DownWithTyranny!

When I tell people I spent the better part of a year in Afghanistan they assume I was in the military. I'm a bit old for that-- not to mention temperamentally unfit-- and when I mention it was in 1969 and 1971 when I was there, they write it off to eccentricity. I don't purport to be an Afghanistan expert, but recent history will bear out my claims to know a lot more about the place than Bush, his ill-starred regime or the self-serving mooks and clueless imbeciles whose advice the U.S. government has followed.

When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan after 9/11-- a target Rumsfeld and Cheney felt was unworthy of the mighty U.S. military-- almost everyone thought it was, aside from being just, a good idea-- everyone, that is, except people who know their Afghan history... and even more especially, the people who could factor in their knowledge of Afghan history with their knowledge of the Bush Regime's dearth of leadership abilities and monumentally breathtaking incompetence and arrogance (a bad combination).

"Here the for will not meet us in pitched battle, as other armies we have dueled in the past, save under conditions of their choosing. His word ...   more »

DownWithTyranny!

"The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual - and somehow that’s a bad thing. How intolerant is that?"
--NYT Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal to politico.com

Rosenthal, it appears, knows Bill K. from his own days in the NYT's Washington bureau, when they seem to have done an inordinate amount of hobnobbing. Now you always have to worry about people who actually know transparently bogus people like our Bill and don't see through them, and sure enough, by the time Mr. Rosenthal is describing his Bill as "a serious, respected conservative intellectual," you know he's been totally hornswoggled.

It's like those people who claim to have known Chimpy the Prez before he made the big career change to defiling the White House, and tell us what a "nice guy" he is. No, he's not, and in all likelihood the reason theythink so is that whenever theyspoke to him, he mostly nodded in agreement and said things like, "You're so right." And they didn't even notice the blank glazed look in his eyes.

Just for the record, Andy, I can't imagine any rational acquaintance or detached ...   more »

DownWithTyranny!

I was delighted to find this comment added to the comments discussing my recent post about the late Harry Dent, the Nixon-era political operative who more than anyone else masterminded and oversaw the Republican "Southern strategy," and his late-in-life acknowledgment, after years of heated denials, that of course that strategy was based on racial animosity. Our anonymous commenter has such interesting things to say about the power dynamics of Repubs vs. Dems that I didn't way any DWT readers to miss them.--Ken

The Republicans' Southern Stategy has ALWAYS been based on white fear/resentment toward blacks. It is the basic glue of Southern Republicans. I have lived in the South and worked for Republican and Democratic politicians my entire career. Nothing has really changed. It is the unspoken but understood undercurrent of Southern politics which I often refer to as the "they are not with me" rule. They don't have to say it, everyone just knows. Go ask some white male redneck with a pickup and gunrack and he will tell you very clearly why he is a die-hard Republican despite not having health insurance, a job with benefits, a mobile home he can barely afford, etc. How many ...   more »

Balkinization

One would think from the recent excitement over the possibility of a bipartisan political movement that Hillary Clinton was running on a platform calling for confiscation of corporate property, reestablishment of the moderately progressive tax structure of the 1970s, the return of all American troops from abroad, the abolition of capital punishment, and (heaven forbid), gay marriage. With the exception of a stray remark by John Edwards, Democrats polling more than 10% continue to run to the right of Richard Nixon. Indeed, judging by their legislative activity this year, the Democrats as a whole have almost no ambition to push any program that is substantially to the left of center. The real issue ought to be why some journalists are so excited about the possibility of a third party that might take a middle position between the party clearly to right of the electorate and the party that on its best day sometimes lurches very slightly to the left.

The best answer that I can think of stems from the correct description of the actual political alternatives before the United States this year. John Danforth and other Republicans prefer a polity as conservative as politically possible (or more fairly, ...   more »

DownWithTyranny!

Has it been only a week that we've been waiting for the thrill-packed conclusion of Tom Tomrrow's annual Year in Review? Well, "Part the Second" is here! [As always, click anywhere on it to enlarge.]


And if you missed "Part the First," you can find it here.

URL: DownWithTyranny!

   more »

DownWithTyranny!

I've just gotten around to correcting it in my previous post, but for the record, Howie and I have known each other since 1961, not 1965. The date I erroneously pulled out of my head is the year we graduated high school, not the year we started, which is when we met.

URL: DownWithTyranny!

   more »