The danger of underage analogy

By Owen Paine on Wednesday August 2, 2006 08:29 PM

No, I haven't been reading Kos again. I got this link from the Stan of Jersey. But it stars Kos, the boy wonder hizseff, and it's another ruckus about the Green Party -- this time in Pennsylvania. Once again, like all third-party types, they're taking Repug money -- and putting it to good use for a change, I'd say, just to reduce the vote for the pro-fetus hawkdonk Monsignor Casey.

Here's Kos Maximus:

The Dems aren't left enough for them [the greens-- ed.] so they go to the right...
...Like the Revolutionary War skating team of Franklin and Deane going to the court of the king of France. If Kos had been running the Continental Congress, no doubt he would be explaining that Lord North is a much lesser evil than those awful Bourbons -- and he would be right, of course, as far as his understanding could take him.

More Kos, on the deadly peril of "helping Santorum win":

Logic right out of Stalin telling the German communists to not fight the Nazis because things would get so bad that the communists would eventually win....
Er, well, if you check the record, they did... and then lost it back 45 years later as the wheel kept turning. Okay, okay, I know, it's sophomoric. But this little dweeb with his Toynbee airs -- a tough target to resist.
Here's the deal: politics as temper tantrum suck.
So any third party is for purist brats, like, ah... the Republican party of 1856? How about break-away parties or splits, like the Jacksonian party of 1828, or the Free Soil party of 1848, which was, btw, both a splitter and a thirdee. But I tend to get bogged down in the details. If only I had Kos-like powers of abstraction, then I could see this more clearly as I made it more simple.

Here's something worth a laugh --

People need sane people in office more than you need to feel right.
Let me see if I follow the logic here: Repugs are crazy, whereas donks, no matter how similar to Repugs, are sane. No doubt this Democratic sanity explains why the party supported the war in Iraq and now supports the one in Lebanon and started the one in Vietnam and and... but you get my drift.

Future headline in history text: the Bush-Cheney insanity stopped by St Hill and the gang.

Now I don't necessarily prefer candidates that would rather be right then prez, but I do want to stop the inanity of voting for the lesser party, and force the system to produce a real alternative party, one way or another. Then I'd love to see it win.

Kos is right on when he sez amazing grace ain't all it's cooked up to be. We could use a few good works 'round here. But the prosecution would like to direct the jury to the Clinton years. Let's do this up brown like it deserves, and say no, I won't vote for four more years of that either.

All this Kos rhetoric is vintage high-school debate-team material. Take that variation on the old football, worse now leads to better later -- well, everybody knows what a stupid, discredited idea that is, right? Nobody is ever correct to forego a short-term gain, no matter how small, in favor of a long-term gain, no matter how great. We can all agree on that, surely.

But analogies like this are so empty of content, so schematic, it's just feudin' formalities. The task is to give the concrete situation, as concretely as it can be poured. Only then can we begin to determine if the correct formality is being applied.

After all, maybe once you decide the DLC must be neutered -- as it would seem the Kossbacks agree -- then maybe you need to know if the DLC's balls can be removed from the donkery, or whether, like some siamese-twin operations, both patients are doomed to die on the operating table.

I could give a shit about Bob Casey [the donk candidate -- ed.], but Santorum has to go. My lab partner is a monkey could do a better job than Santorum.
"Better job?" A better job of what? Talk about a tiresome trope, this idea that electing someone to office is like hiring someone for a job. Is a string of losing votes on the correct side of an issue "doing a better job" than a string of superfluous wrong votes on the winning side?

Of course, it's possible that Kos is onto something factually, in spite of his threadbare suite of ideas, with Santorum. Maybe Santorum is a key from the Keystone State. Knock him out, and not only does the Repugs' electoral majority crumble, but the Democrats hang the DLC and move so rapidly to the left that they hang Feingold on the way. But i doubt it. In this case, what's the value of the dime's diff a DLC fetus-freak donk can make, if our real task is to show the donk party hacks they can't win anywhere, till they run real alternatives -- on empire, on taxes, on wages and hours, on mother earth, on health payments, etc. In that war maybe you do have to pick some symbolic targets. For example, the brutal humiliating demise of nutmeg nutter Joe "talks to God" Lieberman, in the general election, might really crack open a few thick beltway skulls, if it elected some Repug chuckle head.

Comments (22)

J. Alva Scruggs:

It's a bit rich for Kos to cry over the Greens. His strategery consistently helps elect Republicans, most famously the Chimperor. Can't blame the Greens for that. Most of them voluntarily neutered themselves in 2004. He got a firm kick in the 'nads from the Windsurfer's web staff when he expressed his disgust for the mercs in Iraq. These things should have told him something right there. Instead, he just retreated into the vapid nihilism of a faction leader in a locker room clique fight.


The Kos thing is really amazing -- well worth a read. The guy is foaming at the mouth, chewing the carpet, his head is rotating 360 degrees on his neck, he's speaking in a Boris Godunov voice and vomiting gallons of pea soup. A case for The Exorcist if ever there was one.

I think this is the fury of a careerist who's seen a path of advancement open up, only to find it threatened by somebody who isn't even a player at all. I've seen it before, in the corporate world.

J. Alva Scruggs:

Dederich Democrats, though I doubt the Kosniks will be putting rattlesnakes in Green mailboxes.

How much money did Rupert Murdoch raise for Hillary? $2 million? $3 million? And now these fat democrat hogs have raised their snouts from the corporate trough long enough to oink about this Green Party guy in PA.


No wonder the dems are the Whigs of the New Millennium. What a sink hole of hypocracy that party has become.

The problem is that Kos goes after the Greens with an axe but he can't quite bring himself to support the agenda of most of the readers of his site ie Ned Lamont.

I have to admit I'm as confused about Ned Lamont's chances as anybody.

Well, OK. I'm not a supporter. I'd half like to see him win but I'm not really going to waste much time on him.

Kos, on the other hand, is being very cagey about his own guy's change of winning. He's not taking any chances.

Maybe we can get Maryscott O'Connor to have another Bulworth moment, although they certainly beat the crap out of Billmon for violating the orthodoxy.


A conversation with an Australian friend:

Me: So there's a Senate race that's a big deal with the lefties in the US right now.

Him: Oh?

Me: It involves the famous Senator Rick Santorum, Republican banner carrier.

Him: Oh.

Me: See, they hate him because he opposes abortion, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, supported the Supreme Court nominations of Alito and Roberts, is pro-Israel, opposes gay rights, feels pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for birth control, voted for the Iraq war, and opposes any timetable for withdrawal.
So there's a guy running against him named Bob Casey Jr.

Him: I smell a "but" coming.

Me: They like Casey a lot, because Santorum opposes abortion, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, supported the Supreme Court nominations of Alito and Roberts, is pro-Israel, opposes gay rights, feels pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for birth control, voted for the Iraq war, and opposes any timetable for withdrawal.

Casey, on the other hand, opposes abortion, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, supported the Supreme Court nominations of Alito and Roberts, is pro-Israel, opposes gay rights, feels pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for birth control, would have voted for the Iraq war, and opposes any timetable for withdrawal.

Him: So basically he's Santorum with a lower public profile? I'm not sure that even makes him the lesser evil.

So, uh, fuck Kos and the "darn special interests" horse he rode in on.


Ten Key Values of the Green Party:

We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being...

Well accepting war profiteers cash certainly improves somebody's personal well being.

I am a registered Green and I don't agree with this approach. If you don't want to be accused of hyprocrisy, then don't be a hypocrite. Go reread the ten values and try to live them.

J. Alva Scruggs:

Stanley, that post at Gilliard's blog is really something. The heavy handed sanctimony couldn't have been laid on thicker with a trowel. Coming after his declaration that the Greens "must be dealt with", I think he's got the makings of an outstanding Republican pundit.

What I love is that the only way a Green candidate can even register on the radar of a Pwog Blog is if the latter can lob the "republican funding" acusation at him. Of course, they'll defend DiFi and the like until they're blue in the face, but... [snicker]

So, BY, how do you know that this is "war profiteer money ?" Is every Republican in the country working for Haliburton now ?

BTW, there was a big news item in our local rag a couple of weeks ago about how a local version of the Working Families Party is starting here. Gee. Will they do for OR what they've done for NY ? Be still my heart. :/

Stanley, that post at Gilliard's blog is really something. The heavy handed sanctimony couldn't have been laid on thicker with a trowel. Coming after his declaration that the Greens "must be dealt with", I think he's got the makings of an outstanding Republican pundit.

The ironic thing about Mr. Gilliard is that he used to work for Brett Schundler.

He's got some good things about him. He allows debate about Israel on his blog, for example, unlike Atrios. And he was against the war in Iraq in 2002. But he's really a bit too in love with the military and he loves to attack the people on his left.

That post was typical for him and not even close to his worst. His worst came last September when he attacked the anti-war protests in DC and claimed that "only the families of soldiers serving in Iraq should be allowed to speak at anti-war demos".

His archives seem to have been scrubbed a bit however (although I'd probably ascribe this to sloppiness not censorship).


William Grube, Night Vision Equipment, Fogelsville, Pa., $5,000:
Records show that Grube has donated a whopping $65,000 to Republican causes, including Santorum's campaign (and $25,000 to an Arlen Specter Victory Committee) before he became an unlikely fan of the Green Party.
This news release about 2004 federal dollars won for the Lehigh Valley by Santorum and Specter may explain why -- it includes:
$2.5 million for the Night Vision Equipment Company in Lehigh County to produce the Mini-IR MX2 for the 18th Airborne Corps. The Mini-IR MX2 is a miniature hand-held thermal imager that can see in total darkness, even through foliage and battlefield obscurants. Weighing less than a pound, the Mini-IR MX2 is the world's smallest, lightest and easiest to use thermal imager available.
In 2003, they announced $4 million for the same company, as well as $5 million this year!

Ralph Hooper, Wayne, Pa., $5,000.
Earlier this decade, Hooper was named to the Mother Jones 400 for donating tens of thousands of dollars to Republican causes.


Pot, meet kettle.

"must be dealt with" ??

I thought that the freeze-out approach that's more or less unanimous amongst the Big Box Blogs had already been hugely successful. Well, not in an electoral sense, but certainly in an emotional sense for these self-important egotistical clowns.

Why would they want to change tactics now ? It would be awfully daring to give a supposedly bad party even bad publicity in the current climate-- by the "realists'" own logic, I mean. Or by the rule of two negatives equalling a positive in multiplication. Once you acknowledge your enemy's existence, you acknowledge that you feel threatened by him/her. Once you acknowledge that you feel threatened, you've given them stature. The stature of being feared as an enemy rather than simply shunned as a fool. Sure, it's hard to resist such a vintage '00 tried and true scapegoat. But this isn't '00 any more. What looks tried-and-true could be outdated and ultimately backfire. Is this shrewdness on Mr. Gilliard's part or mere useless desperation ? You gotta' wonder...

J. Alva Scruggs:

BushYouth, as awful and ill considered as Greens taking money from the evil wingnuts may be, I can't say I see it as a serious threat to the republic. You also seem to have mistaken this for a group of partisan Greens. I think it's safe to say that to the extent anyone cares about Romanelli, it's on the level of annoyance felt with a shoplifter while coping with the effects of Enron-level fraud.

Ms. Xeno, I think the "corporation on the rocks" mindset has completely taken over the Democratic base. Gilliard and his fellow ankle biters enforce the buzz word du jour, as MJS put it, and none of them are capable of learning. Gilliard himself, as observed by my co-blogger, seems to think he's watching ESPN. Kos foams like a faith-based wingnut rallying the troops to call in a complaint about naughty language on prime time programming.

Hang on, let me see if I give a damn one way or t'other about this Romanelli guy.

Nope. Kinda fun watching Ko$ & the demobot pundit-wannabes pitching a fit, though.


I used to enjoy reading Gilliard, but what pushed me away, in a fucking hurry, was when he started frothing at the mouth about Nader being the "antiChrist" for daring to oppose liberal orthodoxy during Schiavopalooza.

The guy's too much of an idealist, believing that the Democrats can actually do something.

This is, by the way, my new talking point - anyone who expects Democrats to change the country for the better is a naive idealist. It amuses me tremendously, and it might actually be somewhat effective in terms of making the form of the debate absurd.

Tim D:

Wow I finally read the Gilliard post. Pretty standard response from Democratic progressives (yes I consider that to be an oxymoron too). Even Chomsky sadly argued along similar - albeit more articulate - lines during the 2004 election.

Sorry to reiterate the "there's a whole 'nother world out there" bit, but goddamn it! there's a whole 'nother world out there! The fundamental moral bankruptcy and duplicity of the Democratic Party should have been laid bare for all to see during these past few weeks as Israel has been carrying our its threat to "turn the clock back on Lebanon 20 years." With 900 Lebanese civilians dead (more than a quarter of which children), 3000+ wounded, billions upon billions of infrastructural damage, the massacre in Qana, the use of vacuum bombs, phosophorus weapons and cluster munitions in civilian areas, a Human Rights Watch report stating unequivocably that Israel is committing war crimes - all this nothwithstanding, the Democrats still refuse to publicly criticize Israel. I mean honestly, it's like saying, "Well both parties are supporting the operations of Hitler's Luftwaffe and Wermacht, but the Democrats at least [fill in the blank]."

Will this at least finally demonstrate that neither party has any clue as to how to increase America's security? I mean they aren't even in thrall to a domestic corporate interest here. It's a foreign country calling the shots for these people! Put aside the fact that Israel is a belligerent, racist, apartheid regime, and simply consider that this is a country that has even attacked our own troops in the past (U.S.S. Liberty), not to mention intentionally crushed an innocent American civilian with a bulldozer (Rachel Corey).

*jumps out the window*

js paine:

they are idealists
of the sort j smuggles might see
as corporate confidence man
dog and pony romanticism

pep room "can do"
rally round the party gang

to be the top salesman

in hopeful
postive thinking
will power
we can go the distance
if we try hard enough

crack pot pipe dreamers
and tinker belle fetish



Passes Rowan a diet root beer.

How conveeenient that the only time Mr. Fuckwit Gilliard would deign to mention Nader is when there's a public policy they don't agree on. Remember, peons. Democrats schmoozing with Republicans they don't line up 100% with idelogically = Practical. You daring to vote Indy for somebody you don't line up with 100% = Delusional.

Also, I'm gonna' hurl my half-digested plate of sushi against the wall if one more of these twerps at Gilliard's place whines about how they're Doing It All For Those Who Don't Have As Much Nice Stuff As I Do. Because if Dems win, they'll buy the peons more Nice Stuff.

What a bunch of fucking horseshit. Face it. You're Doing It All because you're happy to sell out the citizenry fifty years down the line so you can continue hoarding your own Nice Stuff for the next ten. You're doing it because you have no more guts and imagination than is contained in an emery board. In fact, an emery board soaked in water for half an hour still has more grit than you do, Donk-brains.

J. Alva Scruggs:

A good bit of Ralph's focus during Schiavopalooza was that now is NOT an especially propitious time to be increasing the role of the state in bioethics. Surely partisans of the permanent Bush panic could at least debate that on its merits?!

I tried that during campaign [sic] '04 with some clown whose org helped arrange those anti-Nader bash ads on Air America, J. Got nothing for it but a few wasted hours and a couple of virtual black eyes. Oh, and a petulant lecture about what a great guy Bobby Kennedy was. Sorry I didn't save that exchange for posterity.

Granted, Nader didn't bolster the case for me as he had no official position on CSR, at least at that time. But really, what difference would that have made to these idiots ? Not a whole lot, I'm sure...

When someone writes an paragraph he/she retains the idea of a user in his/her brain that
how a user can know it. So that's why this article is great. Thanks!

When someone writes an paragraph he/she retains the idea of a user in his/her brain that how a user can know it.

So that's why this article is great. Thanks!

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Wednesday August 2, 2006 08:29 PM.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31