Name Them, Please

Joke:

There are more than a few Democrats who believe, in practice, that
government should be run for the benefit of government employees’
unions. There are Democrats who are so solicitous of civil liberties
that they would undermine legitimate covert intelligence collection.
There are others who mistrust the use of military power under almost
any circumstances.

Now, Joke is using these statements to set up a “but some of them are all right, and most of them are better than these other scumbags, so” kind of thing, but it’s cheap nonetheless and I’m not willing to give him a pass just because he goes on to say that Republicans are failing in truly epic fashion right now.

Who are these America-hating Democrats, Joey? Can you give me some names? If there are “more than a few,” it shouldn’t be hard. Who are the Democrats who are so enslaved to the horrible idea of civil liberties (gasp, pearlclutch, faint) that they would make the Baby Jesus cry like that? Who’s in the pocket of the teachers’ unions (those terrible people) and who’s a complete and total pacifist who thinks we should melt down every tank in existence to make swingsets for bin Laden’s kids?

I want names put to these slurs because otherwise it’s just the usual lame-ass “I’m praising Democrats, but not the pussies or anything, lest you think I am a pussy by extension” trick he and his always play in order to appear “independent.” As if it’s independent to say one nasty thing and one nice thing. As if that makes any kind of sense.

For what it’s worth, I wish we had Democrats who were willing to stand up and say they opposed military action for any purpose whatsoever. I wish we had Democrats who were so loyal to the idea of civil liberties that they were unswayed by any arguments of national security whatsoever. I wish we had Democrats who wanted government run for the benefit of teachers, cops and firefighters. Because then we would have an honest debate in this country, between those people on the end of one extreme, and most “moderate” Republicans on the other.

But we don’t have those Democrats and Joe, as usual, is just making shit up about the people who live in his head. It seems like a nice place in there, but I’ve run out of patience with the guided tours.

A.

9 thoughts on “Name Them, Please

  1. Dan says:

    Hi A. Know why I only do one post a week? Well, I’m busy for one. I have a full time job and a family and didn’t want to commit to a heavier regular blogging schedule than I could comfortably keep. I didn’t want ten posts one day, then nothing for two weeks.
    But there’s another reason, too. I want to put my best foot forward every time out, and that means more than spell check/grammar check (which is more than some journalists seem to do – see the misspelling of “judgment” twiceover here). It means doing my best to check for lazy or unthinking assumptions andtracking down links for supporting documentation. It takes time and it requires a certain amount of rewriting when I come across something that makes me realize, no that isn’t strictly true and wouldn’t be fair. I’m a recreational blogger.Why can’t Joe Fucking Klein do at least that much! Who are these people you are referring to? Care to point us in the right direction?
    I think Klein’s evolution in the past couple of years has been admirable. After getting beaten up for being Crazy Pete’s sock puppet on FISA he began to be a little more critical, and he’s done a real service in pushing back on the neocons’ charges of anti-Semitism. By virtue of his standing in the Village and his Judaism there aren’t too many people better placed to do such a thing, and again I admire him for that. I know he took a lot of heat for it. But he still does crap like this and it makes me insane. It also makes me feel not the slightest bit selfconscious or egotistical to say that you, me and our fellow travelers in blogtopia (y!sctp) provde higher quality analysis than the newsweeklies or major dailies.

  2. BlakNo1 says:

    My guy, Rep Michael Capuano, comes awfully close.

  3. spocko says:

    Speaking of people who are “unswayed by any arguments of national security whatsoever” I would like to get someone to question the Pope, top Evangelical Christians, and top Protestant to argue with the people on the right who claim to be Christians or Catholics and yet support torture for “national security”.

  4. pansypoo says:

    ‘some people’ say republikkklan suck ass.

  5. Scott says:

    Klein wrote: “There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama’s plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government.”
    *************
    But this isn’t “wildly improbable” at all. Whether one supports single-payer healthcare or not, the entire idea behind the public option was to work towards such a goal.
    The idea came from Jacob Hacker and Roger Hickey (both of whom are advocates of single-payer) and they shopped it to the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns in 2008. The whole idea was that a public option was politically palatable — while a single-payer plan was not.
    TAPPED had an interesting piece about the history of the public option the other day. No reason to deny what its purpose is, Mr. Klein. It’s not a “wildly improbable” fear. It’s precisely what the public option was designed to do.

  6. But Scott, that doesn’t mean that the “process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government.”
    Even full-on single payer wouldn’t be “government controlled healthcare”. It would be “governmentfunded healthcare”. Getting the insurance companies out of healthcare, if it ever happens, would not mean the government would own all the hospitals, doctor’s offices, and clinics.You would still go to a private doctor or hospital, and then the government would pay for it.

  7. Apologies,
    por supuesto, you would pay for some of it as well, like Medicare, or Medicaid, and, yes, some of your taxes would go to fund it.
    But look, even if insurance co.s would no longer be a part of it, under the single payer scenario, that still would not mean that the government would be running the U.S. healthcare system the way they do, say, the census.

  8. Collin says:

    Be brave, little American grasshoppers. You cannot cross the chasm in two steps. Single payer all the way, baby.
    Collin in Canada

  9. rickpetes says:

    The dems should have rolled out their healthcare plan as “Medicare for Everyone”. People would have understood it. It makes for any easy bumper sticker slogan. And, it would put the republicans in a position of attacking Medicare, where much the last remaining supporters of the republican party get their healthcare. They’d have had to attack the healthcare system that works for everyone’s grandparents. In the end, the comprimise might have been what Obama wanted all along.
    It makes me think that the dems really didn’t want to change healthcare, and this is just a show. Or, are they really so pathetic when it comes to understanding how to get policies through the system and make them stick?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: