December 11, 2007

"Why are the major Democratic presidential candidates standing on the sidelines when it comes to ending the war and zero tolerance for torture?"

Asks Arianna Huffington in a column titled "Dems Are Addicted to Backing Down."

She excludes the possibility that the Democrats might actually be supporting the policies they believe are best or at least acting politically by choosing policies they think the majority of voters want. No, for Arianna, since she doesn't like what they are doing, she perceives a mental disorder:
It's like AA — they first need to admit they have a severe problem, do a serious and fearless political inventory, and then commit to making a change.

Memo to Oprah: while you're on the campaign trail, maybe you can facilitate an intervention. How about you and Dr. Phil show up at the next debate and haul the Democratic frontrunners and the Congressional leadership off to spinal rehab.
Because you just can't imagine that the spine they have is used to stand up to you.

21 comments:

George said...

Read this passage from the column, and tell me if you know what it means...

"As Andrew Sullivan notes, "At best, it seems to me, Democratic resistance to these war crimes was anodyne."

What does that word mean?

Anodyne?

Is it the company that made Terminator robots? Or was it the company in Buckaroo Banzai?

Average people have no idea what Democrats are talking about.

Ron said...

For the sake of argument, let's say she is correct. Why on earth, then, would you ever want to elect such a mentally challenged person to dogcatcher, much less President?

Ron said...

anodyne:

1 : serving to alleviate pain
2 : not likely to offend or arouse tensions


yikes! says the dictionary....

SGT Ted said...

It is the result of a number of people think that surrendering a campaign in a war with a sworn enemy is "courageous".

Just like they think "speaking truth to power" in free country that guarantees their right to say whatever idiocy they like is "brave".

The HuffPo/DKos crowd are a bunch of Bistro revolutionary posiers with delusions of persecution.

christopher said...


She excludes the possibility that the Democrats might actually be supporting the policies they believe are best or at least acting politically by choosing policies they think the majority of voters want.


This is either the stupidest or most deliberately disingenuous thing you've ever posted since you mused on Jose Padilla:

Perhaps there is a fear that he will communicate in code by blinking...

I'm not saying Padilla deserves to be treated the way he has over the years, but I am responding to the assertion that there is absolutely no conceivable reason for blindfolding him. Plainly, I have refuted that.


Kudos in either case for topping yourself.

jeff_d said...

"Because you just can't imagine that the spine they have is used to stand up to you."

Well put. And this is precisely why the rise of the left-wing blogosphere does not portend a period of resurgence of progressive thought. It isn't about engaging intellectually but bullying. What really energizes them is the act of directing spite at the non-believers.

Despite the enormous influence of the blogosphere on the 2008 Democratic primary, it is impossible to list a discrete idea or coherent policy platform it can take credit for. Instead, its influence is measured by the extent to which the serious candidates grovel, trying to speak in the code of the lefty blogosphere while not actually committing to any of its positions.

Paddy O. said...

And this is precisely why the rise of the left-wing blogosphere does not portend a period of resurgence of progressive thought.

Huffington doesn't represent progressive thought. She has always, and only, represented opportunistic thought. Had there been an open space in right-wing radio, blogging, or television she would be farther to the right than Ann Coulter.

Resurgence requires true believers.

But my suspicion is that true believers in progressivism are dedicating their lives in the trenches of service, leaving the cynical or mixed motived to be the voices of the movement.

Crimso said...

"This is either the stupidest or most deliberately disingenuous thing you've ever posted since you mused on Jose Padilla:

Perhaps there is a fear that he will communicate in code by blinking..."

Well Christopher, at the risk of derailing this thread, and openly admitting I don't recall the Padilla thread and am too lazy to go find it, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton

Joe said...

For the record, the company in Buckaroo Banzai, which is run by red Lectroids, is Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems. (This is also the name of the company that manufactured parts and starships in the Star Trek universe.)

Whew, that was a geeky moment.

phosphorious said...

"Because you just can't imagine that the spine they have is used to stand up to you."

Because doing exactly what Bush wants, no questions asked. . .that's "spine".

Democrats marched in the streets to protest the Iraq war. . .why is it unreasonable to demand that our representives to "represent" us?

B said...

Couldn't stand her when she was a conservative flunky; won't give a moment's consideration to her worthless commentaries now.

Every time someone listens - just listens - or reads the credentials challenged Arianna - they actually become a little bit more stupid than they were before.

Her abundant but obviously misused talents should be redirected while there is still time. Until Arianna refrains from "contributing" to the overflowing political world, she will continue to be an example of a "busy" though completely pathetic, wasted life.

Where she joins the fellow misguided's-but-addicted-to-the-political-limelight-and-the-"power" lives of Ann Coulter, Bernie Ward, Michael Savage, and Barbara Streisand.

SMGalbraith said...

Democrats can "end the war"?

If we just leave Iraq, the war will be over? Al-Qaeda will also leave, the Baathists who wish to regain control of the country will stop fighting, and the radical Shia's who wish to wipe out the Sunnis and establish a Shi'a theocracy will also just go home?

Not to mention the regional powers will simply let Iraq go. No more meddling.

Who knew?

SMG

SGT Ted said...

"Because you just can't imagine that the spine they have is used to stand up to you."

Because doing exactly what Bush wants, no questions asked. . .that's "spine".

Democrats marched in the streets to protest the Iraq war. . .why is it unreasonable to demand that our representives to "represent" us?


Well, you need to vote for those who DO truly represent you, like Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan and the Communists running the anti-war movement.

Synova said...

And as we know, doing exactly what Bush wants, no questions asked is *exactly* the same as failing to oppose him in all things no matter what even if it means abandoning a liberal cause he happens to take up, the bastard.

Synova said...

Actually, that should have gone the other way around to make sense.

Failing to oppose Bush in all things no matter what

equals

Doing exactly what Bush wants, no questions asked.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

SMGalbraith said... Democrats can "end the war"?

Of course! It will be just like when communist tyranny ended after we left Viet Nam and Cambodia to their fates...

Blake said...

phosphorious--

I haven't crunched the numbers but I feel comfortable in saying no significant percentage of Democrats marched in opposition to the war.

Blake said...

Hey, joe,

You think that's geeky....

Wasn't there a short-lived sitcom in the '70s featuring a detective with a robot partner (played by John Schuck) called "Holmes and Yo-Yo"?

I believe that robot was a Yoyodyne 1000 or something....

Methadras said...

Why is she flabbergasted at all? She is the one that switched sides, but now is exasperated that the 'winning' side she thought she was going to was actually going to make a difference. Little did she realize that Democrats are nothing more than fear-mongering, simpletons that cloak their enfeebled ideas in a dizzying array of nuanced-sounding prattle that makes little to no sense to anyone but themselves. Democrats have a thinly skeined grasp on reality and are so willfully ignorant, that they suffer from delusions of inferiority and call it bravery and courageousness.

All the while their incessant nannering about the war and anything anti-republican or anti-conservative falls on deaf ears because its irrational, non-reality based, and frankly is downright stupid and dangerous. You haven't heard a word lately on anything from Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, and a lot of others that were vehemently anti-Bush and specifically anti-war because of Bush. I'm sure if a Democrat were in office, they wouldn't be having their moral and ethical conundrums that plague this misbegotten party and it's moronic leftist acolytes.

What the pretty little european doesn't understand is that the candidates are standing on the sidelines of these issues is because they know and they've heard from the American public that they don't want to hear it anymore. GO, FIGHT, WIN! is what they want to see, not, RETREAT, COWER, LOSE! and this is why leftists and liberals don't get it and won't get it.

PD said...

"Because you just can't imagine that the spine they have is used to stand up to you."

Well said. These people do not realize they are like the evangelicals; the right always flirts with them, but the right always leaves with who brung them--centrists.

Can this silly woman actually not understand political talk and politics itself?

Trooper York said...

Arianna Huffington is a lot easier to tolerate if you just realize that she is the reincarnation of Zsa-Zsa Gabor. After all, politics is show business for ugly people.