Matt disseminates Brooks arguments well here but, I think, the more we buy into the right wing framing of the modern Democratic party the more danger we face of becoming, once again, unfairly marginalized and demonized by the traditional media conglomerates and their rightwing poobahs. That an idiot like Brooks can accuse the netroots of driving the party to the left without ever mentioning his own parties neocon/faith based slide to extremism is evidence of his slanted, smearlike premise. That the Democratic left is closer to a prevailing center in the country is lost on Brooks. America, as a whole, or at least as a plurality, wants an end to the Iraq debacle, wants to maintain Social Security, is open to the idea of a universal health alternative, believes in the rule of law, thought Libby was guilty, wanted nothing to do with Terry Schiaivo, wants Public Education and understands that something terrible may be happening to our environment and nobody in the Cheney administration is addressing that. These stances could easily define the left wing of the Democratic party but they are, for the most part, defining middle America and yet, the left wing is framed as being extreme and republicans, like Mr. Brooks, keep hammering us over the head with labels they alone devise, it's absurd.
So, let's take a close look at right wing extremism and take a stab at defining them and the small cadre of lunatics that set the stage for the expunging of traditional republicans from their party and their inexorable lurch toward a war mongering fundamentalist regional irrelevancy.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've read Bill Kristol and I've read Markos Moulitsas. Kos is the lunatic.
It is the role of Conservatives to remind the world that there is no free lunch. So, yes, we'd all like to be out of Iraq. But at the cost of an even bigger conflagration later? Maybe not. And sure, everyody wants to keep their Social Security benefits. But at the cost of the biggest tax increase ever? And of course, who wouldn't want universal health coverage? Except that what that likely means is far less choice, far less freedom, far less privacy, far less innovation, far less actual health care.
Besides, if we go Socialist, where will the Canadians go when they need an operation?
"It is the role of Conservatives to remind the world that there is no free lunch." You pompous ass!
Conservatives are in no position to remind the American people of anything, except never to vote for one.
You have no idea how nationalized medicine works, do you?
Post a Comment