« Fuddy-Duddy Email | Main | The Christian Turn In Theory »

April 09, 2005

Comments

jholbo

Like they always say: set an exterminationist-minded totalitarian dictator to catch an exterminationist-minded totalitarian dictator.

abb1

"This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

He also said: "cadres determine everything" (usually mistranslated as "cadres decide everything")

abb1

Stalin, that is, not Vieira.

Doctor Memory

In some ways, this seems almost logical to me. The GOP has spent the last 40 years perpetually running as the "outsider" party, railing against those decadent bozos in DC.

But now, of course, they are the decadent bozos in DC. So they've got a stark choice: actually deliver on their constituents' agendas (which would likely lead inevitably to their dethronement), or find another bogeyman to run against. And there ain't but one branch of government left that they can identify as the fifth column...

God knows what they'll do for an enemy once they've purged the judiciary. Maybe the AMA... we haven't had a good Doctor's Plot in a few decades...

fnook

Apologies for the non-constructive comment, but this type of conservative bloodlust makes me want to go out to the corner of Connecticut and M and engage in some no-holds-barred physical combat with every friggin Republican I can find.

Keith

They'll get to the doctors, of course. But first, the Judges, followed by the trial lawyers, then "The Liberal Media." Once there are no legal resources and no independant media left to protest to, they'll be able to take down doctors, scientists and academics without anyone complaining or fighting back.

Russell Arben Fox

You know, I keep getting into this argument with a friend of mine, which basically boils down to how I think progressive politics ought to accommodate, even incorporate, important elements of the collective religious perspective which has wrongly allowed the Republican party over the last few decades to claim for itself a moral authenticity which the Democrats supposedly do not share. My friend listens to me, nods sympathetically, and then responds, in essence, "Yes, but this stuff they believe makes them crazy."

He keeps winning the argument.

Anderson

I knew they missed the Soviets---the nostalgia in the Post article is touching---but I never guessed they wanted to BE the Soviets.

I mean, how do you attack Justice Kennedy for "Marxist, Leninist" (I omit "satanic") principles, and then cite Stalin as your inspiration?

Doctor Memory

Anderson: I think this is what passes for intentional irony among the Schlafly set. (But I may be over-optimistic.)

abb1

Michael Lind writes - describing a different group:


At least Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies have been consistent. Since the Cold War ended, they have exaggerated American power in the same way that they exaggerated Soviet power during the Cold War. As if to prove the old adage that people come to resemble their enemies, these former cold warriors treat the United States as a twin of the Soviet Union -- a military empire contemptuous of international law, with satellites instead of allies, justifying wars in its spheres of influence by appeals to ideology ("democracy" rather than "socialism"). In the form of the concentration camps for detainees in Cuba, Iraq and elsewhere run by Donald Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's Pentagon, the neoconservatives even provided the United States with a gulag of its own.

So, the commies had their gulag, Wolfowitz-style small-d democrats do now, conservatives/traditionalists want one too. How else are you going to deal with "satanic foreign law Marxist-Leninists" aka "the worst of the worst" aka "the enemies of the people"?

Tad Brennan

And did you catch the proposal to have "mass impeachments" of federal judges, at this same nutty conference on the previous day? Check here:
http://nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html

"Mass impeachments" of judges. Nice image. I think Stalin would have liked that, too. Or maybe the Rove/Bush/DeLay crew would approach it more in the Cultural Revolution vein, you know, putting dunce caps on their heads, re-education sessions and the like.

The radical Republican theocons are at least doing us a real favor by showing their true colors these days. Now we just need to get these stories spread into the general electorate's consciousness. (I figure posting on Belle Waring's blog should pretty much accomplish that).

Matt

I'm glad I stopped watching. The decision came right after observing the crazed, frozen look in one of the participant's eyes.

catfish

"The radical Republican theocons are at least doing us a real favor by showing their true colors these days."

They've been doing it for quite some time, forever really. Of course Phyllis Schafly and co will never be elected to anything, but that is not their role. Their job is to make Crony-capitalist Republicans like the current president seem moderate by comparison. It works. The center of US politics is now occupied by Right Wingers who stop short of demanding purges and show trials.

djw

That sound you just heard was the blood vessel in John Cole's forehead popping.

Steve

First, I was going to go without commenting. I mean, saying that 'Death solves all problems' and accusing the Republicans of wanting to kill of judges, in spite of the fact that they don't want to kill off judges, they want to impeach them ("Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment.", and "And did you catch the proposal to have "mass impeachments" of federal judges, at this same nutty conference on the previous day?"). I thought, "oh well, those nutty liberals, exaggerating for effect again." But then I came across the post ON THIS SITE, THREE POSTS BELOW THIS ONE.

"Did you ever have that "must kill the president" feeing? I had that, today."

So you accuse the Republicans of wanting to kill their enemies in spite of the fact that they clearly didn't do so, and also in spite of the fact that very recently you yourself have expressed the desire to do so?

And you are the intellectual elite of your party?

Sheesh.

Steve

Anthony

I nominate Belle for both "intellectual elite" and "life and soul" of the party.
However, would it be churlish to point out to Steve that there is a difference between (a) humorous wishing of death-to-the-President, and (b) actual moves to limit or destroy the independence of the judiciary by those holding political power?

Matt Weiner

Actually, I think it would be churlish to point out that, though Belle's comment was irresponsible, she is a person of no political influence whatsoever; whereas the comments hinting at violence toward judges were made at a conference attending by some U.S. Congresspeople, after a U.S. Senator blamed "judicial activism"--the very thing that Vieira is railing against!--for the murders (in separate incidents) of a judge and of a judge's family. So the GOP has been engaging in violent ideation with respect to judges. Does the phrase "playing with fire when you don't know fire is hot" ring a bell?

It would be super-mega-churlish to point out the post Steve is quoting isn't three posts below this one. And I am a super-mega-churl.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Email John & Belle

  • he.jpgjholbo-at-mac-dot-com
  • she.jpgbbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com

Google J&B


J&B Archives

Buy Reason and Persuasion!

S&O @ J&B

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Squid and Owl. Make your own badge here.

Reason and Persuasion Illustrations

  • www.flickr.com

J&B Have A Tipjar


  • Search Now:

  • Buy a couple books, we get a couple bucks.
Blog powered by Typepad

J&B Have A Comment Policy

  • This edited version of our comment policy is effective as of May 10, 2006.

    By publishing a comment to this blog you are granting its proprietors, John Holbo and Belle Waring, the right to republish that comment in any way shape or form they see fit.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to the following as well: by leaving a comment you grant to the proprietors the right to release ALL your comments to this blog under this Creative Commons license (attribution 2.5). This license allows copying, derivative works, and commercial use.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you are also granting to this blog's proprietors the right to so release any and all comments you may make to any OTHER blog at any time. This is retroactive. By publishing ANY comment to this blog, you thereby grant to the proprietors of this blog the right to release any of your comments (made to any blog, at any time, past, present or future) under the terms of the above CC license.

    Posting a comment constitutes consent to the following choice of law and choice of venue governing any disputes arising under this licensing arrangement: such disputes shall be adjudicated according to Canadian law and in the courts of Singapore.

    If you do NOT agree to these terms, for pete's sake do NOT leave a comment. It's that simple.

  • Confused by our comment policy?

    We're testing a strong CC license as a form of troll repellant. Does that sound strange? Read this thread. (I know, it's long. Keep scrolling. Further. Further. Ah, there.) So basically, we figure trolls will recognize that selling coffee cups and t-shirts is the best revenge, and will keep away. If we're wrong about that, at least someone can still sell the cups and shirts. (Sigh.)