How Quickly We Forget

Oh, please. It's a figure of speech.

Al, you're a cheap ventriloquist dummy for Republican talking points.

What's your problem? That's just a figure of speech. Huh, maybe figures of speech have meanings and implications? Weird.

by analogizing them to animals

Specifically, animals who are (reputedly) indifferent to their own deaths.

Incidentally, he's backing the Rahm/Hoyer wing of the leadership against the Pelosi/Murtha axis.

I don't think he is. Marty is backing a Rahm/Lieberman axis that exists only in his own mind. Somehow, because Emanuel is generally centrist, Peretz has concluded he's a crazy hawk on Middle East foreign policy.

Emanuel, while he's not my Favorite Democrat Evar, is a perfectly fine Clintonista who would never in a million years support Peretz' loony (and racist!) foreign policy ideas.

The actual debates in the leadership are pretty much wholly separable from the debate going on in Marty's imagination.

Oh please, Al. I don't cast this around lightly, but Peretz is perhaps the most virulent racist in mainstream American intellectual life at present. But if you call him on it, you're just a self-hater

I thought lemmings were a video game character?

http://www.ociocritico.com/oc/wp/wp-content/images/lemmings.jpg

Emanuel, while he's not my Favorite Democrat Evar, is a perfectly fine Clintonista who would never in a million years support Peretz' loony (and racist!) foreign policy ideas.

Well, to be sure, absolutely nobody in the Democratic Party (Lieberman included) is going to support anything nearly as crazy as Peretz's views. Still, these notions from Rahm don't strike me as especially sound:

We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the Special Forces and the Marines, and expanding the Army by 100,000 more troops. We should give all our troops a new G.I. Bill to come home to. Finally, we must protect the homeland and our civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.

That plus PAYGO plus this whole swathe of tax cuts for the upper middle class and you can pretty much write off a progressive domestic policy agenda.

Right, he grieves for those Palestinians every day. While he's brushing his teeth.

And Marty Peretz is, evidently, an indecisive squirrel. A heartless, spiteful squirrel.

I don't see how there can be an Emanuel/Hoyer alternative to Pelosi/Murtha. Pelosi's management--along with Harry Reid's--of the last two years was strikingly effective, given what they had to work with.

Rahm got some people elected this time, but he also failed to get some people elected in an expensive fashion, and is a notably irascible jerk.

That plus PAYGO plus this whole swathe of tax cuts for the upper middle class and you can pretty much write off a progressive domestic policy agenda.

Well, they do have universal children's health care on the list. I agree it's a pretty uninspiring list on the whole.

But I think that my problem with Emanuel's foreign policy ideas is not that they're too neoconnish, but that they're hardly ideas at all. Calling for more troops, with no plans whatsoever for their deployment in a time of an awful war, isn't so much policy as the abdication of policy.

In that, I think that Emanuel is not closer to Peretz on foreign policy than to me. He's not on the foreign policy spectrum at all.

I think what I was trying to say was that on the actual foreign policiy issues which may be on the table in the next few years, Emanuel is most likely going to be anti-Peretz, while there's a pretty good chance that Lieberman will be pro-Peretz. The continuation of the war in Iraq along essentially the same parameters; bombing Iran; getting reinvolved in peace talks in Palestine; kicking China repeating in the testicles - on all these fronts, Emanuel is unlikely to be vocally on Peretz' side, the worst case is that he tries to hide while the debate is going on, and even that doesn't seem too likely after he made Iraq a major issue in his section of the national campaign.

"Incidentally, he's backing the Rahm/Hoyer wing of the leadership against the Pelosi/Murtha axis."

Of course, Peretz has long backed Al Gore. Does that make Gore a reactionary?

As to thinking Emanuel is grouped with Hoyer in opposition to a Pelosi/Murtha wing (!) of the party, I'll say something I've never said before: Matthew, you're a moron.

Petey, I'm fairly certain Matt isn't grouping them along ideological lines. Pelosi and Murtha agree on very little, but they get along, as opposed to Pelosi and Hoyer who have issues.

Of course, Peretz has long backed Al Gore. Does that make Gore a reactionary?

Good point.

As to thinking Emanuel is grouped with Hoyer in opposition to a Pelosi/Murtha wing (!) of the party, I'll say something I've never said before: Matthew, you're a moron.

Seriously, Petey, I'm not a moron and you don't know what you're talking about. Pelosi and Hoyer are longtime rivals. They ran against each other for the Minority Leader job and before that they ran against each other for the Minority Whip job. In both of those races, Murtha served as Pelosi's campaign manager. Rahm and Hoyer are allies and so are Pelosi and Murtha. "Wing" was a poor choice of term since it's all very inside baseball and doesn't penetrate at all outside the beltway (i.e., the Emmannuel/Hoyer people are mostly moderates, but the very liberal Diana DeGette is in their camp) but these are the fault lines inside the caucus. Obviously, many members are on good terms with both of the competing leadership factions, but they are competing factions.

It's Petey's dismissiveness that makes him so much fun to chat with.

See also the Bull Moose, who knows a good factional fight when he sees one:

Emanuel may best serve his party after the election if he is elected to a position of leadership. The danger for the donkey is that the liberal leadership of a Democratic House will over-reach and make '08 a Republican year. That is why the Democrats need a strong, savvy centrist like Emanuel in a leadership position in the aftermath of the November election. Along with Steny Hoyer, Emanuel can help present a sensible centrist contrast to failed Republican governance.

Emanuel's a smart guy and I think he did a good job at the DCCC's core functions -- candidate recruitment, fundraising, etc. -- but I don't much care for his (or Hoyer's) substantive views relative to Pelosi's.

Kos notes the Hoyer/Pelosi split. Kos also wants Petey to tell him how many games the Knicks will win this year.

What leadership fight are we talking about? I mean, Pelosi's the speaker, right? She's been out front on everything, so it would be crazy to replace her. (Regardless of Marty and Moosy's sentiments.)

The question, then, is whether the Majority Leader is Hoyer or Murtha. And in that case, the debate is over how much power the Pelosi/Murtha wing will share with Hoyer/Emanuel, not who leads the Democrats.

Does that sound right?

Hoyer and Pelosi have been rivals in the past. However, they've worked together pretty well for the last year or so. There's a question as to whether we prefer Hoyer inside the tent or out.

A major issue in our majority coalition is the moderates. Many of them are concerned - perhaps less so than a month ago - about whether Pelosi will make it hard for them to get reelected, by pushing an overly liberal agenda. Part of keeping them happy is making sure there's a moderate in the leadership.

Both Hoyer and Murtha fit the moderate bill. However, it's not clear to me how many of the Blue Dogs are personally loyal to Hoyer, and how many of them just want a moderate in the leadership and don't care who it is.

The netroots overwhelmingly support Murtha, because of what he did on the war; but the issue here is really an inside-baseball one that is all about keeping rival factions happy, and my suspicion is that Hoyer would be a better pick for that reason. However, no one is going to ask me.

Peretz is not indifferent to the deaths of Palestinians, in the same sense as Shiite death squads are indifferent to the deaths of Sunni's.

Of course, Peretz has long backed Al Gore.

Would he still back Gore, after Gore turned into [insert extremist pejorative]? I doubt it. It will be interesting to see who Peretz supports for 2008.

Petey's the guy who thinks we need to fight more wars, not because it's good policy, but because it will help the Democrats pass their domestic agenda.

But Matthew's the moron.

Murtha isn't a dove at all, and he's pretty conservative, but he was able to stick his neck out while Emmanuel and Hoyer were hiding.

The funny thing about the Pelosi/Hoyer rivalry is (I vaguely remember reading somewhere) that the two of them worked together as congressional interns back in college (Pelosi is originally from Maryland too) and were friendly. But that was a long time ago.

Peretz wrote a pro-Gore article in TNR as recently as about six months ago. Peretz was also a bigtime Eugene McCarthy (!) acolyte in his early days and claims to still be in love with him. I think he's just crazy - not just in the neocon way, but across the board.

As for Hoyer/Murtha, can't we just make one the leader and one the whip? What's the problem? Or is there somebody else who's in line for the whip?

"I am not indifferent to the death of Palestinians, not at all."

Peretz is not indifferent to the deaths of Palestinians. They provide fodder for the anti-Semites of the world.

Incidentally, he's backing the Rahm/Hoyer wing of the leadership against the Pelosi/Murtha axis.

It was a little surprising that the midterm elections finally pierced through the little bubble he inhabits.

OK, so they definitely interned together, but I can't find anything saying they were friends. So strike that part.

Kos also wants Petey to tell him how many games the Knicks will win this year.

I too am curious about this, since the Jalen Rose waiver shoots Petey's "tradeable contract" theory of Zeke's genius all to shit...

Would he still back Gore, after Gore turned into [insert extremist pejorative]?

He backed Gore for President as recently as a couple of months ago.

So, Matt, you have the feeling that new intra-party fault lines are shaping up between pro-Israel Democrats and pro-Palestinian Democrats?

Daniel Levy over at TPMCafe is hinting at the same idea...

Ah, how quickly the infighting begins...

John Emerson:

"Murtha isn't a dove at all, and he's pretty conservative, but he was able to stick his neck out while Emmanuel and Hoyer were hiding."

John Murtha has easily been the most significant Democratic critic of the occupation of Iraq, and I consider him most instrumental in slowly bringing Democratic political leaders to an anti-occupation stance. A hero for me!

So, Matt, you have the feeling that new intra-party fault lines are shaping up between pro-Israel Democrats and pro-Palestinian Democrats?

I hate that false dichotomy. Part of the reason our ME policy is so fucked is that the 'sensible middle' position on this is the McCainian "tell em to knock that shit off." The sooner we recognize that at this date, both sides have legit grievances, and deciding who started it isn't especially productive, the better. Not holding my breath though, because of people like Marty on one side and [pick one] on the other.

"Incidentally, he's backing the Rahm/Hoyer wing of the leadership against the Pelosi/Murtha axis."

Well in that case I have to back the Pelosi/Murtha axis.

lem·ming (lmng)

n.
Any of various small, thickset rodents, especially of the genus Lemmus, inhabiting northern regions and known for periodic mass migrations that sometimes end in drowning.

One benefit of an Emanuel/Hoyer leadership for the House would be the fun of referring to them as "Rahm and Stimpy."

So what is the deal about Hoyer and Pelosi, then? Is this potentially a problem for the Democrats, with everyone choosing sides, or is it just personal?

I don't mean to be impertinent, but if I loved anywhere as much as Professor Peretz professes to love Israel I gather I would have moved there by now.

Or maybe it's less nationalist pride than the thrall of ultimate trolldom. Maybe what Peretz really gets off on is provoking angry-guilty responses from his fellow liberals, pinning them on the floor until they admit their Great Hatred of All Jews Everywhere.

I'm sorry I thought I could stop but I can't. Peretz just seems like that guy you knew in high school who suddenly discovers his Palestinian Heritage, leaves class loudly like every hour to pray, and insists you call him Mach-med (with a lot of phlegm on the ch) instead of Mo. Except that instead of growing up and getting a real job like everyone else your friend Mo marries some rich chick and buys a national magazine (in which literally every issue is devoted to how Palestinian poets are like totally better than all the other ones, and how Palestinians are like way smarter too). I'm just not old enough to remember a time when the New Republic wasn't devoted to the Drama of the Jew.

Wasn't Ramn Emmanuel's father in the Irgun? Maybe that explains why Marty Peretz likes him so much.

87% of Jews voted Dem this election. EIGHTY-SEVEN PERCENT. That's a hell of a lot of self-hate.

Obviously, Pelosi & Rahmbo differ (or differed) on the war. Which is a big thing, but I really don't see Rahm balking at any of the things Pelosi has proposed doing so far, which are fairly modest and not out of line with the types of things the DLC might propose. And as I recall, restoration of PAYGO, was one of the major planks of Pelosi's "First 100 Hours" plan.

1. I am kind of surprised at all the Rahm-hatred that's been on display in certain quarters since Election Day. Most of the guy's colleagues think he's a jerk too, from what I understand. But they didn't pick him to run the DCCC because he was likeable, they picked him because they wanted badly to win, and Emmanuel had a reputation as someone who knew how to do that. Similar deal for why Chuck Schumer became head of the DSCC.

2. Did anyone else notice how the government tries to mandate certain individual behavior in the Emmanuel/Reed agenda? They seem to favor a "strict-nanny state" as opposed to an "indulgent-nanny state." But it's still a nanny state.

3. "We need to make a college degree as common as a high school diploma." Wouldn't a college degree become just as worthless as a high school diploma under this scenario? Then we'd be hearing about how "we need to make a graduate degree as common as undergraduate degrees." By the time we get to that point, you'd have tens of millions of skilled-up youngsters competing for the few remaining sustainable jobs that haven't been outsourced to lower-cost countries. That doesn't sound like a labor market conducive to higher wages here at home.

I should say that, initially, Emannuel is sticking to the unifying agenda that the Dems came up with on the campaign trail. And pushing issues that divide the caucus can be politically disastrous. Rahm should know since he was the guy pushing NAFTA on the Hill in '93 for the Clinton White House. I wonder what lessons he's taken away from that...

Anyways, here's Rahm from a brief NPR chat on Wednesday:

EMMANUEL: The Democratic Party is gonna fulfill its obligations and its commitments that it’s made all over this country in individual districts, individual states, which is, we’re gonna go forward on a minimum wage increase, on direct negotiations for lower prescription drug prices, on a 9/11 Commission recommendations on an up-or-down vote on what it takes to secure America, pay-as-you-go rules on the budget so we don’t run up the deficit, redirecting the $12 billion given to oil companies and putting it into alternative energy, and also, a comprehensive reform package as it relates to lobbying and ethics reform. We gotta do those things because we gotta start meeting the challenges that the American people have asked us to start dealing with. And also, we’re gonna also – most importantly – we’re gonna say we want the Hamilton-Baker Report on Iraq, and we need to finally come up with a strategy. This is the single worst national security challenge America’s faced in over two generations, and the present course we’re on only gets the hole – ditch we’re on even deeper.

QUESTION: What’s your reaction to Donald Rumsfeld stepping down –

EMMANUEL: Well, you know –

QUESTION: - the day after the election?

EMMANUEL: I think the White House got the message that the American people want a new direction, and that’s what we represented. And, you know, Democrats are the ones pushing it, and that’s the first thing.

QUESTION: Now, as I listen to you, it sounds like you’re ticking through many of the points in this 35-page document the Democrats have put together.

EMMANUEL: Right.

QUESTION: A New Direction for America.

EMMANUEL: Right.

QUESTION: But going forward, trying to push for any kind of change, you’re gonna have to reach across the aisle and find people you can work with. How hard is it gonna be to do that?

EMMANUEL: Well, you know, look, I have already talked to two Republican members of the United States Congress who are friends of mine, and they said they wanted to work with us, and I reached out to both of them and said, “We want to work with you.” One of the things that I think is a problem that’s happened in the past is that, when you look at the DeLay-Hastert model, it ran the House down and so politicized it, and so created animosity, that we became a dysfunctional House. The DeLay-Hastert model is a model that doesn’t produce results for the American people, and we have an obligation, having lived under it, to change it.

QUESTION: So, how do Democrats change it? Do they institute some sort of open door policy?

EMMANUEL: Well, we’re gonna have – we’re gonna work together, and that’s our obligation. There’s not Democratic ideas, Republican ideas, just good or bad ideas, and that’s our obligation, and we pledge to keep it.

Matt,

Generalizing the behavior of an entire group of people strikes me as rather thoughtless, but it doesn't seem equivalent as stating that one is indifferent to the lives of members of that group. I read both linked posts, and I don't see adequate justifaction for the conclusion you've arrived at.

"Incidentally, he's backing the Rahm/Hoyer wing of the leadership against the Pelosi/Murtha axis."
Good God! Are there five people left in the world who give a rat's ass who Marty is backing? Peretz has managed to drive the New Republic into obscurity. The man himself is one small step above those poor deranged characters shouting their opinions at the world in the New York Port Authority. Take away his wife's money, and he'd be one of those guys.

"Wing" was a poor choice of term since it's all very inside baseball and doesn't penetrate at all outside the beltway - MY

Umm ... yes it does.

Thanks to the punditocracy feeling a professional obligation (about the only one they feel) to attribute ideological differences to what's really inside baseball, and conversely, and the punditocracies embrace of a certain "Elite Consensus" POV which is rather antithetical to both the POVs of Pelosi and Murtha (even though Pelosi and Murtha both differ in many ways ideologically, they both diverge from the Elite Consensus in ways which mark them as "left wing" according to that Consensus) but which mistakes the POVs of Hoyer and Emanuel for those of that consensus (they completely and willfully ignore much of what Hoyer and Emanuel actually have supported in the past), the so-called and self-proclaimed "liberal wing" of the punditocracy (which does our cause more harm than good by making people think that liberals are effete snobs and also allowing for people to think "if even the liberal X thinks Y is too far to the left, it must be") would naturally tend to proclaim itself allied to a "Hoyer/Emanuel" axis and opposed to a "Pelosi/Murtha" axis, even if they are overblowing the distinction and attributing too much to inside baseball, of which they are so grandiose as to believe they are a part, anyway.

Ooops ... I lost my train of thought.

The upshot is that since the only "liberals" many people outside of "blue-state-land" know of are corrupt politicians in the local big city (e.g. St. Louis in MO or Chicago in IL) and "liberal" pundits, their only representation of what liberalism stands for (outside of political corruption -- which they know "both sides do", but they see the Dem. corruption more directly than the far more horrendous GOP corruption, which is largely far away in Washington, DC) is what those "liberal" pundits say.

So if Joe Sixpack is willing to give liberalism a benefit of a doubt, he'll do it according to the script laid out for him by the only liberals of whom he's aware that are not corrupt politicians: i.e. according to the script provided by the pundits. So he'll, following the pundits, give fair hearing to some "Emanuel/Hoyer wing" but he'll figure "if even the liberal pundit X dismisses the Pelosi/Murtha axis as defeato-crat, they must be unhinged moonbats".

I know some blue-state liberals who think, e.g., Murtha, as a red-state-type, could reach out to red-state, working class folk. But when you get your ideas on what's the latest and greatest in the Dem. party from "those in the know", you'd think Murtha = Pelosi = wanting to make sure all terrorists can gay marry and have abortions on the taxpayers' dime ... and while American's tend to have short memories regarding certain specifics (they'll, e.g., forget about all these GOP scandals pretty quickly), they never forget a smear.

Can someone link me to a good explanation/recap of the Dean/Emanuel feud? I was trying to explain it to someone last night, and all I could say was that Dean wanted to spend money in a more diffuse, party-building way and earlier, while Emanuel wanted to spend it late and in close races, but that seems to just follow from the different positions of the DNC and the DCCC. I remember Rahm having criticized Dean's approach throughout the last year or two, but can't recall the details.

Ah, lovely. Now those Old South fucks at the DLC are trying to kick Dean out and replace him with Harold Ford. As the party moves north, the DLC wants the leadership to move south. Perfect.

"As to thinking Emanuel is grouped with Hoyer in opposition to Pelosi/Murtha wing (!) of party, I'll say something I never say before: Matthew, you a moron."

Thank you Cha-ka. Be sure to let us know when sleestacks are near.

Thanks your article

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanksss

good

cool

all thanks brb

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil

thanks ;)

thanks ;)

thank you

www.ircrehberi.com ,thans you

thans you

thans you

thans you..

ucuz hosting

erotic shop

eroticshop

erotik shop

erotikshop

geçiktirici hap

geçiktiricihap

geçiktirici sprey

geçiktiricisprey

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü hap

penisbüyütücühap

seks market

seksmarket

sex shop

sexshop

seks shop

seksshop

şişme bebek

şişmebebek

erotik erotik

sexshop

sexshop

sexshop

sexshop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

seksshop

seksshop

seksshop

seksshop

seks shop

seks shop

seks shop

seks shop

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
yutup
izlesene
yutub
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup
youtube.com

mirc