Parties split over legacy of [Hungary's] 1956 revolution (More hypocrisy from the Commies)

But why would that be so? Medgyessy worked as a spy for the KGB, against U.S. interests.

You think the Cold War was against US interests? How else could have they built the monstrous all-encompassing state if there were no external "threat"? How else could they have justified taking half my income to build the welfare/warfare state?

Although this fact was not known before the elections, I don't think it took the White House by surprise.

Of course it didn't. Let's face it: the U.S. (and the EU for that matter) are interested in those leaders who will sell out their own national interests to be part of the club, to join in on "globalization" (ask IBM workers in Szekesfehervar how they like globalization now), who will spend increasing amounts of their GDP on Western weapons that they don't need, who will make it easier for politically-connected Western investors to capture more of their economies and particularly their land. As it appears here in Washington, Megyessy is the most eager to do all of these things and more. Therefore he's "our guy." It is as simple as that.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bubba were cozy with our commies--but Bush?? Just doesn't make sense.

You think Bush would disappoint his financial backers just because the leader of some two-bit Central European backwater once upon a time was a Communist? You think Bush gives a flying youknowwhat about what the people in Hungary think of him or his policies? The mistake that Hungarians make is in thinking the US cares one bit about them or their situation. This is the hard truth, and the sooner good Hungarians realize it the better.

Nancy Goodman Brinker sure acts funny at times, but I don't know how much of "Bush's ambassador" she is.

Who appointed her? She is his. Her ex-husband gave Bush 200k to buy an ambassadorship. Shows how much importance the US places on its Hungary policy: "just send the stupid housewife there, it doesn't matter."

So you think Reagan was a statist? ;-)

If you say Republicans are not laissez-faire enough, I'll agree with you. If you say GWB is even less so than the average Republican, I'll still have to agree with you, unfortunately. But if you say Republicans actually liked and profited from Communism ... well I think that's at least a bit too paranoid.

ask IBM workers in Szekesfehervar how they like globalization now

IBM came to Hungary because it was profitable for them to do so. When that profitability is no longer there, they have a right to lay off workers or pull out althogether. But I think you knew this.

You think Bush gives a flying youknowwhat about what the people in Hungary think of him or his policies?

I actually think that Republicans pay too much attention to "international opinion." The globalists in the UN are truly oblivious of what Americans think about them--so why should an American President worry about anyone's interests but those of Americans?

Physical courage, which despises all danger, will make a man brave in one way; and moral courage, which despises all opinion, will make a man brave in another.
Caleb C. Colton

Her ex-husband gave Bush 200k to buy an ambassadorship.

Sounds like "mudslinging as usual" to me. I like to judge a politician's character by what I actually see him do, not by what the media wants me to believe.

They media incessantly accused the Fidesz government of all sorts of sleazy machinations. When the subject was brought up in an interview after the elections, Prime Minister Orban said none of the allegations were true at all. And I believed him, as that picture was consistent with the way I had judged his character from what I had seen him say and do, whereas the dark picture the leftists had tried to paint just wasn't. This despite the fact that I had often disagreed with Fidesz's policies--perhaps more often than I had agreed.

The same applies to President Bush: while I sometimes wish he did things differently, on the whole, I definitely think he has good intentions. So I treat allegations against him as a jury should treat accusations against a defendant: I presume him innocent until proven guilty. My presumption of innocence is further strengthened by my knowledge that his detractors do not have good intentions of any kind.

So you think Reagan was a statist? ;-)

Of course he was. Did the state expand or contract under his presidency? That said, he was the greatest president we had this century.

But if you say Republicans actually liked and profited from Communism ... well I think that's at least a bit too paranoid.

The national security state profited Democrats and Republicans alike, very handsomely. The well-connected got very rich from the state's radical expansion under the guise of fighting communism ("justified," of course, by grossly over-estimated -- likely for political reasons -- intelligence assessments of Soviet military power as we now know). The Dems never professed to desire smaller government, but the Republicans were the ones who babbled on about the need for smaller government. Don't forget: in order for Reagan to get the OK on expanding the national security state he had to toss domestic spending bones to the Dem-controlled Congress. So the question is not so much whether the Repubs liked communism (though in the post-communist era they have identified most closely with former communist dictators than with anti-communist democrats -- ask Lech and Antall and scores of others), but whether the national security state as justified by the Cold War was profitable to the politically-connected. No one with any understanding of how defense procurement works can argue otherwise.

I wrote: Her ex-husband gave Bush 200k to buy an ambassadorship.

You replied: Sounds like "mudslinging as usual" to me.

Then you know nothing about how Brinker got her ambassadorship. She was gauche enough to brag in mixed company about the money that her husband gave Bush in exchange for the ambassadorship. Not very well-bred, but there you have it.

They media incessantly accused the Fidesz government of all sorts of sleazy machinations.

The communist media in Hungary is controlled. Nepszabadsag is the favored publication in the US government -- even in the Bush administration. You don't believe me? I could show you the daily CIA media translations from Hungary. Every article they translate comes either from Magyar Hirlap or Nepszabadsag or Nepszava. Rarely anything from Magyar Nemzet, never anything from Demokrata or, God forbid, Magyar Forum. So under the glorious conservative Bush and his adminstration, still you have only communist voices in the foreign policy analysis mix. One word from a political appointee at the DAS level could change this bias. Silence.

Are you Hungarian? You seem like an SzDSz supporter (no offense if you are not).

Are you Hungarian? You seem like an SzDSz supporter (no offense if you are not).

Yes, I am Hungarian, and HELL NO, I'm definitely not an SZDSZ supporter. SZDSZ is really just a "subsidiary" of the Socialist Party, sponsored mainly by the Soros Foundation. I believe in self-reliance, in capitalism, in the right to defend oneself, in independent nation states, in honesty, in monogamy and faithfulness, in equality before the law as opposed to catering to minorities, and in clear and simple laws that are uncompromisingly enforced by armed citizens--if need be, using capital punishment. In a nutshell, I support all the worst nightmares of Soros and his fellow power-hungry "intellectuals" in SZDSZ.

Fidesz does not stand for all I stand for, but at least there is an overlap in my views and their views, so I definitely support them over the commies. Plus, I think Viktor Orban is a very talented and likeable politician, probably the best in Continental Europe.

I could show you the daily CIA media translations from Hungary. Every article they translate comes either from Magyar Hirlap or Nepszabadsag or Nepszava. Rarely anything from Magyar Nemzet, never anything from Demokrata

Hmm, I'm not glad they're reading Nepszabadsag, but I'm glad they're not reading too much of Magyar Nemzet. It is the only Hungarian daily that does not lick the boots of the Socialist Party, and also the only Hungarian daily that is open to publishing various views on the same subject--but most of the columnists are old people who grew up during Communism and continue to think in socialist terms. In the international press column, they mostly quote articles that Freepers would label with a "barf alert" from rags like the Guardian or the New York Times. I often wonder if they would quote the Pravda if it still existed!

Sometimes they even quote the Washington ComPost, apparently forgetting that it was the ComPost where that scandalous article slandering PM Orban appeared. Go figure.

She was gauche enough to brag in mixed company about the money that her husband gave Bush in exchange for the ambassadorship.

Were you there personally when she said this, or did you learn it from the media?

You know, if 60% of the politicians are corrupt and 40% honest, but 95% of the reporters are corrupt, then 95% of the reports will claim that the 40% of the politicians who are honest are corrupt. In other words, think twice before trusting a politician, but think twenty times before trusting a reporter.

HELL NO, I'm definitely not an SZDSZ supporter. SZDSZ is really just a "subsidiary" of the Socialist Party, sponsored mainly by the Soros Foundation.

OK OK OK, you are not on my "bad" list. Actually, SzDSz are worse than the socialists. SzDSz are people like Haraszti the Maoist, who were persecuted by the communists for being too far left. The stupid Americans don't understand that. Being a "dissident" doesn't always mean what it appears. SzDSz are the offspring of Szamuely and Kun. Socialists are evil in their leadership, but not 100 percent of socialist supporters are bad people. Many could have just as well been MDF supporters in the old days. Many should have been.

Yes, you are right: Soros is a great threat to Hungary and to the rest of Central Europe. That is why I admire great leaders like Tudjman, who gave Soros a very hard time. Orban should have kicked him out of Hungary instead of trying to kiss his ass. Lantos as well. Persona non grata. Soros has already been more or less successful in destroying any sense of Hungarian national identity. And who is Soros? He is a person who went around with Nazis and confiscated Jewish property and jewels during WWII. That is how he made his first money: robbing his fellow Jews. You know what happened to the Jews who couldn't pay Soros and his henchmen...

Fidesz...yes, there are some very good people in that party. Orban is the greatest Hungarian since Szechenyi. There are also great people like Laszlo Kover. But there are also liberals and traitors in the party. Too many, unfortunately. It is still the best viable party in Hungary.

Magyar Nemzet has some great writers, like Istvan Lovas. No paper is perfect, but I would take MN over anything else. You think Magyar Hirlap is better? I would much rather read Magyar Forum.

You asked regarding my comment on Brinker's bragging about her appointment: Were you there personally when she said this, or did you learn it from the media?

I didn't hear of it in the media. Do you think I know this much about Hungary from reading the American newspapers? Do you realize that there are only a few Americans who could even find Hungary on the map? Don't doubt me on Brinker: I know what I am talking about. I will say no more on it.

udv.

Actually, SzDSz are worse than the socialists.

Now we finally agree.

Magyar Nemzet has some great writers, like Istvan Lovas.

Oh, I was hoping you wouldn't say this. I can't really figure that guy out. I find his writings rather contradictory.

He would actually make a great journalist, if he only got his views right. He recognizes leftists as evil, which means he's halfway there, but he refuses to support limited government and free enterprise, so he has yet to travel the second half of the journey. He doens't realize that, by denouncing capitalism, he himself becomes a leftist.

Like many Hungarians, he has yet to learn that you cannot be an anti-capitalist without being a socialist.

No paper is perfect, but I would take MN over anything else. You think Magyar Hirlap is better? I would much rather read Magyar Forum.

I only read the Nemzet, so I cannot give an informed judgment on the other papers, but of course I would much rather read Magyar Forum myself. But if I want to read articles that I can really whole-heartedly agree with, I have to turn to foreign papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, or the London Telegraph. I wish we had papers like that in Hungary.

Do you think I know this much about Hungary from reading the American newspapers?

Of course not. I read on another thread that you've spent a lot of time in Hungary. You didn't mention what you did here, but...

Don't doubt me on Brinker: I know what I am talking about. I will say no more on it.

...hmm, perhaps you were/are a spy, eh? :-) Access to CIA translations, privy information on ambassadors...Hey, I hope this doesn't mean you'll have to kill me. I don't believe you anyway. ;-)

(No offense intended with that; it just happens to be that I rather like Ayn Rand's philosophy, and I only really believe that which I can observe, or deduce from what I have observed.)

Well, I think you may not completely understand his views and approach. I think ultimately he would support the idea of individual initiative and reduced government interference, but he is fighting a different war at present. As any soldier knows, no need to open another front until absolutely necessary. His fight now is against the leftists who have translated political power to economic power in Hungary's "transition". He is fighting the people who have landed back on top from the communist era, but who now champion capitalism and the West. I think this fight is noble, and I am sure that if he were to win that fight he would begin talking about individual enterprise and small government. Lovas is no socialist, that much I know for sure. He is also one of the most brilliant men I have ever met.

I wish we had papers like that in Hungary.

If the communists had not been able to privatize newspapers with strings attached in the last days of communism, you might have seen a more complete transition in the Hungarian media. The fact that three major national dailies have their roots in communism means that you will not have more objective journalism any time soon. And anyway, Washington Times and War Street Journal are just as biased as Nepszabadsag.

...hmm, perhaps you were/are a spy, eh? :-) Access to CIA translations, privy information on ambassadors.

I despise spooks. They are very much responsible for the problems that have befallen Central Europe. The CIA has always been a hotbed of Wilsonian leftists, meglomaniacal busy-bodies who determine to re-make the world in their vision. No thank you.

I think ultimately he would support the idea of individual initiative and reduced government interference, but he is fighting a different war at present.

I hope you're right.

He is fighting the people who have landed back on top from the communist era, but who now champion capitalism and the West.

I think what those people actually champion is fascism, as well as socialism. Stifling business with nonsensical laws, and then selling the "right to do business" to those who offer the highest bribes is fascist. Buying the votes of people by overwhelming them with government handouts before an election is socialist.

True capitalism would mean small startup businesses enjoying the same rights as established, wealthy ones, and none of them having to bribe the government to let them live. With the government having no power to give handouts or to do favors for corportations, politics would become much less attractive for crooks who are only interested in the bribes and the "kicks" they get from deciding over the lives of others. Politicians who truly care about the nation, like PM Orban, could spend their time doing what needs to be done, instead of having to refute the lies of their enemies.

I wish Fidesz saw this more clearly. Take the Szechenyi Plan, for example. As you no doubt know, it was a government program to provide financial assistance to small businesses with promising ideas. I'm sure Fidesz introduced it with good intentions, but the problem is that you cannot always trust the government to decide which businesses are worth investing in. In fact, an SZDSZ-Socialist government, for example, is likely to appropriate the funds based on who offers the highest bribe, not on what makes business sense. Still, Fidesz has criticized them for discontinuing the plan. I'm actually glad they stopped it, as I'm sure they would only see it as another opportunity to cash in. (Obviously, they had a "not invented here" problem with it.)

Another example is the "kozszolgalati" television. When Fidesz was in power, it was the only TV station with political programs that didn't have a pro-Socialist bias. But now that the Socialists are in power--well, you have guessed it. Fidesz should have privatized the station to a buyer who could be trusted to provide unbiased programming. (I'm not sure it would have been possible--may require a two-thirds majority--but the problem is that I think Fidesz simply didn't recognize the problems inherent in a "public service" television.)

If the communists had not been able to privatize newspapers with strings attached in the last days of communism

Yeah, they did it, and did it without scruples. Another reason Fidesz should have tried to privatize the TV, lest it be privatized by the commies later!

And anyway, Washington Times and War Street Journal are just as biased as Nepszabadsag.

If you think the only reason for the U.S. trying to liberate Iraq is the lobbying of the defense industry, then yes. But I see many other reasons for doing so--not the least of them is that I wish the U.S. had helped liberate Hungary in 1956. IMHO, 95% of the people who argue against the war (you're not in that 95%) are happy with how the '56 revolution ended, and would have accused President Eisenhower of "trying to rule the world" in much the same way as they accuse President Bush now, had he tried to intervene to help us.

I despise spooks.

I think they are just like wars: there are good ones and bad ones.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.