June 28, 2006

Kos and the Rise of the John Bircher Left
— Ace

Very interesting article about how persistent political losses cause mutations in one's thinking, until one becomes messianic, paranoiac, and, well, basically batshit crazy.

It happened to the John Birchers in the 1950's. It's happening to the left now.

[The typical aging Kos reader has] been on the political and cultural losing side all his adult life. He’s tired of it. And he’s found a website which, at last, makes him feel empowered. He is, in short, the typical member of the so-called netroots: the left-wing movement, organized around blogs, that seeks to “take back” this country from its usurpers. The netroots is a movement born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. It sees itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it seeks to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. Critically, it choose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It sees the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they can just crack the code — if it can grasp the very methodology of victory — then they will turn the tables, and victory will be theirs.

Sound familiar? It is — to us. To the left, it’s all very exciting, and all very new. And so we see the self-proclaimed netroots go through a trajectory very much like what the Birchers went through, albeit in highly compressed time. The elements are all there: the resentment, the conspiracy-mindedness, and especially the leaders with stupefyingly poor judgment married to Napoleon complexes. I’ve noted before that they are “frank proponents of outright mimicry of the mechanisms of GOP ascendacy.” Add to this the horrifying, alienating statements ranging from the mockery of dead Americans at war to the derision of political opponents’ personal sorrows. Add to this the demonization of the very people who should, in a sane world, be their friends — The New Republic chief among them — and the formula is complete. Messianism and paranoia marry to make this.

Posted by: Ace at 05:22 PM | Comments (60)
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Able was I, 'ere I saw...Kos."

-The Democrats Napoleon Complex. Source: "Things the Democrats Napoleon Complex Said."

Posted by: Jack M. at June 28, 2006 05:36 PM (YpIcX)

2 It was the strawberries...

Posted by: Capt. Queeg at June 28, 2006 05:40 PM (RJDcF)

3 I have commented here in the past that the Left is today's John Birch Society. I'm glad someone else figured it out (and said it much better than me).

Takes victory lap.

Posted by: max at June 28, 2006 05:54 PM (SO3B1)

4 The author of this piece, of whom I've never heard, seems to have a talent for his chosen artform. I've added that site to my RSS feeds.

I have to get out my Wikipedia to understand all the references to past political figures though. sigh.

Posted by: Feisty at June 28, 2006 05:55 PM (nUWM+)

5 That was both insightful and eruditious without the ubiquitously obfusacatory language one might expect from the expository nature of the article presented.

Posted by: The Warden at June 28, 2006 06:19 PM (rZ5uY)

6 Feisty,

The author is Josh Trevino. He's pretty ubiqutious around the blogs. I think he still submits stuff at redstate.org.

After reading the article, I'm glad that a lefty version of WFB has yet to rise up to put these clowns in their place. Koslam is so entertaining!

Posted by: Dave C at June 28, 2006 06:33 PM (9drjY)

7 In the absence of any self-discipline, the John Birch Society went off the rails.

Yep.

If Markos is their Buckley, I'm sleeping pretty good tonight.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 28, 2006 06:36 PM (1YvT/)

8 Another difference between the Birchers and the Kos Kidz is this: Goldwater didn't particularly want the Birchers around, just about every Dem except Hillary would kill to get Kos supporting them.

Seriously, Kos supporting Mark Warner is like the Birchers supporting Nelson Rockefeller. Total anathema to their basic opinions on politics, but they're doing it anyway.

Posted by: Shawn, but not lowercased shawn at June 28, 2006 06:49 PM (wKh5O)

9 Shawn,

That may be true about Warner, but I don't think Kos can get away with it.

Check out what the nutroots are saying about Obama at firedoglake today.

Sen. Obama was supposed to be the Democrart Presidential/ Vice Presidential candidate of the (near) future.

Those honky nutclowns will have nothing to do with him.

Posted by: Dave C at June 28, 2006 06:59 PM (9drjY)

10 That's an extraordinarily keen and accurate analysis. I've been thinking about this a while, trying to formulate what exactly is going on inside the head of one of these America-hating military bashers. He's got it down pretty well here.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 28, 2006 07:28 PM (Pwzb0)

11 kossacks are to birchers as chomskites are to flagellants.

Marx is followed by millions yet phrenology is a discredited school of thought. (It doesn't work or something)

Posted by: mike s. at June 28, 2006 07:30 PM (wFBkf)

12 I thought the most interesting part was the role that William F Buckley played.

On the one hand, he was willing to sacrifice potential allies (the Birchers) because they were harmful to the movement. Think of it as the original Sister Soljah Moment.

The Left has always had trouble with this. They've always believed that there are "no enemies to the left". That's why the Left was soft on Communism for most of the 20th Century.

The other part was that Buckley and the conservatives didn't start behaving like the Left - they found their own way. Instead of becoming a shadow, they built something new.

Is there anyone on the Left who could do this today? Certainly not Kos or Dean?

Hillary?

Posted by: Jay at June 28, 2006 07:45 PM (JEPSV)

13 jay, Lieberman and McCain with a little help from Morty.

Posted by: mike s. at June 28, 2006 07:53 PM (wFBkf)

14 Peter Beinart tried for a Buckley moment with his new book, but I don't think anyone's listening.

Posted by: See-Dubya at June 28, 2006 08:04 PM (U4/Xs)

15 I'd like to elevate this base conversation by positing the following question:

Can any of you cock-holsters help me remember where I left my most recently opened beer? I seem to remember being outside when I last saw it when I was recycling or something.

Note to self: Invent/patent beer bottle tracking device/embedded chip when you wake up tomorrow. When the hangover clears, of course.

Posted by: genghis at June 28, 2006 10:12 PM (0/c+a)

16 Additional note to self: Yes buffalo wings do sound like a great idea right now, but you know they're going to exit violently from one or possibly both ends of the digestive system when you wake up. Will you/I ever learn?

Posted by: Ghengis at June 28, 2006 10:16 PM (0/c+a)

17 Neocons are beaming mind control waves into my house. The tin foil isn't working. I've already killed my neighbor as ordered.

I'm afraid the voices will make me kill more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 28, 2006 11:33 PM (JuWpl)

18 The captain had it right, Purple A. It was (click, click)
the strawberries. It's not the tin foil. It was (click, click, click) the strawberries.

Posted by: TaterCon at June 29, 2006 01:36 AM (ViBPz)

19 Don't know about this. If you look at Western Europe, they've been winning for quite some time now, yet their Left is even more detached from reality.

Posted by: Orwell's Ghost at June 29, 2006 02:10 AM (ZCnB7)

20 The difference between Koz and Barry Goldwater is the same as it ever was.

Goldwater was correct, bottom line.

The evil empire was precisely, evil.

Posted by: Layer Seven at June 29, 2006 02:55 AM (NXfxN)

21 BIRCHERS - Guilty of over-exaggeration of a true threat to America...the Communists, who really were trying at subversion...

KOS LEFTISTS - Guilty of denying the threat of Islamists, and then going as far as subverting of the war effort...

To quote Jules in Pulp Fiction..."Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither."

Posted by: at June 29, 2006 03:45 AM (Gi7oA)

22 The reason Europe is more lefty than the US is because of the gravity-effect of socialism. Even when they lose, they still get a little further down the road toward their dream of a militarized, collectivized society.

Look what has happened in the last 6 years -- under Bush, the budget of the federal government has expanded more than under Clinton, it has taken over education more than ever, Medicare grew by the biggest jump since LBJ. These are not conservative agenda items.

(The only thing that hasn't happened is the impending socialization of the medical services industry. That is next.)

Every time the conservatives allow something like this to happen, that becomes the baseline, the starting point from which the Left begins to negotiate yet another expansion of government. They have perfected gradualism to a fine art.

Posted by: Phinn at June 29, 2006 03:54 AM (DiZv6)

23 If Markos is their Buckley, I'm sleeping pretty good tonight.

WFB did conservatives a service by marginalizing the John Birchers back in the late 50s, early 60s. The final straw was when they claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "knowing, self-conscious" communist agent (!). At that point, WFB washed his hands of them, and good riddance.

The difference is that the John Birchers and others on the paleo right were marginal figures back then and still even more marginal today. The Krazy Kos Kiddies, on the other hand, are threatening to overwhelm the Democratic party.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2006 03:58 AM (jqv3S)

24 Moulitsas is an awfully small and fragile vessel for the hopes and dreams of the Democrats, and a poor reflection on their ability to guide their party.

Posted by: geoff at June 29, 2006 03:59 AM (nH1Ad)

25 The reason Europe is more lefty than the US is because of the gravity-effect of socialism.

That's a nice theory, Phinn, but I think we all know it's the soccer.

Posted by: geoff at June 29, 2006 04:05 AM (nH1Ad)

26 Have you heard about the title of Kos' forthcoming book?

"None Dare Call it Reason"

Posted by: Whitehall at June 29, 2006 04:10 AM (VWnhs)

27 I'm a new (but increasingly frequent) reader of this and related blogs, who hasn't commented much, so I may be dismissed or ignored outright. (That seems to be the way on many sites.)

But as a general rule of debate/commentary, I don't think speculating on the psychological motivations of ideological adversaries is worth the time. (Not that the folks here spend THAT much time on it.) It takes the focus off hard facts (which are what led me to the right in the first place.) And, it's what the left has been doing to the right for years. Not just targeting the Birchers of yesteryear...it was only a couple of years ago that they were citing a respected study arguing that conservatives are nuts.

They used the "sense of desperation and embattlement" thing on us in 1994. (That's when Peter Jennings likened the right-leaning electorate to two-year-olds having a temper tantrum.)

Again, the above essay is what they've been saying about us, well beyond the Birch years. They dismissed us as kooks and paid the price. I would hate to see the right go down the same road.

Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2006 04:25 AM (9KqcB)

28 "Even when they lose, they still get a little further down the road toward their dream of a militarized, collectivized society."

Collectivized, yes; but militarized? No. If anything, the European states are trending toward demilitarization. Perhaps you meant to say "statist"?

Posted by: Ed Snate at June 29, 2006 04:36 AM (W0un0)

29 Ed, I was referring to Kos in particular. He is ex-military. He called the military "perhaps the ideal society." (You know, because they paid for everything.)

Now, I think that most of the people in the military are fine, decent people, but I would not call the military an ideal model for civil society. It is the opposite of a free society. It is the ultimate end of collectivism. One might even call that sort of thing "National Socialism."

Posted by: Phinn at June 29, 2006 04:44 AM (DiZv6)

30 CJ, there's a huge qualitative difference between dismissing people who are not kooks as kooks and dismissing people who are kooks as kooks.

Now, it was wrong to dismiss all conservatives as kooks, forever, because the Birchers were kooks. It may be wrong to dismiss all Democrats as kooks because the Kossites are kooks. But, frankly, voices of reason on the other side are few and quiet and Kos' star is on the rise.

I think they need to get spanked to drift back in the right direction. And it's not good for America to have no credible opposition party. Though I'd rather see the two parties be the Republicans and Somebody To the Right of Them.

There! You're not ignored any more. Happy?

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 29, 2006 04:47 AM (rasT+)

31 Re "The Left has always had trouble with this. They've always believed that there are "no enemies to the left". That's why the Left was soft on Communism for most of the 20th Century."

Your interperation of the concept "no enemies to the left" implies accomodation among leftists. That's wrong. The correct interpretation is in fact quite sinister. It means that the dominant party on the left will not permit the existence of any other leftist groups that deviate from or disagree with their doctrine. Such groups are to be ruthlessly exterminated even before the enemy on the right is engaged. The classic example of this thinking as put into action can be found in the Spanish Civil War, when Soviet-backed Communists concentrated their main effort on destroying other leftist elements on the Republican side and liquidating its members--a task that was given priority over and above fighting and defeating Franco's Nationalist forces. In fact Stalin and his creatures did not really care whether the Republicans won or lost in Spain; they were concerned only with destroying the disparate elements of the European left that had surfaced to become involved in the war--and with robbing Spain of its gold reserves.

Posted by: at June 29, 2006 04:50 AM (W0un0)

32 Every time the conservatives allow something like this to happen, that becomes the baseline, the starting point from which the Left begins to negotiate yet another expansion of government. They have perfected gradualism to a fine art.

Yes, and the argument is always, "look, you agreed to fund government program X last year; there is now no reason why you shouldn't agree to fund government program Y this year." And the conservatives have no answer for this because the logic is irrefutable.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2006 04:58 AM (UXBVD)

33 Phinn - I understand what you're saying and agree with your view to some extent. However I think the paradigm of socialism has changed, at least in Europe. In the past socialism and the attendant empowering of the state over the individual did go hand-in-hand with militarization. That's when socialism was still an aggressive, expansionist, internationist-minded ideology: when socialism was militant. But over the years the increasing decadence of European civilization has, in effect, emasculated European socialism: and this emasculation is exemplfied by its declining military capabilities.

Posted by: Ed Snate at June 29, 2006 05:00 AM (W0un0)

34 The blank post at 9:50 was me.

Posted by: Ed Snate at June 29, 2006 05:01 AM (W0un0)

35 Did you see the update on Michelle's site about SCOTUS and Guantanamo?

What the fuckin fuckin FUCK fuck??

Posted by: Scott at June 29, 2006 05:12 AM (f8958)

36 Ace -

Giganto-golden-cowbell alert!!! 5.6% growth last quarter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Posted by: Greg at June 29, 2006 05:52 AM (e/4l3)

37 I think the left has a "cargo" mentality regarding the way to achieve political power. Aboriginal societies, on seeing planes laden with cargo land at airfields, are said to have created makeshift airfields in the belief that the planes with cargo would also land there.

The left sees think tanks, nationalized messages, and grassroots mobilization efferts which lead to success on the right and assumes that, if they ape the process, then the success will follow. Absent from this thinking is any acknowlegdement that the actual ideas which are promoted might be the reason for success.

"If only porgressiveism can be packaged appropriately, it will be embraced", they seem to think, ignoring the fact that the most successful Democrat politicians have been or pretended to be centrists.

Posted by: Ayes of Death David at June 29, 2006 06:10 AM (Hj9yW)

38 Ayes of death David said:

>>"If only porgressiveism can be packaged appropriately, it will be embraced"

Framed! Framed, dammit! Not packaged.
Think od frames, not ideas.

Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2006 06:17 AM (h76y6)

39 If Kos is their Buckley, then the nutroots make Jessica Simpson look like Einstein.

Although it really is insulting to WFB to compare him to a mental defective like Kos.

Posted by: Iblis at June 29, 2006 06:33 AM (9221z)

40 Ed Snape,

Re your 9:50.

Certainly, when the knives come out, the Left has a tendency (and a willingness) to slaughter it's own. When Lenin took power in Russia, he did the same thing.

But, in a democracy, when the knives are sheathed, the Left is quite willing to cooperate against The Common Enemy.

Thus, the "Popular Front" in the 1930s. The Liberals got into bed with the Communists, and had a difficult time getting out. Liberals like Hubert Humphrey fought long and hard against the Communists, but when the New Left arose in the 1960s, all of that work was washed away.

That's why groups like International Answer and Code Pink are so important in the anti-war movement, for example.

Liberals have rarely been good at standing up to other Lefties, even if those Lefties are insane or murderous.

Mike s:

Lieberman is marginalized. McCain is a Republican. Who is Morty?

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2006 06:51 AM (aoqT1)

41 Iblis,

Well said.

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2006 06:52 AM (aoqT1)

42 Morty = Mort Kondrake, I think

Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2006 07:07 AM (tyRhL)

43 WhenPixy turned off the comment filter, did he also turn off Ace's posts? Is Ace merely comment spam?

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at June 29, 2006 07:10 AM (t15nA)

44 Jay:

All very true.

But I'm only talking about the phrase itself. Traditionally, to leftists, "no enemies on the left" means no one on the left who disagees with them. It does not mean "every one on the left is our friend"--which is your interpretation.

The "Popular Front" violated the spirit of "no enemies to the left." Which is not to say that the meaning of the phrase changed; only that the hard-core left in this instance was choosing expediency over ideological purity. In the U.S. during the thirties the hard-core left--i.e., the Communist Party--was not the dominant leftist group. It was one leftist group among several. Therefore the Communists, at Moscow's direction, forged an alliance, a Popular Front, with the other groups. Remember, I said that the "no enemies" strategy would be invoked only by the dominant group. The Communists never intended the Popular Front to be anything but temporary. When it had served its purpose--i.e., when the Communists had thoroughly infiltrated it, suborned its leadership, and used it to advance their agenda--it would have been dissolved and all other leftists, their former allies, would have been declared anathema. Taken to its logical extreme, they would have been liquidated. It's an old bolshevik tactic.

Posted by: Ed Snate at June 29, 2006 07:35 AM (W0un0)

45 In all of the pictures I saw of the Kos convention they seemed to be mostly 25-35. Is this what you mean as aging ?

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at June 29, 2006 07:59 AM (TcoRJ)

46 Actually, the average age of a Daily Kos reader is 45.

Link

Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2006 08:03 AM (R8+nJ)

47 Actually, the average age of a Daily Kos reader is 45.

I find that difficult to believe. All the link proves is that some guy named Krebs says the average age is 45.

Posted by: shawn at June 29, 2006 08:30 AM (yp3GE)

48 So does Trevino have an excuse for the period 1950 to 1992? During this time the ACLU was created, Communists sympathizers voted Democrat, Separation of Church and State established, Pentagon Papers released, Military Complex demonized, a war was lost and RDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome) was present in all of its glory. If the internet was as prevalent in that period as it is today, the moonbat symptoms of the left would have been been revealed as no different then they are today.

Posted by: roc ingersol at June 29, 2006 08:34 AM (m2CN7)

49 John Birtchers are better then any of those jerks making these crappy remakes in hollywood

Posted by: spurwing plover at June 29, 2006 08:47 AM (vnSBY)

50 shawn, why wouldn't you trust something written by a guy named Krebs?

How about Labash
"The average age looked to be about 40-45. These are people with lives and families and jobs, even if some of those jobs have titles like "pro bono philosopher."

from http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/349knzye.asp?pg=2

Posted by: mike s. at June 29, 2006 09:43 AM (wFBkf)

51 Okay, shawn. Maybe we should rely on what Kos readers said about themselves in a survey instead.

From the results: Median Age: 46.4

Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2006 09:49 AM (R8+nJ)

52 So does Trevino have an excuse for the period 1950 to 1992?

He didn't say that everybody on the Left quit and went home after the first issue of National Review was published. Societies don't turn on a dime, and they generally don't even "turn" at all—they "drift gradually to a somewhat different heading." The 1960s and 1970s were the bloom of the seed planted in the 1920s and 1930s.

During this time the ACLU was created

The ACLU was created in 1917 as the National Civil Liberties Bureau. The name was changed a few years later.

Communists sympathizers voted Democrat

That was the 1930s. The Communists hated the Democrats in the 1960s.

Separation of Church and State established

Not really. The concept was established circa 32 A.D. by Christ, who said that His Kingdom was not of this world. (Actually, though it has often been overlooked, the Old Testament clearly separates church and state as well. Christ made it more obvious and explicit.) The framers recognized the damage the state had done to the church from Constantine on, and tried to protect the privacy of the church from meddling politicians. Since then, many atheists have tried to hijack the concept for their own ends. But the idea goes back much further than the 1960s.

Pentagon Papers released

This did happen in the Hippie Revolution, yes.

Military Complex demonized

This also happened long before the 1960s. Marx and other late 19th and early 20th century thinkers proposed oppression and deceit as the primary basis for control of society.

A war was lost

Not really. A war was surrendered. An enormous difference.

and RDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome) was present in all of its glory.

Yes, an excellent sign. When the enemy rails against a weapon, you should be sure to use it more. It was the first time the Left had been challenged seriously in decades.

If the internet was as prevalent in that period as it is today, the moonbat symptoms of the left would have been been revealed as no different then they are today.

I don't think it would have been as bad. The Left still had some semblance of formal power during the Reagan years. Fortunately, Reagan was much better at playing the game than they were. Bush (41) followed this virtuoso performance with bumbling and handed the country over to a man who barely scraped by with a 20% spoiler on his side and complete deceit about what he really believed. His re-election in 1996 depended on a poor opponent and adopting Conservative reform policies with regard to social spending. He also produced a Republican (and largely an ideologically Conservative Republican) take-over of the legislative body.

The downside is that Bush (43) is taking us back in the opposite direction. He won by beating the Left at its own game: by proposing greater centralization, spending, and "compassion" in government. If it hadn't been for the war, he'd have been out on his ear by now for mismanagement of the budget.

Bottom line: things are looking up. We just need to find another Reagan: someone who's fiscally responsible, wants to distribute power back to the states, is strong on foreign policy, and knows how to play the game. It's a tall order; but if we can find a leader, it's our game to lose.


Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2006 10:00 AM (+lA9g)

53 Mike S.: I don't think Labash eyeballing some of the attendees at the Kos convention is proof of the average age of the readers. Do you?

Slublog: Third sentence: Before going over the results, the first caveat I would like to note is that this is not a scientific survey of blog readers with random probability.

Posted by: shawn at June 29, 2006 10:01 AM (yp3GE)

54 To attend a convention of any sort you need:

a) Free time
b) Cash for travel/accomodations

A lot of the 60's acid casualty leftists may have the cash, but a lot of them are still working and don't have the time. Some of them are still in prison too ;->

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 29, 2006 10:20 AM (JuWpl)

55 It may not be scientific, but it's the survey BlogAds is using to determine the best demographic for advertising.

Why does an older Kos audience bother you so much?

Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2006 10:35 AM (R8+nJ)

56 Besides the fact that it is not proven, it doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

Posted by: shawn at June 29, 2006 10:45 AM (yp3GE)

57 It doesn't bother me, except that Kos is always portrayed as the leader of some great youth movement when it seems as though a good percentage of his readers are aging hipsters.

Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2006 10:57 AM (R8+nJ)

58 I think the 1000-odd attendees to Yearly Kos are hardly representative of the "movement" that it belongs to. If you want to see who they are, go to an anti-war rally, or check out footage of them from a few years back. The average age was around 45, and that's because some people brought infants.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2006 12:47 PM (Pwzb0)

59

Another (inconclusive) data point: the rather Conservative area in which I live does have a sprinkling of self-identifying and outspoken Libs. You can tell them by the inane bumper stickers plastered all over their cars ("Meat stinks," "Stop violence," "Visualize world peace," "Think Globally, Act Locally," and so on).

I've made a point of pulling beside these cars in traffic and making observations about the demographic of the drivers. I've seen 1 or 2 cars driven by people under 30. I've seen a rather large number driven by people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. Almost all are women and seem to be relatively well-off financially (judging by clothing, hair style, and the vehicles being driven).

Judging from the recent pattern of immigration into the state and the general beliefs of the native population, I can safely say that most of these people are from the Northeast or upper Midwest.


Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2006 04:12 PM (+lA9g)

60 S. Weasel:

There! You're not ignored any more. Happy?

Happiness is hard to define, but I do feel less lonely now. Thanks!

Now, it was wrong to dismiss all conservatives as kooks, forever, because the Birchers were kooks. It may be wrong to dismiss all Democrats as kooks because the Kossites are kooks. But, frankly, voices of reason on the other side are few and quiet and Kos' star is on the rise.

True. But as I said, the dismissal of cons went well beyond the Birch era, and the left paid a price. I fear that happening to the right.

And I really don't think voices of reason are any fewer on the other side than over here. Perhaps they've been more quiet than their kooks, waiting for a reason to speak up. I think Bush & Co. may have given them that reason through it's many missteps.

That said, as long as we limit the crazy tag to the Kos folks -- which blog veterans understand better than I -- the criticism seems valid.

I think they need to get spanked to drift back in the right direction. And it's not good for America to have no credible opposition party. Though I'd rather see the two parties be the Republicans and Somebody To the Right of Them.

I agree.

Posted by: CJ at June 30, 2006 05:33 AM (9KqcB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
107kb generated in CPU 0.26, elapsed 1.4148 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3453 seconds, 296 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.