A Small Victory

Beautiful. This post should be required reading at the beginning of any political discussion on the Internet.

Excellent.

Steel yourself. The hits will be coming from those who lack reading comprehension. As if you didn't know.

Yeah, 'cause it would be just awful to elect somebody into the White House who allowed a terrorist attack on our soil.

Oh, wait.

If it happened in '01 it's not Bush's fault. If it happens in '05, and Kerry's in office, it'll be because he's a damn dirty appeaser.

Way to call anybody not on the right side of the center line a terrorist supporter. And you talk about "sensing the negativity, sweating hatred." Pot, kettle, all that.

"So, who benefits from these attacks? Who reaps the most rewards as a result of people dying and families being torn apart? Who stands to make the most ground in their underlying motives when innocent people get blown to bits?

The left. That's who."

You make a compelling argument, but then you write stupid things like these.

You're starting to sound like Ann Coulter.

You are spot on Michele.

Amen, girl. Glad to know Long Island still has some thinkers.

Vince, instead of calling it stupid, why not intelligently refute it? From where I sit, it's pretty damned accurate, but I'd love to be wrong.
................

RKB said:
If it happened in '01 it's not Bush's fault. If it happens in '05, and Kerry's in office, it'll be because he's a damn dirty appeaser.

Not necessarily. It'll quite likely be, at least partially, because Bush, 2+ years after 9/11, has failed to secure our borders, our airports, and our seaports. Of course, if Kerry gets into office and implements a strategy of appeasement and stops going after those who seek to murder us, then he'll share the blame.

Hmmm. If you genuinely feel that all the left have is hate, then a hate filled screed is probably not the best way of expressing it. You run the risk of coming across as, you know, hypocritical.

I should clarify, Dave: If it happened in '01 it's not Bush's fault. If it happens in '05, and Kerry's in office, it'll be because KERRY is a damn dirty appeaser. Bush wields the +4 Invincible Shield of Protection. Good things are because of his strong leadership, bad things are somebody else's fault.

So, who benefits from these attacks? Who reaps the most rewards as a result of people dying and families being torn apart? Who stands to make the most ground in their underlying motives when innocent people get blown to bits?

The right. That's who.

The blacks. That's who.

The Jews. That's who.

Single mothers. That's who.

The poor. That's who.

Disclaimers and definitions of "left" notwithstanding, it's nice to be in such a position of intellectual authority to be able to know exactly how the tortured deaths of innocent civilians BENEFITS any group of Americans, fringe or otherwise.

Looks like it benefited Michele, too. She got to write this nice angry post about how much the left hates life and liberty. She gets all the pats on the back, all the rightons, all the attagirls.

Pundits on the right benefit because this once again demonstrates how the left is weak, how they WANT to lose the war on terror. We don't need any facts, here people, it's just so OBVIOUS.

People in New York benefit because it proves once again that their suffering was the biggest of all, right, only two hundred died in Madrid while thousands died on 9/11. Right?

Point is that NOBODY FUCKING BENEFITS FROM RANDOM, SENSELESS, TERRORIST ATTACKS. Any suggestion otherwise makes me fucking sick.

Way to call anybody not on the right side of the center line a terrorist supporter. And you talk about "sensing the negativity, sweating hatred." Pot, kettle, all that.

Well, Robert, this post wasn't about the right. It was about the left.

Robert, tell that to your fellow lefties, then. They are the ones going around claiming that the RIGHT benefits from the war in Iraq, from terrorism, etc.

a hate filled screed is probably not the best way of expressing it.

If you think this screed was hate-filled, you don't get out much. Go check the Democratic Underground or Indymedia, where they continually wish death on those who oppose them.

Dave, I said Michele made some compelling arguments. She's correct that Al-Qaeda wants to stike again. She's correct that some people cheer with glee when terror strikes; however, it's on both extremes of the political spectrum. You don't think some extreme right winger doesn't relish the thought to capitalize politically on another terrorist attack? Hell, it'll give Bush some more footage for his re-election ads. When she mentions that lefties get a boost from terrorism, why is it that Bush's popularity went through the roof when 9/11 happened? I'm not saying Bush wanted 9/11 to happen, but politically he profited from it more than anything else he's done, whether he wanted to or not.

It's her 'the left benefits from terrorism and can't wait for it to happen again' histrionics that reduce her to another bleating Ann Coulter wannabe. But I'm enjoying the show, so carry on.

It's notable that the people arguing with Michele aren't actually refuting her arguments. This is always, in my experience, a strong indicator that one's detractors have no intellectual response.

What she sees is what I see even among friends of mine. Every failure and setback and problem the fault of Bush, every positive thing twisted into a negative or credited to some other source.

It's ridiculous, and it's hateful, and it's awful to watch.

Robert, tell that to your fellow lefties, then. They are the ones going around claiming that the RIGHT benefits from the war in Iraq, from terrorism, etc.

Bugs me that anybody does it. Fortunately, none of my left-leaning friends have made those kinds of claims, so I'll just need to continue to shake my head in wonder at those that do.

Robert, did you read my disclaimer?

*Disclaimer (in order to avoid the usual parade of comments and emails) When I say "the left" I mean those who tend towards the farther end of the political line. I don't use the term "liberal" or "Democrat" as disparaging remarks - I use those words when I want to address the relatively sane people left of center. So when I use the term "the left" it generally means the tin foil crowd.

I'm not talking about your run of the mill liberal here.

If it happened in '01 it's not Bush's fault. If it happens in '05, and Kerry's in office, it'll be because he's a damn dirty appeaser.

This comparison fails to note something very important. We were not at war on September 10th - or, more accurately, we were at war and we didn't know it.

There is more than enough blame to go around for why 9/11 was allowed to happen in the first place, and GWB shares in that, as does Clinton, as does the FBI...etc. etc. But once it did happen, something changed, fundamentally. We did not have an excuse, any longer, to plead ignorance.

Here in 2004, we know we are at war. Our next president has to take this fact seriously. Everything depends on it. Bush, for all his many flaws, does take it seriously. Many people who have never voted for a Republican president simply don't trust Kerry to think the same way.

The "opposition to Bush" can air ads on national television claiming Bush lied when many of their leaders saw the same intelligence he did and came to the same conclusions. Then they can even have advertising contests where a large number of entries compare him to the most vile leader in history. Kerry can stand before a crowd and declare Bush a liar, thief and a cheat. The same Kerry who will be nominated, not because he besat represents the Democrats of America, but because he represents their best hope to beat Bush. I have even seen is said that there is hope that Osama bin Laden goes free at least until after Bush gets defeated, not to mention sentiments of dispair in the "Bush will probably get a boost now" response to Saddam Hussein's capture. Somewhere, and I'm sure it will be found, someone will point to Spain as "See, Bush isn't making progress against terror."

The Democratic campaign this election is one of vengeance and hatred. You can not point to one single thing they are FOR. They can't even be FOR a no-brainer issue like gay marriage. Their entire platform is "Remove the evil Bush". Kerry can't even offer much that he would have done different than Bush if he had been President the last four years.

Michele merely pointed that out and I think she is spot on. If it hurts your feelings that she has said this about your party, maybe you should look to do something about it.

I prefer the term "Angry Left" for the folks you describe, Michelle.

There are lots of traditional Democrats who share your (and my) shock and revulsion at the terrorist attacks. Not everyone who opposes Dubya rejoices in them, as you acknowledge.

Dean's candidacy certainly drove Kerry into the Angry Left camp, however. There's a real chance he'll stay there — indeed, he began his political career there in the early 1970s, and I think it's where he's most comfortable, all his ponderous self-contradictory nuance notwithstanding — but at best for the country and the world, Kerry might wander back in the general direction of reality to reach the point of Clintonian lofty rhetoric and actual ineffectualness. If he does, then the portion of the Left that's not part of the Angry Left will have to decide whether they're satisfied with that, or whether instead they want a President who actually will lead the world's Coalition of the Willing against the War on Terror. If perhaps one in four or five of the non-Angry Left conclude that the country can't afford to risk a return to Clintonism regardless of their other disagreements with Dubya, that should be enough to turn a close election into a comfortable re-election.

RKB, you said, "Point is that NOBODY FUCKING BENEFITS FROM RANDOM, SENSELESS, TERRORIST ATTACKS. Any suggestion otherwise makes me fucking sick."

The attacks aren't random.

----

Winds of Black Death?

Sounds like it's time for a poll.

Chem
Bio
Plane into a reactor?
What happens if there's an attack on a day w/no wind?
--

Michele, with that portion of the left being anti-everything, sounds like they've been thwarted as parents. Aack, those, kids! How did I raise a pro-lifer???

"Bush benefitted from 9/11"

OK, why has he benefitted from 9/11? Because he stood on the smoking grave of 3,000 people who's only crime was going to work and saying "....and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon." then followed through? Showed some defiance and resolve in the face of the worst thing that's ever happened on our soil? And is now following through on it?

Good heavens, we don't want someone with conviction, who actually believes in something, actually responded to a horror with the full strength of a people who (mostly) don't want to see their countrymen jumping out of fiery, 110-story buildings ever again. If this is bad, put me with the sinners........

I agree with Michele that it's little more than a hatred of the 'criminal moron Bush', who will probably be linked to JFK's death soon. These people would vote for a plate of spaghetti over Bush - though I do believe that said entree would be a better president than Sen. Kerry. They'd howl in bitter disagreement if Bush said so much as "The earth is round." Give us a little more than 'Bush lied', and let's hear how Sen. Kerry will 'seek to understand' a group whose heavenly reward is secured by dying while killing others in God's name. Remember, 50,000 people worked in those buildings every day. That was their goal - to kill in that magnitude.

What do you do to understand that? What's the agenda when everyone sits down around a table? All we get is 'this is the most crooked (whatever he said) I've ever seen', under his breath, thinking the microphone's off. Talk about reasoned discourse. Well, let's have some then.

You don't think that whatever group is planning to do the exact same thing shortly before our election in November, and what such an event would do to our psyche, aside from handing Sen. Kerry the election? Are we permitted to do anything we can both at home and overseas to prevent it? Or will we have deserved that, too. They only have to get lucky once, and you can't tell me that people aren't hoping it happens just like that.

[calming down now]

WG

The problem with defining "the left" in such a way is a way that I would not want to see applied to "the right" to include the other tinfoil guys who keep an eye out for black helicopters circling their homemade bunkers. I don't agree that because marginal nutbars like Rall think all sort of appalling things about Bush, that this ifnroms us as to how to decide who to vote for. I think most people with an iota of brainpower could not care less what Ted Rall thinks, if the rubbing of two sticks together in his skull can be called thinking. Will the real root causes of terrorism, also known as our "allies" in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan be called to task in the near future? Like Michele, I worry we as a society are not paying enough attention to terrorism right now. I may not agree with all of her conclusions but I wish more had her passion or level of interest.

Jerry, the problem is those "marginal nutbars" vote. And they are increasing in numbers.

Michele,

Great post. But this is a fact, now, isn't it? Everything is reported (and seen by a large part of the world) as a more-or-less justified reaction to Bush.

I'm trying to 'get to the next level' and think about how we deal with that reality.

Michele,

Gotta admit that the first two times I read through your post I missed the disclaimer. Didn't notice the * at the top, and your last sentence was so conclusive, I didn't think there was anything else to read.

I generally try to avoid any of the tin-foil sites, on either side of the political bell curve, because I tend to find more anger there than anything else, which usually tends to just piss me off, this vicious angry spiral.

So I completely understand where you're coming from on this one, but would be curious how many of the people that support what you've written here, or quote passages, won't include the same disclaimer. To many, I'm guessing, "the left" means just that.

This is why Michelle is an A-list blogger and I'm not. She just put quite eloquently into words what I've been TRYING to say for a year.

I have (had?) friends, good friends, smart friends including PHDs who shake with their hatred for Bush, and the 'stolen election'. When I got called up to active duty, I listened to one of them talk about how poetically just it would be if , having voted for W, I were to die in "Bushs' little war". You're right, they are against everything. I know there are good principled voices on the left though I may disagree with a lot of their policy ideas....but they aren't the ones running the show over there now.

If Lieberman or another sane principled Dem had gotten it I probably would have voted for them, there is much that I dissagree with Bush on, but he is principled and he takes the war SERIOUSLY, he's even pushing space and alternate energy....and Kerry is.....the product of a primary process designed to root out anyone not a moonbat or just plain sleazy. :(

Thank You MIchelle you've nailed it again....(and I for one read your disclaimer).

Great post. The fight against terrorism is also a war against the behavior that allows terrorism to thrive - appeasement.

The people who hope to benefit from the terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves. They hope to hold whole nations hostage with their threats and their slaughter. The extreme left’s job is to help them, by doing their usual hostage/Stockholm syndrome routine, sympathizing with the terrorists, screaming ‘give them what they want!’. They resist the government's efforts to help them, they downplay the fascism and hate that motivates the terrorists in an effort to defend their captors. These willing hostages are the audience that al Qaeda and other terror groups play to.

Usually terror groups try the bargain basement approach of making tapes and threats (where did the idea for ‘'Winds of Black Death’ come from? When I hear it I see some Islamist version of the Blazing Saddles campfire scene, a mujahideen typing the email out on his ipod as his gassy comrades eat hummus with extra chickpeas and garlic).

It doesn’t take many attacks to get the left to bleat. It’s not just the extreme left that plays along. The extreme right also gets into the act. White supremacists and Muslim supremacists often share a stage.

" I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it, with my life."

--Voltaire

Don't always agree with what you say or how you say it but living in a democracy should allow people to say what they want and if you disagree to respond. Seems in the last few years there have been less and less people who stop listen and then respond. Nowadays its seems more like say what you want and then slam the other side before they can respond. I'm glad at least that on this site people still allow for the open discussion of ideas.

In any even TGIF.

*Event

Your disclaimer was damning with faint praise, Michele ("relatively sane people left of center" - gosh, thanks) and doesn't make any clear distinction as to whom you're talking about. Oppose Bush's re-election? Moonbat traitor! Don't think he's doing such a smash-up job of keeping us "safe"? Terrorist lover! Care too much about things besides the war on terrorism, such as the economy and what's happening to our jobs and wages, and think he and his administration are just a wee bit disingenuous as to how they go about running the country? Stinkin' Bush hater! And so it goes.

The reality is, "The Left" - by which I'm gonna assume for the sake of argument means shrill, humorless Marxist hippies or ignorant, irrational, black-clad college kids who like to smash things - have no power. They don't make laws, run the media, influence foreign policy, or make even a dent in the polls. No one listens to them. No one likes them. They're as obnoxious and as worth taking seriously as the Right (by which I mean the Right right, not the right Right, or the Right of right center right). Your vague labeling makes it easy to demonize just about anyone who disagrees with or crosses you, but does little for the pursuit of reasoned discourse.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but none of this screeching back and forth about the war as an election issue makes any sense to me.

Personally, I'm on the fence about the war. I understand it, and agree with some aspects of it in principle, but at the same time I'm not real happy with the manner in which "evidence" was presented to justify it. Basically, I'm caught in a dilemma between the Machiavellian method and the moral method.

As a campaign issue, I don't get it. The Democratic party's current stigma as appeasers seems to come from the Carter administration, but if you go any further back than that every major war in the 20th century was started (and most finished) by a Democrat (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson). If the issue is Kerry's opposition to Vietnam as evidence that he'd be an appeaser, you're entitled to your opinion, but I haven't heard a rational argument yet on the topic of whether or not Kerry would've done his job properly if he had been in Bush's shoes.

That being said, I am vehemently in favor of anybody but Bush, and it has very little to do with what's going on in Iraq. In my relatively short span of time on this earth, I've grown (I think understandably) attached to those rights that distinguish us from the rest of the world. You might even say that they make this country the greatest one in the world (I fully admit bias to those who are not US citizens.)

To be fair, my actual beef isn't with Bush himself, but members of his administration. Specifically, John Ashcroft comes to mind. Here's a man that has simultaneously pushed the boundaries of what's acceptable legal practice to the point where he or his lackeys are regularly appearing at Supreme Court sessions where civil liberties are being thrown into question, and convinced members of Congress that it's a good idea to make new laws that limit our rights or otherwise fly in the face of the Constitution. Bush seems like he'd be a fairly earnest and generally nice guy if you invited him over to your place for dinner, but the fact of his inaction against Ashcroft, either by removal, censure, or even a quick phone call with a request that he chill out with the pissing on our rights bit, means that he has failed to uphold his oath of office. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably meant it when he said it the first time, but given a second inauguration, it would be an outright lie.

Just because he's doing his best to defend the country doesn't mean he's defending the Constitution. The oath of office doesn't say anything about defending the country.

The left is against Bush, yeah and what's funny is that the right always tries to pin everything on President Clinton.

"They secretly - and some not so secretly - rub their hands in glee every time a soldier is killed in Iraq or a bomb goes off somewhere and al Qaida is blamed."

where is your proof of that? I don't know anybody who does that. Back that up or retract it.

Excellent observations, and well-written Michele, thanks.

I can corroborate Dean's comments from my experiences - it's just "get him out". It makes me feel the same way I did when I heard the same flavor of extreme/angry right ranting about Clinton...

Matt, I appreciate your perspective on the value of liberty, hell, I share it. But how about some perspective on the 'Ashcroft threat to liberty', ok? We haven't rounded up tens of thousands of Muslims and sent them to internment camps. We certainly did that to Japanese Americans and residents (and if you don't think that wasn't racially motivated, check and see how the Italian American and German American numbers stacked up).

Lincoln suspended writs of habeus corpus during the Civil War.

So far I'd contend under the circumstances, we've been kept a reasonable balance.

Great post Michele. (As always)

As to who is going to gain from this attack, I don't know. I know it will not be the terrorist. I have faith that Anzar will lead his people forward and help to heal the wounds of this tragedy. I have faith that Blair and all of England will be there to lend strong and unwavering support. And I believe that Bush will be right beside our friends and allies in their time of need.

I do think that both candidates for President will try to use this attack to better their own positions. I would expect nothing less. The question will be how. If Kerry responds by shrill accusations and blame, he will profit nothing.

This is a moment for each to prove what type leader they can be, to show the path we should take. I know who I think will do better.

Also RKB and Vince, when a popular radio personality can call Bush and all Republicans the "American Taliban" and nobody, and I mean nobody on the Left disagrees or even complains, you make Michele's arguments for her.

"American Taliban"

Prominent right wing radio personalities have called anyone who has disagreed with them everything but the Taliban.

How many times have Rush et al called feminists "Nazis" and lefties "Communists"? Those 2 groups have killed way more people than the Taliban and nary a peep from the right about that. BIOKIYAR, I suppose.

That's for making my arguments, buddy. Cheers!

"American Taliban"

Prominent right wing radio personalities have called anyone who has disagreed with them everything but the Taliban.

How many times have Rush et al called feminists "Nazis" and lefties "Communists"? Those 2 groups have killed way more people than the Taliban and nary a peep from the right about that. BIOKIYAR, I suppose.

That's for making my arguments, buddy. Cheers!

The far left and the far right are separated only by a very thin line. That line gets thinner every day.

This is a useful collection of quotes for those that think "The Left" are the only ones using nasty language.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031104A.shtml

Here is a nice one from 2001:

--

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

     - John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
--

I don't think that little disclaimer at the end makes up for statements like "So, who benefits from these attacks? Who reaps the most rewards as a result of people dying and families being torn apart? Who stands to make the most ground in their underlying motives when innocent people get blown to bits?"

It's the old "I'm sorry if you took my words the wrong way" argument.

Bush did benefit from 9/11. His poll ratings soared after it happened. He has also talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.

One more item. You are not simply disagreeing with people here. You are not arguing on positions. You are making ad hominem attacks:

"I stand next to these people and I can sense the negativity. They sweat hatred. You can smell it. It smells like sulfur that hangs in the air when a match is been struck. You can feel it, too, like you can feel your hair stand up on the back of your neck when lightning is just about to strike."

It is wrong to de-humanize your opponents. I dislike what the Bush administration stands for and its policies, but I do not use this kind of language to describe them, or people like you that support them.

See, Robert, you already give me too much credit for even knowing which "popular radio personality" you're talking about, or having ever heard that phrase associated with the Bush Administration. Source, please?

So how do I make Michele's argument for her when I don't actually know WTF you're talking about?

And I'm sorry, but you're seriously getting upset about what a freaking radio personality has to say about the administration? Spin the dial, dude. That's what it's there for. I'm sure there's somebody else out there that makes equally outrageous statements that you support.

Barry, like I've said several times today, this post was about the left, not the right. If you do a little searching on this site, you will find that I pretty much despise Derbyshire as much as I despise Robert Fisk.

And how the hell did I de-humanize my opponents with that description? I'm sorry, but they were nasty, rude, beligerent and shouting out incredibly hateful things.

I'm just waiting for a bomb to go off in grand central while I'm going to work...

This f*****g sucks

Michele, your basic point is absolutely correct. The (far) left at a minimum harrummphs with righteousness every time US soldiers die or innocent civilians die from terror. They despise a USA that will stand up for itself. That's why they hate Bush so viscerally. They mocked him at first, then they found he had backbone and their condescension has turned to hate. It really sucks when someone you feel completely superior to flat out whips your ass. What they really want is a USA completely devoid of backbone, subservient to the rest of the world.

I think the negativity of the left has always been there, it's just that now, this negativity finds itself out of power, and increasingly out of relevence. Hence the bitter hate.

Matt? Are talking about The Patriot Act?

You do know, don't you, that Reno wanted to implement it? Most of it comes from Clinton's administration.

"The far left and the far right are separated only by a very thin line. That line gets thinner every day."

Er... what?

Lefties aren't commies?

Or, what separates socialists and commies? What are commies for that socialists aren't? 'Cos I'm looking at Old Europe right now and can't figure it out.

Could have fooled me. The American University experience at this point in time gives a lot of examples.

One of my leftist acquaintances said, upon hearing about the terrorist attack in Spain, "this will help Bush." I almost came unglued. "Who gives a f if it does? Which do you care more about? Living or politics?

Sandy P. is proving my point excellently. Thanks, sweets!

Michelle:
Your post does make good points, and I realize when you say 'the left', you're specifically referring to the tin-foil hatmen. However, I think posts like yours serve to further divide us.

I was a Dean fan. I thought he spoke from the heart, and I loved the man for how he tried to make politics more honest. For the 3 days after we caught Sadamm, Dean said nothing negative. He didn't want to politicize it. Later on he said he felt we still weren't safer, but I felt he did all that he could to unite us as a nation. Obviously someone called this 'waffling', but I saw it as a man not willing to browbeat what was a good thing. I agree the primary process routinely gets rid of anyone who isn't a sleezeball.

What I'm getting at is that, I feel we need more middle-of-the-road discourse, because otherwise leaning-left people will feel alienated from the leaning-right people who make comments such as those that you have here that alienate people. Even worse, what if other leaning-right people didn't see your disclaimer, and start building up anger towards 'the left', the generic left, the left who in their mind could be leaning or extreme but are still 'the left'.

It makes for polarization, and it makes for increasing hostility. Obviously this isn't your fault alone. I've seen it at countless blogs. A leaning-left blog that attracts more left-wingers and then gets pulled off to the left. Then all the center and leaning-right people leave the blog because it's just become vitriolic, and they go to a leaning-right blog that's been similarly currupted, but they're more likely to stay there.

Once we're divided like this, it's easier to dehumanize your opponents. It's easier to not open discourse with them and instead call them 'those crazy leftists' or 'hippies' as one of the commenters children did here the other day. Again the extreme-left is just as guilty as the extreme-right. I just hope the rest of us can refuse the pull to degrade into stuff like that and not buy into either side's vicious rhetoric.

I'm too verbose. I'll shush now.

[They were about clean air, protecting freedoms and getting along with the rest of the world. ]

We still are. We're just not verbalizing it very well I guess. We see Bush as destroying all of these things. A clean air act that says carbon dioxide isn't a polutant anymore. A healthy forests act that allows more trees to be cut down. Executive order after executive order that trim down on environmental rights.

I admit we SEEM like we have anti-causes. And I'm not sure who to blame for that. Surely the candidates to some degree bear much of the blame. They're not effectively pushing their message out there. I know Dean was just seen as 'angry' all the time, and anti-everything, but if you ever heard the man speak, he offered forward-looking heartfelt desire for change, to plug the holes in our system.

I guess we just see the antithesis to our causes on the podium right now, and rather than form a coherent message, we're just lashing out. It doesn't make me extremely happy that the left isn't doing a good job pushing our issues. But by the same token, it doesn't make me extremely happy that the man who had the best chance of doing it was character-assassinated by Kerry and Gephardt either.

Well...after reading that I'm glad I'm an independent, erh, wait. No I'm a registered Democrat. Does that make me part of the moonbat leftism that you decry in this article?

I mean, I want Bush out of the office. Can't stand him and his fakeness, his policies and his programs, his seemingly utter lack of intelligence and ability to speak.

I like his foreign policy, thats bout it.

Does that make me a terrible lefty who prays for deaths in Iraq? Ummm, nope. Can't say it does. Actually, I know quite a few in the left who AREN'T like that. Yes, we want Bush out of the office and all for various reasons. I don't WANT to vote for Kerry though, I see him as more of the same, just another Bush but worse in some respects.

Frankly, the American political scene sucks. You get the same crappy candidates who don't do anything. Period. Then you get the left and the right slagging each other and making enough scenes that one can't help but sit back and cry.

Boz, I can name two right now. One is that Columbia professor who wished for a million Mogadishus. Another is a guy who posts on a message board I read: used to go by MG, now LibGhost, but his name is Gary Martin. He posted a wish that Saddam Hussein would kick American ass right before the invasion.

I bet that if I went to DU or indymedia I could find more.

YOU need to apologize to Michele, forthwith and post haste.

Ken:
While I don't agree with Gary Martin, we must remember that it was Bush the former who came up with the October Surprise. I know some people who hope for recurring October attacks AGAINST the US. I know others who expect us to catch Bin Laden in October. Politics today is degrading. Everything is becoming political. This is VERY dangerous.

Bush the former and the October Surprise made American soldiers stay hostage longer, and funneled aid and arms to make it so, in the hopes that the 'swing voters' would swing away from Carter. This is the kind of stuff WE CANNOT HAVE in America. It really disgusts me that anyone, Democrat or Republican, would do stuff like this.

Kerry is no better. He's on both sides of every issue. He and Bush are both aristocrats, skull and bones members, and while I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat at the moment, I know that that group is just a close-knit family-style group who look out for their own.

Yes, the left is hate filled.

But that's nothing new. It was always hate filled. Read David Horowitz's book RADICAL SON, where he talks about his parents politics. Read J. L. Talmon's THE RISE OF TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY, which dissects Rousseau and the movements that sprang from him.

The left has always been about hatred of Western society, and the desire to destroy it. The difference between then and now is that now the hate isn't as easily concealed.

Michele - File this under "Why do I love this woman?" Terry

What an unmitigated bunch of bullshit. I've never cheered for the death of a soldier, never clapped my hands in glee at other people's deaths, never wasted my time wishing for more in the world to go wrong so that George Bush looks worse.

He's doing a fine job of stepping in his own shit and doesn't need any help.

You want to talk about hate? What about the religious right hating and frothing about the possibility of gay marriage? What about the religious fury about the possibility of allowing a woman to choose to keep or abort her pregnancy?

The far left may be about hate, I don't know, I'm not out there and don't really care. And there's no way any of you can deny that the right doesn't have the exact same haters. People with a single issue that they've built their world upon and no way, no how can it be touched.

By the way, your disclaimer is bullshit too. If you want to talk about the extreme left, then use those terms, reducing it to The Left means you're stereotyping all based on the actions of a very small few. Its logically invalid and you knew that people would forget about the disclaimer and just see The Left after a sentence or two.

The far left and the far right are separated only by a very thin line. That line gets thinner every day.
Posted by: michele at March 12, 2004 11:49 AM

The most intelligent thing you've written today.

Umm, Johnny? If a woman wants control of her body, then maybe she should control it, be proactive instead of reactive. That also involves listening to your cycle.

WHEEE! This should be fun.

-- A healthy forests act that allows more trees to be cut down--

Take heart, a few more San Diegos and we won't have that problem.

Personally, I've had 3 trees cut down on my property and am gunning for 2 more. At this point in time, my husband and I split the difference, I get 1.

You're welcome Vince, but I'm waiting for your nuance.

Spell it out, I really am interested. But use as many 1-syllable words as possible, I'm not an elite.

Republican Motto: Either your with us or your going to a detention camp.

So sad how you group "the left" in such a way. The RNC would be proud.

"where is your proof of that? I don't know anybody who does that. Back that up or retract it."

See Fisk during the war; See Ted Rall; See Nat Latuff; See John Pilger recently discussing American, British and Australian soldiers as legitimate targets; go to IndyMedia.

It's alll tere Boz. Right or Left does not equal good person by the nature of their political persuasion. Extremeists would like that and you will ifnd plenty at either FreeRepublic or DemocraticUnderground. But to claim this doesn't exist if burying your head in the sand.

I was talking to your average SF, spiritual flake, artist, buddist, mystic the other day... He wasn't the sort who cares about politics, but he bought it all - GWB was directly reponsible for the 9/11 attacks, and they were all faked with explosives in the world trade center etc.

I talked respectfully and sensibly and at one point, when he realized that he wasn't convincing me, he just told me to shut up and leave... and couldn't hold that pose, having to reason to take in the first place.

There's something strange about the minds of people who've never faced much of reality and thought they always knew who their enemies are (Christians, capitalists). They don't want to understand what's going on, they just want the world to match what they already believe. No effort to understand, no moral compromises - they just want an effortless blessing from God, and to never have to think again.

Ok, Johnny. Let's take your brilliance step by step:
I've never cheered for the death of a soldier, never clapped my hands in glee at other people's deaths, never wasted my time wishing for more in the world to go wrong so that George Bush looks worse.

Then I'm not talking about you, am I?

You want to talk about hate? What about the religious right hating and frothing about the possibility of gay marriage? What about the religious fury about the possibility of allowing a woman to choose to keep or abort her pregnancy?

Ok, let me spell this out again for all of you who keep bringing up the right. I'll keep it as simple as possible because it seems you have a hard time understanding complex ideas:

This is not a post about the right. It's about the left. I don't have to qualify everything I write about the left by making reference to what the right is doing. Just because I didn't say I don't like the far right either, does not mean that I do. Drop the moral equivalence bullshit. It makes you look dumb.

And there's no way any of you can deny that the right doesn't have the exact same haters.

Show me where I implied that.

By the way, your disclaimer is bullshit too....Its logically invalid and you knew that people would forget about the disclaimer and just see The Left after a sentence or two.

Logically invalid? Or just hard for you to understand? In my eyes, there is the left, liberals and Democrats. Three separate entitites. The left is what I refer to here.

I knew people would forget about the disclaimer? Really, I give my readers much more credit than that.