to live on (and cleanly fight for) the principles you believe in. Hatred is shooting a 1-year old baby girl in her kitchen because she is Jewish. Hatred is lying to your own people for 30+ years about why they live in camps.

If you want to claim the responsibility for all that hatred, go right ahead; maybe it helps you live in this world. But keep the USA out of it.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 25, 2005 3:28 PM

Ken is too perfect an example of the ignorant young
lefty American to be real. Peter ... Is that you, Peter?

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 3:38 PM

I happen to disagree with OJ, to an extent, about Saudi Arabia. It's true we're pressuring them to reform, but I still think that at some point we'll need to send a couple divisions to Riyadh and decorate the streetlamps with the adult male members of the Hous of Saud. Sic semper tyrranis.

Posted by: Mike Morley at August 25, 2005 3:54 PM

Maybe Ken isn't young.

But the white guilt he's carrying......

Posted by: Sandy P at August 25, 2005 3:58 PM

Mike:

That's certainly what al Qaeda envisions.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 4:10 PM

Hi guys, nice to be back on the whipping post.

I don't know who to attack right now, so I'll just throw out some general remarks that will probably piss most of you off...

I started off criticizing OJ's calling the Dem's the "pro-death" party, with the point that the Republican's call themselves the "Pro-life" party in order to gloss over all the deaths that have occurred as a result of our foreign policy for the past century; i pointed Latin America, and so far the only dispute is about Panama; so you guys agree with me that we've meddled, for the benefit of American companies, in the politics of almost every other country in our hemisphere.
I know that France, Germany, the UK, Russia, and China have all had their fair share of colonialism. Especially in the Middle East. But that does not change the fact that we've done a lot of nasty things.
I don't hate America. I hate some of the trends in our polices over the past few decades, and I think with Bush II it has only gotten worse.
Yes, I am Anti-Zionist, and being a Jew myself, I am disgusted with the fact that our country is abusing the religious beliefs of my family members to maintain a military base in Israel, at the cost of billions of dollars a year (more aid than we give any other country.
I know the Palestinians have done some real nasty things to Israeli's; and vice versa. But that does not excuse the fact that the United States has long been using its power to monopolize the use of legimate violence; and that this legitimate violence has far outweighed the violence of terrorism, by any standard.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 4:17 PM

Ken:

Once we know you're an anti-Zionist Jew and an anti-American American the rest goes without saying.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 4:21 PM

Jim - A clean fight between Israel and the Palestinians. Is that some kind of joke?

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 4:28 PM

Oj - yeah, im sure your prejudices will fill in the blanks.

Posted by: Ken at August 25, 2005 4:33 PM

blanks?

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 4:40 PM

Jello Biafra???? The things you learn on this blog.

Posted by: erp at August 25, 2005 5:22 PM

We have a military base in Israel?

Posted by: Bob at August 25, 2005 5:23 PM

erp:

I think he challenged Ralph Nader for the Green Party nomination at one point.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 5:24 PM

Bob:

All it is is our military base. Zionism is militarism.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 5:55 PM

OJ:

I don't think that's what al-Q envisions. Nobody who depends on grant money wants their sugar daddies taken out.


Ken:

You don't want the good guys to monopolize the use of legitimate violence? I'm speechless . . . I mean, I guess that's gallant of you, wanting to give the bad guys a sporting chance and all, but, well, not to put too fine a point on it, my kids have to grow up in this world.

Posted by: Mike Morley at August 25, 2005 6:25 PM

Saddam was responsible for causing 500,000 Iraqi casualties and 1.5 million Iranian casualties, (100,000 by poisonous gasses), during the جنگ تحمیلی, or Iran/Iraq war, which began when Iraq invaded Iran.

He is further responsible for perhaps 35,000 Iraqi casualties during the Persian Gulf war, which was a result of Iraq invading Kuwait a mere two years after the Iran/Iraq war ended.

In addition, during the twelve years of UN sanctions against Iraq, the continuation of which being caused by Saddam's refusal to abide by the terms of the '91 cease-fire agreement, there were at least 300,000 excess and needless deaths of under-5 children.
Note that during the same time period, in the autonomous northern regions of Iraq, child mortality actually decreased by 12%.
Also during the same time period, while all of these children were dying due mostly to lack of food and medicine, Saddam increased his personal wealth by $ 2 billion, and paid another $ 2 billion worth of bribes to UN officials and others.

We won't count the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam during the Kurdish revolts, the Shi'ite revolts, or in Saddam's torture chambers or CHILDRENS' PRISON.
We've uncovered mass graves of executed children, some still clutching stuffed toys.

Between '80 - '03, Saddam was responsible for an average of at least, AT LEAST, 40,000 deaths a year, every year, over a million in all.
We're in Pol Pot territory now.

When you criticize America for being responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqis, you must also present a realistic alternative plan for removing Saddam from power, or you ipso facto defend the evil that I've mentioned, which is but a small taste of the horrors that the Saddam family visited upon Iraq.

BTW, a look at the numbers that I've provided as being deaths caused by Saddam, juxtaposed against the actions that U.S. and allied troops have taken in Iraq this time around, would show that there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER that the number of aggrieved Iraqis could reach anywhere near 100,000.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 25, 2005 6:48 PM
« ECONOMIC PRNCIPLES MAKE FOR UNUSUAL ALLIES: | Main | THE AXIS OF GOOD MAKES FOR UNUSUAL ALLIES: »