Or so the editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican would seem to believe.
Today my column in the New Mexico Independent addresses a recent New Mexican editorial mocking Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) for purported red-baiting.
The latest Democratic talking point is that all good progressives should mock conservatives for their fear of socialism, painting us as delusional McCarthyites who are caterwauling that the capitalist sky is falling —
Obama is a socialist. Aren’t they silly? Look what asses they’re making of themselves. Did you hear what Olbermann said about them last night? Ha-ha. Oh, they’re just hilarious — and irrelevant.
Let them laugh. The truth is, the debate over a more limited vs. a more intrusive government is an important one. It does matter. And we mustn’t let them mocks us into keeping our mouths shut about it.
Comments 12
I read that entire editorial three times to try to find the part where they claimed that Rep. Bachus was trying to strip those he pretends are Socialists of their seats and couldn’t find it. Could you point it out?
Except that, since those benighted times, it has occurred to America that there’s a right to be a socialist — and even to run for Congress in that guise.
All this says is that the US has progressed beyond the point where idiotic red-baiting such Joe McCarthy’s famous “list” (and Bachus’s equally idiotic – and of course unsupported – claim) doesn’t work anymore.
Your NMI articles are starting to show a very obvious pattern. You spend the first three paragraphs erecting your straw man of the week and then the balance attacking it. I suppose that’s par for the course for opinion pieces on both sides of the aisle but its not intellectually honest.
Additionally, at some point you’re going to have to get over the fact that some people aren’t blindly partisan. Your incessant attacks on swing voters are really boggling to me. Heaven forfend a voter set partisan rhetoric aside for the lies that it mostly consists of and look at the individual actually running for the office. How many Republicans are going to run for office on small-government platforms and then do everything they can to increase the size of the parts of government they favor before you stop listening? (I could say the same of Dems and civil liberties.)
I also liked how you generalized all voters who don’t blindly vote for one particular party or another as a bunch of dimwits who watch reality tv, sports, and porn. All of these are, you imply, equally stupid – instead people should no doubt spend their time on reading the output of partisan propagandists like Michelle Malkin, or produce a large brood of children to keep them busy, like good right-thinking blind partisans such as yourself do.
Posted 21 Apr 2009 at 5:26 pm ¶Dan,
It seems that you are intentionally – as opposed to actually – contrary to everything Ms. Russell writes. Does it really just happen that you just see that she is always wrong or have I just not read enough of your posts? The reason that I ask is that if it is at it appears then you are not for real, as I have suspected and stated in the past.
Anyway, I read her piece and, though I certainly do not agree with all of it, I do agree with the tenor of it and I will explain why.
There are a number of people in both the House and Senate who are socialists in everything but name. Nancy Pelosi is one of them and all one needs do is read her own words to see that. Now I know and don’t like the two-party system and I suspect that is the reason for this problem. What the Congressman was doing – and I will state for the record that it could have handled the matter more deftly – was pointing out that certain people who are running under the Democratic Party banner are in fact socialists and do not stand for the principles of that party, historically. I believe that is all he meant and he has a right – an absolute right – to say it, though he should be damn well sure he can stand on it if he names people.
Referring to Bachus as McCarthy in the way quoted is all one needs to understand. It is saying that Bachus is out to ruin people based on his view of their political bent, when there is no evidence of that. What more do you need to read? As I think I made perfectly clear, I am all for pointing out what people actually stand for, based on their voting record and associations, as opposed to what they say they stand for and that goes for both parties. I do believe, as previously stated, that one had better be damn sure one is right when they call some one out like that.
To explain where I believe I disagree with Ms. Russell and with Dan, as Dan has expressed similar sentiment, I do not believe that everyone who puts forth a position is necessarily using talking points or acting under the direction of some one above them. The reason that I state this is because I see far too often people representing the opposing party as being some nefarious group or in some way un-American. I wholeheartedly believe that there are people in BOTH parties whose views are patently offensive to the Constitution and the desires the founding Fathers had in mind for our country. Some are un-American but the group as a whole is certainly not.
Sorry for any spelling or grammar errors. I am writing at speed.
Posted 21 Apr 2009 at 7:01 pm ¶Would those that keep throwing around the word “socialism” in such a loose fashion, like to, at some point, define what they mean.
Is the small business owner who can’t afford to offer his/her employees healthcare and is therefore in favor of universal healthcare… a socialist?
Is our police and fire dept’s overrun with socialists because the tax payers are footing the bill?
Are we socialists for paying for the military even if we do not believe in the way its run?
Are we socialists for sending our kids to public schools?
Surely our highways are a stinkin result of socialism and should be boycotted until we can privatize them.
Isn’t the unregulated free-market (which fiscal conservatives supported) what’s plunged this country into economic turmoil?
“Fiscal conservatives” oxymoronically are in favor of socialism for the rich… the trickle down approach that Reagan used to triple the national debt.
Posted 21 Apr 2009 at 9:47 pm ¶Socialists should simply admit to being socialists. And nothing wrong with that if you ask me.
By the same token, Bush should admit to being a knucklehead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rToKEnySb7s
Posted 21 Apr 2009 at 11:54 pm ¶MESSAGE FROM BRIGETTE:
Brigette is not ignoring all who have posted a comment here. She has been at the hospital with her baby, Portia. Portia has been admitted so it will be sometime before Brigette is back. She is staying with her baby tonight and, hopefully, will bring her home tomorrow.
Aunt Suzie
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 12:10 am ¶Benito,
As my Dad used to tell me, look it up. It is a defined term in the dictionary.
One would not necessarily have to be socialist to believe in government-run healthcare, but all socialists would support that.
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 1:59 am ¶As my Dad used to tell me, look it up. It is a defined term in the dictionary.
It is indeed in the dictionary, and its quite obvious that Republicans can’t be bothered to look it up. For example, many Republicans still believe that centrist-to-a-fault Democrats like the Clintons are socialists. Or moderately progressive centrists like Obama are. The only socialist in the House of Reps is Bernie Sanders. Even Dennis Kucinich falls far short of being one.
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 2:48 am ¶Brigette,
I hope your Portia is ok. Sorry I hadn’t noticed the post earlier.
JT
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 7:23 pm ¶Brigette,
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 10:39 pm ¶I just saw the post about Portia’s illness. I hope she is doing better now.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do.
~Sharon
Gee, a whole new crop of commenters! Wonder what happened to the old crowd. Life got in the way, as in my case, I guess. I’ve been reading when I can, just don’t have much time to post.
Loved the NMI column, couldn’t agree more.
Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 11:37 pm ¶More evidence of a need for a Dept. of Hispanics:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/22/Report-Hispanics-victimized-in-US-South/UPI-51121240403713/
Wake up white people!
Posted 23 Apr 2009 at 2:09 am ¶Well, that might bolster an argument that Alabama needs a DHA (though I still don’t think new cabinet departments are necessarily the answer to every problem) but what does it have to do with New Mexico?
Posted 23 Apr 2009 at 5:09 pm ¶Post a Comment