[68skylark]

This essay is amazing. Thanks to powerline for the tip.

Here's one of my favorite parts, about how inconsistent and confusing liberals can be:

But the complaint that it's impossible to figure liberalism out has, until recently, typically been voiced by exasperated conservatives. For decades they have watched liberals rushing around with wheelbarrows and ladders, busy, busy, busy at building the welfare state. New programs are created, old ones expanded, urgent needs discovered and rediscovered. Conservatives marvel at this vast construction site and ask prosaic questions: What is this thing going to look like when it's done? How big is it going to be? How will we know when it's finished? And just in case there's any doubt that they are conservatives, how much is all this going to cost?

[King Prout]

According to Ryan Lizza in The New Republic, "The no-message critique is congealing into conventional wisdom." He argues that "the Kerry campaign had a laundry list of policy proposals, or, in the words of James Carville, a litany rather than a narrative."

funny... we conservatives have (for at least six years) been twitting leftists about their penchant to spout mantras of DNC talking points rather than offer a real debate

[thoughtomator]

Odd, I could swear I've read that article before, but it says it was published today.

Anyway, there is no hope for the Democrat party, because the only people who see clearly what their problem is are Republicans. The Democrats, as is their nature, will assume the truth is 100% the opposite of what the Republicans think, and thus head in exactly the wrong direction.

Need proof? "Chairman Dean"

[King Prout]

Even Sen. Kerry's brother, Cam, said, "There is a very strong John Kerry narrative that is about leadership, character and trust. But it was never made central to the campaign."

hah hah hah! that's a freakin' RIOT!

[WindOracle]

Interesting reading.

Everyone seems to have a different take on what Dems stand for since they will not clearly tell us. I base my interpretation on what the support.

Socialist economic system, Institutionalized racial classification and racism, Abortion and Euthanasia of lives viewed as "unfit to live", Restriction of dangerous "hate" speech (thought policing), Political correctness, Gun control...

Oh gee, sorry, that is a description of the National Socialist German Workers party (aka Nazis).

[Hu Gadarn]

Ping for later

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Col. Geo. "Bud" Day Medal of Honor Vietnam POW 1967-1973 USMC - USA Attorney 1949-2004-

Dear Joe: The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been,
what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam.

Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".
A returned war hero said so.

Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"?????
He obviously was running for political office in 1971.

Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.

I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on..they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses.
The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.

While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat.

Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness.

John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam.



He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters.

His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one.

I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony,
which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liason with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris.
His reward. Political gain. Senator..United States.

“Without question,
we were held captive longer
because of the anti-war people,
the Kerrys, the Fondas and Haydens,
the names we knew over there -
they encouraged the enemy to hang on.”
Excerpt from “Stolen Honor” website
- Leo Thorsness
Former Vietnam POW


U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President,
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any state legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any state,
to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Violation of 18 US CODE 2381

TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States,
levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere,
is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
under this title but not less than $10,000;
and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Violation of 18 US CODE 953

Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States,
directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse
with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof,
with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government
or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes
or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply,
himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents
thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained
from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Violation of UCMJ Section 904. ART. 104

AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or
communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

[samtheman]

Lyndon Johnson gave one other memorable speech in 1964. At a campaign rally in Providence, R.I., he climbed onto his car, grabbed a bullhorn and summed up his political philosophy: "I just want to tell you this--we're in favor of a lot of things and we're against mighty few." The Democrats' problem is not that they, like "Seinfeld," are a show about nothing. It's that they are a show about everything, or anything. (At one point, the Kerry-for-president Web site referred to 79 separate federal programs he wanted to create or expand.)

They can't say no to any special interest group, no matter how small, how irrational, how anti-American, or even how criminal.

The Democrats never saw a hand outstretched that they didn't want to put something in (the "something" always coming from the taxpayers, of course, never themselves) or an extortion demand they didn't want to yield to.

They've got no class. They've got no principles. And they've got no intelligence. They can't even forge documents without getting caught.

[Fledermaus]

I'm glad I searched. This is in two posts already!

I think it's a wonderful and well written piece on why the left is as dangerous and pompous as they are.

[x]

This is a great article. Well worth reading.

The crux I think is the conflict between two ideas of the word "liberal." There is 1) liberalism as freedom or choice on the one hand and 2) as uplift or evolution or development on the other. And the problem for liberals is that they can't decide whether they want to let people alone to pursue their own private goals, or whether they want to reorganize society to achieve some common transformative goal.

That's a serious quandry for the liberal fringe. "Problem solving" is never enough for liberals because it makes people contented and turns them against further liberal experiments, so liberals are forever running in circles. It goes beyond liberalism to the more general dilemma of government in a democratic age, though.

[P.O.E.]

I'd guess they're for medieval-like fiefdoms of petty bureaucracies. The dumber and poorer they can keep the serfs, the easier it is to rule them.

They then fill the intelligentia's brains with baseless assertions and emotion-driven dogma, in order to keep them in line (with political pressure on them to stay in "thought-line" if they want to keep their sinecures).