February 28, 2009

Bill Bennett: Watch Our Rhetoric; This is Not Socialism
— Ace

Bennett speaking right now, stating that we are not facing socialism but "left-wing Democratic catechism." Advises we call the thing by its proper name.

Well, it's certainly socialism-esque and trending that way still further.

His greater point, I suppose, is well-taken, and gets to that Weird Kid Eating Paste thing we need to look out for. And, perhaps, by calling Obama's liberalism "socialism," it diminishes people's aversion for socialism, the same as calling everydamnthing "racist" diminished the power of that word as well.

Hey, he said it. Don't beat up on me as a "coward."

Posted by: Ace at 06:36 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Paste does a body good.

Posted by: nickless at February 28, 2009 06:38 AM (MMC8r)

2 I personally am not  fan of Bill Bennett. He's dry as to be unlistenable on the radio, and he's another one of the conservative elitists who are too polite to say we are at war with the Left.

Posted by: SGT Dan at February 28, 2009 06:42 AM (YCle4)

3

Weird Kid Eating Paste thing

Could you expand on that?  I been away ...

Posted by: Islamic Spy at February 28, 2009 06:42 AM (MEMCX)

4 This is not pederasty rape, it's Mandatory Lifestyle Tolerance Training For The Kids.

Posted by: Teacher, Ouch! at February 28, 2009 06:42 AM (MU8FI)

5 Gimme Rush instead. Sigh. Bennett may just another one of those "play nice" Repugnicans. The Dummycrats got a long, long way calling us "fascists" for the last eight years. That worked out well for them, in case he hadn't noticed. Bennett ought to be following Michael Ledeen's lead, if he's going to go all split-this-hair on us. What the Dems are pushing now is fascism, of the Italian corporate brand.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 06:44 AM (AZGON)

6 He can split hairs as finely as he chooses. I'm not going mushy and diminishing the bigger point by teasing what degree of socialism we're talking about. But please, Bill, please continue with semantic pedantry. The working man loves these finer points and remains exceptionally receptive to your parsing, especially come election day.

Would Coulter and Limbaugh please grab the mic. The battle cry of "Down with Socialism Left-wing Democratic Catechism" is really mellowing my harsh.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 28, 2009 06:46 AM (swuwV)

7 @5 "Bennett may be just another one..." Paste makes me forget verbs. I'm off to the slots with Bill.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 06:46 AM (AZGON)

8 I am tired of conservatives saying, move on, nothing to see here. Obama is clearly driving this nation towards socialism, even if it is an American style, happy-face variety of socialism. At this point it is obvious that he is consciously trying to sink the economy, to create a big enough catastrophe to enable the massive government takeover that he desires.
Don't forget, every crisis is an opportunity to these people. Opportunity for what? Increasing their power, which is all they are interested in.

Posted by: the real joe at February 28, 2009 06:47 AM (VBjKB)

9 The battle cry of "Down with Left-wing Democratic Catechism" I think we have a thread winner already, and we're not even to ten hair-splitting comments yet.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 06:48 AM (AZGON)

10 Between George Orwell stealing my thunder and Bennett quenching the fire, I can tell this is going to be a bad day.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 28, 2009 06:49 AM (swuwV)

11

Paste does a body good.

 

That's a meal that'll stick to yer ribs.

Posted by: payaso at February 28, 2009 06:49 AM (wJ2/3)

12

too polite to say we are at war with the Left.

Yeah, Bill is of a time when sounding academic and lofty actually impressed people.  His book on Clinton was prescient and right on point, but in today's ugly Uber-Liberal-Orwellian-Attack-Speech, which has become commonspeak, it sounds hopelessly as outdated, prissy, and ineffectual as prescient does.

Posted by: Islamic Spy at February 28, 2009 06:50 AM (MEMCX)

13 Damnit. Cannot. type. fast. enough.

#10 was in response to #5 and not #9.

Orwell is in my head.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 28, 2009 06:51 AM (swuwV)

14 Mr. Bill confuses clarity with accuracy. We who oppose the Left might be using an inaccurate term, but our vision is clear. We see the danger. Our house is burning and Bennett wants us to tuck in our shirts before we call 911.

Posted by: eman at February 28, 2009 06:52 AM (Ee8qq)

15

He’s right about one thing, it is NOT socialism. It is communism. We passed socialism a long time ago.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:53 AM (f6os6)

16 From dictionary.com: so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. Hmmmmmm, Ace could you possibly relay this information to Bill?

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 06:55 AM (uj/0b)

17 Why must our terms be exact when the President can call welfare a tax cut? At least we are correct in the spirit of our remarks where the President means to obfuscate. In reality the Dems are moving toward fascism where the state controls industry and long term will move to a Socialist system. Would it be OK ,Mr. Bennett, to say they are screwing us with social experimenting on the Dr. Frankenstein scale?

Posted by: locus Ceruleus at February 28, 2009 06:57 AM (e2mBS)

18

"When Cicero speaks, men say how beautiful his words, how clever his ideas," but when Scipio speaks men say "LET US MARCH." 

Where is our Scipio today?

Posted by: Islamic Spy at February 28, 2009 06:57 AM (MEMCX)

19 Damnit. Cannot. type. fast. enough. This is the rough and tumble, manly world of split political hairs. Things here move with the speed of dice cast upon the craps table of Beltway punditry. If I keep mixing these metaphors, I'm gonna feel like I took a trip in a blender.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 06:58 AM (AZGON)

20 I think it is National Socialism.

The government didn't appropriate the banks, they subsumed them.

This is the same thing they did to the states over the past few decades...they injected transportation, housing, education money into the states then crammed beltway regulations down their throats.

This is behaving just like Nazi Germany.

Posted by: torabora at February 28, 2009 06:59 AM (Tou3T)

21 sears poncho As I understand it the difference between Fascism and Socialism is public and private property. Fascism allows private property.

Posted by: locus Ceruleus at February 28, 2009 07:00 AM (e2mBS)

22 I agree with not using the term "socialism."  Socialism suggests that there's a rhyme or reason to the thing, and that if we follow through, we'll be living like Swedes, eating IKEA meatballs, paying high taxes, and enjoying cheap well-designed home furnishings and reasonably well-run cradle-to-grave everything.  This is so not the case.  It isn't socialism, it's a big chaotic, stupid mess.  It's a minivan of four-year-olds doing our grocery shopping for us--we're going to wind up with no toothpaste or toilet paper, and a cupboard full of Captain Crunch and Lucky Charms.    

Posted by: Amy P at February 28, 2009 07:01 AM (n8Z8N)

23 Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Lucky Charms /Democrat Voter

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 07:02 AM (uj/0b)

24 in fairness, his point is not to not oppose obama. His point is tactical-- that the use of overly charged phraseology subtracts, rather than adds, to the rhetorical power of opposition.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2009 07:03 AM (leDZH)

25 And he's wrong.

Posted by: oblig. at February 28, 2009 07:07 AM (Hc34T)

26 Bennett will be rewarded. The Department of Consensus and Security will name the new 9000 Series stapler after him.

Posted by: eman at February 28, 2009 07:08 AM (Ee8qq)

27 His point is tactical-- that the use of overly charged phraseology subtracts, rather than adds, to the rhetorical power of opposition.
But the electorate is already half asleep. How to wake them up? will it take gas rationing and food riots?

Posted by: the real joe at February 28, 2009 07:09 AM (VBjKB)

28

use of overly charged phraseology subtracts, rather than adds, to the rhetorical power

Good point ACE, and rhetorical power we have lacked since Reagan.  We need ACE Scipio Africanus.  (Sura 2:29)

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:12 AM (MEMCX)

29

Hey Bill,

Check 2 or 3 of the Democrats running for Mayor of L.A.  They have no problem in stating they are socialists, and running on a socialist platform.  Stop with the polite horseshit Bill.  Even the whackjob Dems are openly stating their desire to go socialist.

SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM...I feel better now.

Posted by: Sparky at February 28, 2009 07:14 AM (J1f2W)

30

"When Cicero speaks, men say how beautiful his words, how clever his ideas," but when Scipio speaks men say "LET US MARCH." 

Meh, who cares what them Greek fellers say.

Posted by: gebrauchshund at February 28, 2009 07:15 AM (ACDor)

31 Bennett has great intellect and very little good sense . . . a rose is a rose is a rose.

Posted by: rplat at February 28, 2009 07:17 AM (Qrnps)

32 Overuse of the word socialism is not the way to wake up an electorate.  Staying on point that Liberal programs "kill jobs" wakes everyone up.  Newt is right.  Attack of THE JOBKILLERS!

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:17 AM (MEMCX)

33 Has anyone there called Ann Coulter a faggot yet?

Posted by: eman at February 28, 2009 07:18 AM (Ee8qq)

34 ...calling Obama's liberalism "socialism," it diminishes people's aversion for socialism, the same as calling everydamnthing "racist" diminished the power of that word as well. This is a very interesting comment, because it points out a fundamental difference some of us have regarding perceptions. I don't think that the potency of the word "racist" or the fear of being called such have diminished much at all. I see that the repetitive accusation of racism directed at conservatives for decades has in fact made it stick so well that we have to bend over backwards to prove it otherwise. Yet Eric "Shaft" Holder can make an outrageous statement accusing the nation of being cowards about the matter having just elected a black POTUS, and what would have forced the resignation of a Repug AG gets treated in the MSM as a mere distraction, if gauche in tone. And make no mistake: the MSM still sets the tone, which is in harmony with the tone of the cultural Deciders, the entertainment media, and academia. Calling us racist does not sound outrageous to the average citizen. Turnabout is fair play, and the only question is if it will work effectively. If calling them socialists repeatedly will shift perceptions in our favor, we ought to do it. And let's face it, this Reign of the Unicorn is closer to socialism than anything we've ever seen. BTW. Yeah, I called him "Shaft" Holder. If a lefty can mock a Southern conservative as someone who sleeps with his sister, and conservatives can take it, then fair is fair. I'm with uber-lefty Peter Bergman formerly of Firesign Theater on this use of words. He always wanted to destroy the tyranny of words, the idea that there shouldn't be forbidden words. Besides, Shaft was a bad mutherfucka, and for all we know Eric loves holding his shaft. He sure as shit was stroking it last week.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 07:19 AM (AZGON)

35 He is still wanting Obama to govern from the center, you can hear it on his radio show.  He has changed his tac from actually giving Obama the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of his term.  He and Medved both couldn't understand Obama is what he is - a hardcore lefty.  I couldn't stand hearing them say their "centrist" carp about Obama.

Saying America is still a center-right nation does not mean Obama will feel obligated to govern as such.  Thankfuilly both have pretty much backed off of this owing to Obama's actualy governance and ligislation, EO's etc.

Bill is also a bit to intellectual at a time when we don't need cerbral arguments/positions.  We need in the trench opposition; #18 's quote is spot on.

Posted by: catmman at February 28, 2009 07:19 AM (BCSpK)

36

His point is tactical-- that the use of overly charged phraseology subtracts, rather than adds, to the rhetorical power of opposition.

I agree that's his point, and he couldn't be more wrong.  I don't know who these guys think actually comprises the American electorate at this point, but it's not people who know what the fuck a "left-wing Democratic catechism" is.  Bennett doesn't even know what the fuck that is.

Good lord.  Our opposition has torn off a huge chunk of the people who used to vote for Republicans and their primary -- and really only -- weapons have been hyper-charged rhetoric cranked up to 11 and vile bumper-sticker phrases repeated ad nauseum.  It sure as shit hasn't been fresh ideas.

Who gives a crap if what the Dems are implementing is according-to-Hoyle "socialism"?  How many "moderates" know what socialism really is?  Most Americans just know it's a scary pejorative and, thankfully, still react with revulsion at the word.

So, yeah, what they're doing is "socialism" if that's what gets us votes.  Call it "fascism" if it gets us even more votes.  No bonus points for the latter's greater accuracy, because it doesn't fucking matter.  If the Dem's only agenda item was the renaming of JFK Airport to BHO Airport, we would still be best served by attaching an emotionally-charged word to the act.  "Rape" is always an ice breaker.

I mean, is this no longer about winning any more?  For my part, if I could build a meme that Harry Reid was a child molester, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Posted by: VJay at February 28, 2009 07:19 AM (k87Wm)

37

Markie Marxist sez: "Hey! Bill Bennett isn't giving us Marxists credit! We're nationalizing stuff! That's socialism on the road to communism! He must have opiates in his suppositories."

Posted by: Chas at February 28, 2009 07:20 AM (81ekr)

38 gauche

Stop.  Just, stop!

Posted by: catmman at February 28, 2009 07:22 AM (BCSpK)

39

Meh, who cares what them Greek fellers say.

The greatest orator the the 20th century, Winston Churchill did.  He modeled his rhetoric after them (Romans),

... we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the fields, and in the streets, we shall never surrender... 

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:22 AM (MEMCX)

40 #22 - great comment

Posted by: ann at February 28, 2009 07:23 AM (US+1l)

41 I wouldn't go so far as national socialism, but if you've read Jonah Goldberg's book (which was written before the Obama phenomenon, so he doesn't have an axe to grind there) it is clear that Obamism is a strain of fascism.

If you know the kind of stuff Obama marinated in throughout all his life, you know he's a Marxist revolutionary.  What he really wants is much more dangerous than soft Scandi socialism.

Of course, Mr. Spread-the-Wealth has no problem hogging courtside seats at an NBA game.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2009 07:23 AM (i01iV)

42 7Heavens does have a point - maybe a lot of people are starting to think socialism isn't so bad, Europe and Canada do it... job-killers is a lot more immediate and requires less analysis, while also being accurate.

Posted by: the real joe at February 28, 2009 07:25 AM (VBjKB)

43 >>#22 - great comment Beat me to it. Very well said.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2009 07:27 AM (VW9/y)

44 #22 As a matter of substance, you are spot on.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 07:28 AM (P1JmH)

45 "His point is tactical-- that the use of overly charged phraseology subtracts, rather than adds, to the rhetorical power of opposition."

Then his tactical plans undermine the main strategic one. We're trying to defeat Obama and his very liberal (as in radical neo-liberal, not classical liberal) policies, right? How exactly do you introduce "Democratic catechism" to the debate? Seriously, WTF? Do we get to hand out poly-sci theory texts to the public to get them up to speed to the hip, new vocabulary... and will it be Bennett's? This is so over the top I'm beginning to think he'll be shilling a new book explaining the nuance of it all: Democratic Catechism, The One, and His Ascendancy.

His tactics will be so genteel as to be ineffective because no one will know what the hell he's talking about and will put an extra burden on those trying to pitch it to the great unwashed who barely find their way to the voting booth. OK, so maybe CPAC people will appreciate the nuance, but is that what he's instructing the water carriers to run with once they leave? I see fail. Exceedingly, precisely defined fail.

Bennett's thoughtful and wonky. I like that in my holster. It's the Deringer on my ankle. But this is the big time. Give me the shotgun... or at least a revolver.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 28, 2009 07:28 AM (swuwV)

46

7HEAVENS -

That "Greek fellers" bit was intended as a joke. A little shot at the protest goober at NYU, who referred to Cicero as a "Greek philosopher".

Posted by: gebrauchshund at February 28, 2009 07:29 AM (ACDor)

47

the MSM still sets the tone, which is in harmony with the tone of the cultural Deciders, the entertainment media, and academia.

George, the proble with repeating the word socialism is that it has no sting to it even now, as many Lefties are either outright socialists or are very sympathetic to it and talk endlessly about Eurpoean style socialism and its benefits.  Repeating it is not going to give it more power. We need something trenchant and shocking, like Newt's calling O's budget a "jobs-killer".  Not thats power. 

ATTACK OF THE JOB KILLERS!!!

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:30 AM (MEMCX)

48

That "Greek fellers" bit was intended as a joke

Yes, I know, and as an NYU alum I am mortified. 

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:36 AM (MEMCX)

49 #47 Use both. The O-bots are certainly job-killers. It's only a matter of what works. The term "socialism" is useful so long as it remains a liability in discourse with the middle, the so-called Independents. Fuck the lefties, they are beyond reach anyway. We need the fickle middle to spend some time over here, with us hoboes and Scandi hunters. But ultimately, this is a problem with our culture, not politics. We're in permanent decline until the culture changes, and politics can do little to alter that. It's yet another proof that Bennett is splitting hairs.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 07:37 AM (P1JmH)

50 Larry Kudlow said "Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Business, and More". I like that terminology too. Socialism sounds good to a lot of people. Declaring war on employers doesn't.

Posted by: rockmom at February 28, 2009 07:38 AM (xOEA9)

51 Also, to comment on Ace's take on the charge of racism........

It seems to me that the charge of racism has not lost it's power.  Just look how Republicans are painted as racists for not believing in Dem programs. 

Against Affirmative Action:  You must be a racist.  Never mind that the notion of preference base on the color of one's skin is, in fact, racist.  Republicans are in favor of doing away with this because they hate black people.

School Choice:  You are a racist because you are merely trying to take money away from public (read inner city) schools.  Never mind that the public schools of the inner city (dominated by Dems) have failed children for going on two generations now.  Republicans just hate black people and are trying to leave them uneducated. 

We could go on and on, building a list and talking about why black people do not vote for republicans.  The fact of the matter is, Republicans have been branded as racists, and the label has stuck.  Doesn't seem to be a weak charge to me.

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 07:40 AM (uj/0b)

52

It would be nice if we could all be on the same page and the same point all the time: 

DEMOCRATS=KILL JOBS

LIBERALISM KILLS JOBS

OBAMA = PRESIDENT JOB KILLER

THE JOB-KILLER-IN-CHIEF

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:42 AM (MEMCX)

53

ultimately, this is a problem with our culture

I know, I hate to even got there.  I think it is a crisis of faith, as Pope JPII said a very long time ago.

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:45 AM (MEMCX)

54 Bennett reminds me of some of the characters in that old Sci-Fi series "V". The ones that even after seeing the human masks ripped from the reptilian faces of the Visitors still refused to believe what they just saw, still blamed the chaos on the Rebels, and called the unmasking a trick. Just what does Barry have to do to open Bill's eyes?

Posted by: eman at February 28, 2009 07:48 AM (Ee8qq)

55 think it's plain, and some have already made the point that this is in fact unadulterated socialism with communism within an arm's reach.  make no mistake.  we are here already, and with another couple of years of double-digit unemployment and inflation, people may start getting upset.  but then again when you can buy them off with another round of spending, you can lie to them for another few decades.  this is the biggest political reorganization in our history, and if we were never able to really slip the shackles of the new deal and the great society, we will be burdened with this forever.

Posted by: matt foley at February 28, 2009 08:02 AM (f6IGq)

56

Vic @ 15. Brother. I'm a commie-bater from way back, and won't back down.

gebrauchshund. "Cicero spoke Greek." Probably thought in Greek, too. Classicists call his Latin speeches boring--I'm a piker, so I don't--but he wrote books in Latin that have been lost, and critics at the time (one of whom had him killed, so it was a tough room to work) called his writing style "silver"--which to Romans meant "Greek-like." I get the joke though, and think we should all keep it alive. Do we have Latinists? I love a terse epigram. 

Amy P @ 22. Brilliant. Perfection in a colloquial mode. Are you female? "What's your situation?" (a little blog-referential commentary there). Would you lead my Tea Party? That right there is what hits them in the breadbasket. Salud.

Hard to believe anyone would let Bennett into a conservative meeting. He's a "Pastor Dobson" conservative, perfectly willing to use the power of the state to keep portable radios out of the hands of Elvis fans. I'm not making this up. No wonder he doesn't want "socialism" bandied about, since he's one himself. 

Posted by: comatus at February 28, 2009 08:02 AM (mtQad)

57 A tad to preachy and sanctimonious for me, Bill Bennett.

Stay tuned for an indirect rebuttal by Rush Limbaugh, who (and I) want Obama's socialist policies to fail.

Posted by: Admr. Sebastian B. O. Buniontow VI at February 28, 2009 08:10 AM (NLtVk)

58

"Amy P @ 22. Brilliant. Perfection in a colloquial mode. Are you female? "What's your situation?" (a little blog-referential commentary there). Would you lead my Tea Party? That right there is what hits them in the breadbasket. Salud."

Thanks!  I'm a housewife.  I was a journalism/Russian major back in the day and worked two years in Russia in the immediate post-Soviet period.  I'm a big P.J. O'Rourke and Florence King fan, so I suppose those are some of my influences.        

 

Posted by: Amy P at February 28, 2009 08:39 AM (n8Z8N)

59 It's socialism. It isn't marxist-leninism, but it sure as fuck is socialism. perhaps Bennett just doesn't want to bring attention to what the country as a whole, and the Republican Party in particularly, has gradually bought into. Fuck that, a spade's a spade. We've had a mixed-economy for a long time, only the amount of the market that's actually free shrinks more and more with time.

Posted by: MlR at February 28, 2009 08:46 AM (40F+f)

60 What's confusing some people is that socialism became shorthand for maxist-leninism, because they were the brand that came on top. But socialism existed before lenin, and it existed before Marx. It's about communal ownership and distribution of property. There's distinctions between how it is done, but that's the historical definition of socialism. And the Republicans have bought into it for a long time now.

Posted by: MlR at February 28, 2009 08:50 AM (40F+f)

61

For God’s sake people the government now owns banks and auto companies. They did not use the term “nationalize” but is it any difference between what Chavez does and O’Bama does? 

 

As for socialism, we went that route with FDR.

 

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 08:53 AM (f6os6)

62 I guess that thing about owning auto companies falls under "Establish Post Offices & Roads".

Posted by: Druid at February 28, 2009 09:00 AM (mdr+B)

63 And they're doing their best to own our health care, guns, and energy consumption too.

Posted by: monkeyfan at February 28, 2009 09:01 AM (cEE8N)

64

i see his point, it's not classic socialism, but that's not a distinction the average person can make, which is part of our problem, part of the reason we are losing, we have to frame these arguments simply, simple enough for a Union worker to understand (think about 5th grade)

 

Posted by: shoey at February 28, 2009 09:04 AM (RxUMK)

65

i see his point, it's not classic socialism

 

BS, the liberal intelligencia like to make these nifty little distinctions between socialism, fascism, and communism. Since the term was invented by Marx why not use his definition?  Because the liberals don’t even like the term liberal, much less socialism. Karl Marx’s definition for socialism is that intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.

 

The real definition is built into the word itself. A socialist country is one in which the government provides for the “social” functions of the people. We have that in more than half the functions and all of the functions in about 40% of the population. Ergo, we are a socialist country.

 

The government has begun taking private property with the advent of the eco-idiots. They upped the ante in Kelo and now they are taking the means of financing and auto production. Next will be the electric utility industry via their camel nose “smart grid”. They have already hamstrung the industry with useless regulations.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 09:20 AM (f6os6)

66 @20 +1.

As for Bennett, what the hell would he know about it?

Posted by: Ken at February 28, 2009 09:37 AM (Gtgrx)

67

We tried tax and spend in Canada-didn t work.So what does the States do?Spend and tax.I suppose that s the proper way to go Socialist.Medicare is next.I guess you guys are going Communist.

Jiminy Peanut invented stagflation and the ducks are in a row for it this time-on a massive scale.

The Dems projected some polyanna economic growth in about 2 years-just in time for another dose of hope and change.

When we went socialist,we lost 3 major banks and 100,000 jobs in the oilpatch.This was in western Canada,so it didn t matter to the Liberals.You guys could learn from us-what not to do.So far we haven t lost a bank and our Federali government is conservative.God bless Harper.

Posted by: chicocano at February 28, 2009 10:02 AM (P2bg4)

68 I've had it with these douchebags who insist on playing nice with a political party that wants nothing less than the destruction on this country. Does Bennett or any of these jerkwads actually think that Obama, Reid or Pelosi view the American taxpayer as anything more than a cash machine to fund their perverted agenda? He can go to hell. But hey, at least I didn't call him a coward.

Posted by: joh at February 28, 2009 10:06 AM (1DPb/)

69 I guess it's not full on socialism until the government starts with farm seizures .
 For the children , of course .

Posted by: aubrey at February 28, 2009 10:39 AM (8jWgL)

70

Bill Bennett's a nice guy and all, but I disagree with him on this. I'm not so sure Barry's administration isn't socialist; hell even Obama propaganda outlet Newsweek said "we're all socialists now." Come to think of it, the Democrats and their ilk got a lot of mileage out of Chimpy McBushitler and assorted namecalling.

Are we going to have to wait until Mr. Transparency forms up an American KGB before we tell people that he cut his teeth on radical politics, anti-Americanism, was mentored by an assortment of pinkos? I think that it will be too late then.

 

Posted by: trentk269 at February 28, 2009 10:45 AM (i6cFP)

71 I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I bring up the fact that we are on the road to Socialism in conversation, I get Zero negative responses. I see the range from "meh." to "what's bad about that", or the blank stare. A huge chunk of our population does not see any downside to socialism... they just see something free in it for them. "yeah, but I'll get free healthcare!"

Posted by: Terry at February 28, 2009 11:34 AM (foKte)

72 ...And we can all thank the Scandis for that shit from the breadline.

Posted by: monkeyfan at February 28, 2009 11:37 AM (cEE8N)

73 RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! Just kidding. God, I miss those Paulbots and the old days, before the arrival of our left-wing Democratic catechism. I've heard we can't call it s_____ism.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2009 12:52 PM (AZGON)

74 I didn't realize there was a difference between something that wlaks, talks, and smeels like socialism and socialism.  Perhaps its Bennitism or Frumism?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at February 28, 2009 12:58 PM (0Qynq)

75

You can debate terms, but there are two things going on here - one is the reckless federal spending on socialist programs in an attempt to buy votes, but the second is the attempting to wrest permanent power and control over everyone by a few of the extreme liberal ruling class. 

The second is the one to fear, the first is the means to get there.

The first is evidenced  by the expansion of government spending on social programs - that's the socialism piece.

The second is evidenced by funding ACORN and other left-wing constituencies, the backdoor approach to shutting down dissent via talk radio and the freedom of speech of the internet, the environmentalist wacko carbon taxaholics to control,  the moving of control of the census from the commerce dept to the chief of staff, the refusal of the house to allow any Republican input, the threats to nationalize the banks (and the buying of stock in banks by the federal government), the threats of tight gun control and Leahy's "fact-finding" investigation into the Bush administration (sounds like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984) - these are raw and naked attempts to seize power permanently to exact an extreme leftist agenda and deny freedom and personal rights.  

I don't care if you call it statism or fascism, jack-booted thug-ism, Orwell-ism or whatever-ism, their intent is the permanent subjugation of the masses to their small group of elitist extremists.

Yes, Orwell's 1984 can really happen and we must stop it before it gets that far.

That is why the conservative agenda must include personal freedom and strict adherance to the consititutional limitations of the federal government.

Posted by: FrankReality at February 28, 2009 01:36 PM (t5/IN)

76 There are two ways to do it:

1. Simply nationalize industry X when you get a big crisis.  This is the Chavez/France/Germany/Canada model.

2. Offer 'alternatives' which don't have to compete in the market on price (or chance of failure) which chokes out the private suppliers enough they can be marginalized to finally execute #1.

Posted by: DavidM at February 28, 2009 01:46 PM (ifGKh)

77

Sears Poncho (#16): Point taken, but we'll never be able to call anything in this country socialist or communist. Simply, those terms won't stick to anything in this country.

You say "socialist," they say you're being an alarmist, pro-business, right-wing crank. You might be right, and so might they (except for the "crank" part) but as far as effecting or opposing policy, it's a wash. You're neutralized, someone else with rank will just say "it's not socialism" on TV and we all go on to the next trillion dollars.

I know -- this is kind of a longhand version of what Ace said (#24).

Posted by: FireHorse at February 28, 2009 01:55 PM (5KNeJ)

78 We're approaching effective federal control of the Detroit carmakers. We're approaching nationalization of the banks. We're on track to borrowing the equivalent of 12 percent of our entire economy this year. Sorry if I'm not in the mood to quibble over the definition of Socialism. Whatever the textbook definition... this is a fucking disaster.

Posted by: CoolCzech at February 28, 2009 02:44 PM (iafWn)

79 71:

This, This, A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!

We have to communicate that socialism doesn't mean "free" healthcare, "free" college, or "free" housing. we have to communicate that socialism means COMPLETE AND TOTAL SUBMISSION TO THE STATE!

Posted by: Infidel at February 28, 2009 03:06 PM (NviqG)

80

left-wing Democratic catechism

 

WTF?

Posted by: davod at February 28, 2009 03:29 PM (GUZAT)

81 Bennet may be right ... I'm one of the worst to call Dem's "Socialists" so I suppose I should check that.  I've been thinking about it for awhile now anyway.

Not too long ago I read a story about the British National Party - a very right wing party in Britain.  Apparently it began making some gains in spite of everyone calling them "Fascists" and "Nazis" - the article said that people had become desensitized to those terms and - well once you've neutered your ability to insult anyone with terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" - what terms are really left to you?

So Bennet has a point here.

Posted by: HondaV65 at February 28, 2009 04:08 PM (9vlDt)

82 Well, while Bennett's dancing angels on the heads of pins while ramming camels through the eyes of those same needles, he (and more than a few of you guys) are forgetting one very basic fact:

Whether you call it socialism or fascism, either one of those is a *very* short step away from totalitarianism.

The end result's the same in either case.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at February 28, 2009 04:29 PM (d4LHu)

83 #27- riots, gas shortages, sure. No problem.We might have to burn the village down so it can be rebuilt.

The 52% of the electorate needs to learn something that the drill sergeants at Benning ground into us, well, the 26 out of fifty that graduated. "You fuck up, you pay up." The 52% fucked up and elected this clown. Now they get to pay up. And as we learned when we got PT'ed in puddles of our own puke,

Bennett is one of the intellectual too-cool Buckley-wannabes who sat back, tried to "win the war of ideas", and let this shit happen. Fine. Negotiations have failed. Get the diplomats off the deck and get the shock troops warmed up. Look at the fuckers in ranks behind Obama. To them, we're the bad guys and deserve to be on trains to the camps they haven't built yet. Do they think peace in our time is possible? Fuck no. When someone says they want you crushed and defeated, believe them. Bennett and all the other back-East thinker-writer types brought a fucking chess board to a knife fight, and they don't even realize they got stabbed.


Posted by: SGT Dan at February 28, 2009 04:41 PM (YCle4)

84 No need to say its socialism. (and its not - yet.) The public will start freaking out when they get the tax bills and unemployment is still high. We can just call it "liberal programs that are strangling our economy." and not use "socialism." You work hard for your money - why give it to people who don't?

Posted by: Harun at February 28, 2009 05:16 PM (l2Pll)

85 I think it would be a useful exercise to do a "mac vs. pc" advertisement. One guy would be a taxpayer who works hard, buys his own insurance etc. The other would get all the government deals, tax credits, S-chip, etc. I'd be interested to see where the two values cross, if you know what I mean. I suspect it would be close to 30,000, i.e. you can make 30,000 and pay taxes, etc. or you can work for about 12,000 and suck up enough credits,etc. to make 30,000.

Posted by: Harun at February 28, 2009 05:19 PM (l2Pll)

86 I think he has a point.  Not sure what else to call it, though.  Besides, you know, socialism, Marxism, communism.

But something else would be good, I suppose, all things considered.

Posted by: Alana at February 28, 2009 05:22 PM (JE2zV)

87

It's FASCISM, not "socialism."

 

FRIGGIN' FASCISM.  Google the term--even the LeftOWackies are beginning to use that word when describing the Obama program.

Posted by: dad29 at February 28, 2009 05:34 PM (iP+fs)

88 Not that anyone gives a yak's ass - but just got my own sweet copy of "World at War" ...

... watching first episode...

... good thing all those old white guys who lived through WWII are dead now, for Dear Leader it is a lesson in history on how to seize control.

Posted by: Druid at February 28, 2009 05:41 PM (mdr+B)

89 71 I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I bring up the fact that we are on the road to Socialism in conversation, I get Zero negative responses. I see the range from "meh." to "what's bad about that", or the blank stare.

A huge chunk of our population does not see any downside to socialism... they just see something free in it for them. "yeah, but I'll get free healthcare!"

 
Yup. I was arguing with the Obama-bot brother last night, complaining that we are being turned into France, His response? "Well, the French get 10 weeks vacation and a 35 hour work week, free health care, and a fine safety net for the unemployed". In other words, a nation of freeloading bums. When I told him that France's economy is way worse off than ours, he shrugged and said that he'd love 10 weeks off. I afraid  that he (and I ) may get a much longer "vacation".....

Posted by: Luca Brasi at February 28, 2009 06:15 PM (mJTYo)

90 You should burn his car to the ground...

Posted by: monkeyfan at February 28, 2009 06:36 PM (cEE8N)

91 Lol, yeah, but he tells me that the reports of the "youths" in Europe burning cars every night is just a right-wing meme..."they would run out of cars, wouldn't they"?

It's a good thing he has a well-stocked liquor cabinet, I practice socialism by drinking most of when I visit.


Posted by: Luca Brasi at February 28, 2009 06:58 PM (mJTYo)

92 91:

Seriously?

Posted by: Infidel at February 28, 2009 08:46 PM (NviqG)

93 bennet is a pissant academic--bringing a gun to a knife fight--reminds me of kerensky and the mensheviks--getting all reasonable about " liberal democracy' while lenin and trotsky and the rest of da bolsheviki were sharpening the long knives for the kill--this is all about memes and FRAMING--this is about george lakoff that the dems now follow as their mccluhanesque guru--that's why obama has tea with the repugs and makes believe to the nation that he's bipartisian--"they may have good ideas"--what a brilliant con by this alinskyite--how about framing it this way--its ECONOMIC RAPE and OBAMA IS AN ECONOMIC RAPIST--can i get a witness!!

Posted by: HULUGU at February 28, 2009 11:21 PM (5e11q)

Posted by: aaabs at March 01, 2009 03:28 AM (6+R+o)

95

Sorry if I'm not in the mood to quibble over the definition of Socialism. Whatever the textbook definition... this is a fucking disaster.

"A fucking disaster" -- accurate, not politically loaded; works for me.

Posted by: FireHorse at March 01, 2009 03:32 AM (5KNeJ)

96 I'm a bit doubtful that the term "racism" has lost its power although by all rights it should have long ago. And if you don't call this socialism, I don't know what a better term would be.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 01, 2009 05:46 AM (PQY7w)

97 Hulugu, you change that to "brought an unloaded gun to a knife fight" and I'll testify. Preach it, brother, PREACH THAT SHIT!

Posted by: SGT Dan at March 01, 2009 09:11 AM (YCle4)

98 "left-wing Democratic catechism"
"socialismesque"
This mincing of words is repulsive and, yes, cowardly.

A note about Bennett:  since the election, he has been on a mission to sell Obomber to his radio audience.  For several weeks, he was calling Obomber a centrist, too "complex" and too "smart" to be a hard core lefty.  Of course, everytime Obomber comes up with a new installment of Bringing Socialism to Lower Canada, Bennett has to shut up for a day or two, but then he's right back at it.  This is just the latest iteration of his 'Obomber is an ok centrist' message.

My guess is, Bennett's audience has shrunk since November.

Posted by: Les Grossman at March 01, 2009 01:30 PM (Vc/xe)

99 67  It's socialism. It isn't marxist-leninism, but it sure as fuck is socialism.

Of course it is--its classic Euroweenie electoral socialism. See eg Sweden, Britain, Germany, France.  Free elections between a socialist and a socialist light party; high unemployment; sluggish economic growth; dependence on the state for everything, except security (for which they depend on us.)  Now, that sounds good to a lot of folks in some of the blue states, but its going to scare the sh#t out of everyone else, and rightly so. 

Conservatives should use the "S" word at every opportunity, and explain why in a sentence or two why the Sweden model is bad for the US.  One of many questions to pose:  if we go Sweden, who picks up the Defense a la the former US?

Posted by: Les Grossman at March 01, 2009 01:49 PM (Vc/xe)

Posted by: remy hair at March 01, 2009 04:18 PM (poHFL)

Posted by: 货架 at May 12, 2009 03:44 AM (49N5c)

102 Keep the good works comming. I am from Finland and know bad English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Adt authorized dealer customers only and not on purchases from adt security adt security services." With best wishes , Kasia.

Posted by: Kasia at July 17, 2009 12:52 AM (RwHhp)

Posted by: Zenerx at October 22, 2009 08:04 AM (H9sPV)

104 Has the reputation of coach online griselda, initial design inspiration was made from a coach purse , brand builder in a Caha was watching a softball game site, surprised to discover the use with cheap coach purse , more soft characteristics, so he went home and try to casual COACH Backpacks , make it more soft, has no cracks, wear characteristics, and as long as the simple use wet cloth to wipe, can maintain leather perfect as new, of course, casual Coach sunglasses that convenient durable customers immediately love!

Posted by: coach online at May 03, 2011 08:36 PM (VR5Hj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
133kb generated in CPU 0.25, elapsed 1.8348 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.7071 seconds, 340 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.