Recently I have criticized Democrats in Michigan for getting in bed with the thuggish group By Any Means Necessary in order to prevent Michiganders from voting on whether they want their state to continue to practice racial preference. More recently, here, I criticized Sen. Barbara Boxer for accusations against John Roberts that are every bit as egregious as those that forced NARAL to withdraw its reprehensible ad that contained similar accusations.
Now Michael Goodwin, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist at the New York Daily News (who happens, by the way, to be pro-abortion), has generalized this criticims and taken it up a notch (HatTip to RealClearPolitics):
The rancid attack ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts shows, in a nutshell, what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. Emphasis on nut.
The $500,000 TV ad, paid for by an abortion-rights group, so viciously distorted Roberts’ record that nonpartisan watchdogs and even some liberals called for the ad to be withdrawn. Missing from the voices of reason was any Democratic official or party leader. New York’s senators were conspicuously silent.
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s earlier call for “common ground” on abortion would have more credibility had she condemned the ad’s false claims.
Sen. Chuck Schumer would have proved himself more than a partisan had he done more than brush off Roberts’ ads from both left and right as “just trying to stir the pot.”
Neither Clinton nor Schumer even mildly rebuked a group that is part of their party’s base. It took Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-choice GOP chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to blow the whistle. He called the ad “blatantly untrue and unfair” and said it was hurting the pro-choice cause. It was then withdrawn.
But the damage remains to the sponsor, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and, more important, to the quisling Dems. Their silence puts them in lockstep with the demagogues driving the party over the ideological cliff. Instead of speaking up for decency and integrity, they chose appeasement, if not agreement. Shame.
The Republicans have a better record of dumping their nuts. David Duke was kicked out of the party. And when even the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, made a pro-segregationist remark, the pressure from conservative bloggers and Republicans themselves forced him out of his leadership position. The Democrats, however, haven’t had a Sister Souljah moment since, well, Sister Souljah, although they are much in need of one (or two, or three).
Perhaps that’s because it’s too hard (or they think it would cost them too much in contributions) for them to separate the fringe part of their base (Michael Moore, MoveOn, NARAL, BAMN) from the rest of their base.
UPDATE
Well, I am happy to UPDATE the above by noting that one prominent Democrat has now condemned the NARAL ad. On Meet The Press this morning, Sen. Joe Biden said the ad was “misleading and unfair,” although the “the thing that bothers” him the most about it seems to be that “it takes our eye off the real issue….”
… [N]ow we’re going to debate whether or not the ad was misleading or not–and I believe it was misleading and unfair–instead of focusing on what is Judge Roberts’ view on the question of whether or not the government–the Constitution protects individuals from the government being able to intrude on their autonomy, like the Schiavo case? What does he think the extent of the power of the government to invade our personal space is and what extent does he think that the government can act as a shield against major interests, major powerful economic interests, like can we stop tobacco companies from targeting our children so that they smoke? Is that a violation of the First Amendment?
Biden’s main question about Roberts, in short, seems to be this: “does he believe there’s a right of privacy in the Constitution? I believe there is.”
Biden also seems to believe that appointing someone to the Supreme Court (or giving advice and consent to that appointment) is closely analogous to voting for someone for elective office:
My vote on Judge Roberts will depend upon how willingly forthcoming he is about his views. Imagine us saying to a presidential candidate or a Senate or House candidate, “Look, we don’t really care what your views are. We just want to make sure that you’re honest and decent and bright.” Can you imagine the public saying, “Oh, that’s OK. That’s all we need to know.”
If that is the case, if their “views” are the most important part of their qualifications, as with candidates for the presidency or the House or the Senate, perhaps they should just be elected. The justification for requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate, after all, was the expectation that its members, presumably men (at the time) of high repute removed by their long terms from the tumult of partisan politics, would apply their judgment to evaluate the characther and integrity of nominees. Nothing qualifes them any more than the House, or than normal citizens at the polls, to pass on the acceptability of the “views” of nominees.
UPDATE II [15 Aug.]
I think it is fair to say that one of the most significant disagreements liberals have with conservative jurists in general, and with John Roberts in particular, is precisely the issue that is of most importance to Sen. Biden, namely, whether or not the Constitution contains a general “right to privacy.”
That right, which Justice Douglas famously found in “penumbras, formed by emanations” from the Bill of Rights, is of course the foundation on which Roe v. Wade precariously rests, but it is much more than that, and that much more has received scant elucidation from those who think the right is contained in the Constitution.
What are the boundaries, if any, of the individual “autonomy” and “personal space” which, in Sen. Biden’s view, the government may not invade? Would it bar a military draft, or the IRS collecting the most sensitive personal information? Would it create new grounds for libel and defamation suits? Would it prevent the government from classifying the race of individuals who do not want to be so classified?
For an example of one tiny area on which a robust Constitutional right to privacy might have a significant impact, see “Online Lessons on Unprotected Sex” in today’s Washington Post.
Actually, Sistah Souljah wasn’t all that popular to begin with. Souljah was an female rapper associated with the rap group Public Enemy during their hey-day in the late 80’s to early 90’s.
To compare her to elected officials like Trent Lott is not a fair comparison. A more representative comparison would be for GOP candidates to speak out against the Ann Coulters, Michelle Malkins, and Michael Savages of the right winged media junta when THEY make outlandish, inflammatory and racially insensitive statements.
If you don’t recall any of those right wingers making statements such as those, I would be happy to post some examples.
–Cobra
>>>>>
Notherbob writes:
>>>We know, Cobra; any comparison that is not a set-up for your liberal slam dunk is not
Thank you for underlining my point. The gravitas of removing Lott far outweighs the suggested actions in your comment. The statements of those you mention may upset the moonbats, but reasonable people know that Coulter is a humorous commentator rather than a serious policy wonk, Malkin is a fair and balanced commentator and Savage is a jerk whose every comment is an attempt to build his ratings. None is the impediment to the Republicans that those suggested in John
“To compare her to elected officials like Trent Lott is not a fair comparison.”
Exactly. It took far more resolve and integrity to remove a powerful Senator from a key position than it did to critize a largely unknown singer.
But you both still aren’t getting it. Who was running for office, and made the decision to remove Trent Lott from that position?
Sistah Souljah was NOT an elected official. She was a RAPPER, which is as socially significant as “Radio talk show host”, “conservative author”, or “cable tv host.” Bill Clinton was running for PRESIDENT at the time of the Sistah Souljah moment.
The Trent Lott scenario is not applicable as a comparison. A comparable scenario to Trent Lott would be Dick Durbin, where many Democrats denounced his statements about Gitmo.
–Cobra
Er….OK…Durbin is comparable. And the Democrats praised Durbin … and …I guess I still don’t get it.
Bush was going to be running for office in 2004, and he booted Trent Lott, someone with far more influence than an obscure rapper.
Also, if any conservative talk show host starts advocating the killing of cops, I’m sure they’ll be denounced.
“The $500,000 TV ad, paid for by an abortion-rights group, so viciously distorted Roberts’ record that nonpartisan watchdogs and even some liberals called for the ad to be withdrawn.”
liberals don’t have the spine for what it takes to swift boat people. And thus they will keep losing.
“What are the boundaries, if any, of the individual “autonomy” and “personal space” which, in Sen. Biden’s view, the government may not invade? Would it bar a military draft, or the IRS collecting the most sensitive personal information? Would it create new grounds for libel and defamation suits? Would it prevent the government from classifying the race of individuals who do not want to be so classified?”
These questions have been answered.
Query the readers here: What the f’ is a “neo-con”? I once thought I knew what that meant: it was someone who was on the Left in the Sixties and changed course. A little later than that, it meant a pro-Israeli foreign-policy hawk, usually but not always also Jewish.
But now “neocon” seems to mean more or less “stuff the current administration likes,” domestic- or foreign-policy-related alike. Can anyone explain what “neocon” is doing in the realm of domestic policy, and how the heck it got there, and why it’s more popular than the previous epithets (e.g., “right-wing”)? I have some ideas, but I’d like very much not to take them seriously.
someone who was on the Left in the Sixties and changed course
notherbob2,
Yes, but I was born in 1967, and apparently I’m a “neocon.” I led a blissfully politics-free life until somewhere around 1975, and even then I don’t remember the Saigon airlift so much as my dad saying (re Nixon) that we were exchanging a crook for a dummy.
“Neocon” means “person with wrong opinions.” At least, I have never once found anyone ranting about “neocons” and their influence on Bush & co. who could explain what a “neocon” was, or how it/s/he differed from a “paleocon.” I really need some refreshers in Trotskyite epithets here, because all I can think of as an alternative is “capitalist running dog,” which is inadequate. Matthew Parris’s Scorn had much spicier options, but I can’t find my copy.
Michelle, I too have been confused about the expanding definition of neo-conservative. I understand it to mean someone who was a liberal, and may remain liberal on many domestic and social issues – particularly as they relate to social programs and the size of government – but now places the highest priority on an aggressively interventionist military policy against Communism and totalitarianism. While some more traditional conservatives saw collectivism as the greatest threat from Communism, neo-cons had some socialistic tendencies but opposed the Soviet Union for its absence of personal freedoms and civil liberties.
In keeping with some of the themes of this blog, I would not classify as neo-conservative someone who was once liberal but now, in opposing affirmative action and hate speech laws, has become a conservative.
Nels, notherbob2,
My questions are basically: if Mick Jagger is singing “My Sweet Neo-Con,” what does he think he’s singing about, and what do his listeners think he’s singing about? I have never managed to get anyone who uses “neocon” as an epithet to explain what it means. I gather we’re all just supposed to know.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Can anyone explain what “neocon” is doing in the realm of domestic policy, and how the heck it got there, and why it’s more popular than the previous epithets (e.g., “right-wing”)? I have some ideas, but I’d like very much not to take them seriously.”
Well, this may sound biased coming from me of course, but if “neo-cons”, who are most closely identified with the “Project For A New American Century” group headed by William Kristol (yes, that perpetually smiling warhawk on Fox News Sunday), are all prominent members of the current Administration, from the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Defense, Ambassador to the UN, etc., that means the domestic policies are shaped by them as well as the foreign.
FYI, invading Iraq and establishing private control of it’s oil reserves, as well as permanent millitary bases from which other middle eastern campaigns can be launched was on the drawing board at the PNAC for years.
>>>In 1998, following marked Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wrote to the president, Bill Clinton, urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the U.S., its Middle-East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN “containment” policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.
Many critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq make the claim that the U.S.’s “bullying” of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite reservations from some in the international community, stem from the positions of prominent neo-conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a “smoking gun” [3], showing that a second Gulf War was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle’s opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said “that’s what they want
>>>>”Well, this may sound biased coming from me of course…”
Of course. Everything you contribute contains a liberal bias. Confining your sources to the libeal cocoon is like drinking rosinated wine; pretty soon good wine is tasteless.
If you all are not reading
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/ you are missing some great writing – about being a neocon.
For shorthand, the PNAC crowd is basically the definition of neo-con foreign policy. I have no idea what it means domestically, or what it means when notherbob brought it up.
Cobra,
So “neocon” domestic policy = “any domestic policy Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld & co. happen to like”? Thanks. That clears it all right up.
actus, apparently you’re mystified as to what a domestic neocon might be. Glad there’s at least two of us. People in the Bay Area throw the term around indiscriminately as though everyone just is supposed to know that it means “minion of Satan.” What, you don’t know? Maybe . . . maybe you’re one of them. (Prove you aren’t! Now!)
People in the Bay Area throw the term around indiscriminately as though everyone just is supposed to know that it means “minion of Satan.”
That’s a theo-con.
Wikipedia has a very long explanation of neocon that covers all the bases. The bottom line: there is not general agreement on the parameters of neoconservatism.
http://www.answers.com/neocon?gwp=11&ver=1.0.7.178&method=3