DB: Why Democrats Are Smiling

[Oldskool]

That smile from the DNC may not last long

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/liberal-activist-groups-threatens-democrats-opposed-government-run-option/

MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan

Moveon.org has reportedly raised $3,578,117 in contributions to fund primary challenges against 'any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,' according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.

[Wrong Direction]

this is the only definition which stands up to the test of time. It works for Kato the conservative Roman senator who oposed julius Ceasar. It works for Communists(left), Nazi's(Right), Czars(right), and Presidents. Across the span of time.

Nazi's were socialists.

I wonder if people on the left are buying this narrative that their's a significant civil war amongst Republicans. IMO, it's being purposefully overstated by people who have interest in seeing the Republican party as a party of crazy right-wingers. I did a little research, and found this article by liberal favorite Michelle Malkin, which included the points below and more.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/

Yes, she favors abortion rights and gay marriage, but that's only the beginning. Consider...

1. She voted for massive tax increases as an assembly woman.

2. She voted for a $180 million state bank bailout.

3. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.

4. Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

5. Scozzafava supports "card-check" and her husband is a highly active unionman in upstate NY.

6. Meanwhile, “moderate Republican” Scozzafava has earned the enthusiastic endorsement of far-left blog entrepreneur and political strategist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Daily Kos website. He enthused that Scozzafava has “been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues.”

That’s not moderation. That’s extremist fringe. This race isn’t a fight over the heart and soul of the Republican Party. It’s a battle over its brain.

Note, I copied, pasted, slightly paraphrased and edited for ease of reading.

[JMS]

Nazi's were socialists.

Yes becase all bad things come from the left and only warm milk and kittens come from the right...

National Socialism was Socialist in Name only. National Socialism wasn't about Socialism, it was about Fascism. Socialism is the moderate left philosophy. You think the Nazi's were moderates? Fascism/Nazi's represent the extreme right position on the political spectrum. Hittler wasn't trying to creat a new form of government but recreate something from history. Hitler was creating the Third Reiche. The Third incarnation of the Roman empire. Going back to what made Germany Great to his mind in antiquity....

German Kings in the middle agest considered themselves to be the rightful heirs to the Roman Ceasars... The second Reiche, because Rome had been sacked and taken over by barbarians in antiquety and they considered themselves the unbroken chain of government sucession passed down from the time of Rome.

Communism represents the extreme left political philosophy. It was an attempt to create something entirely new and better. It achieved the former not the latter.

[jpyaks3]

Nazi's were socialists.

I wonder if people on the left are buying this narrative that their's a significant civil war amongst Republicans. IMO, it's being purposefully overstated by people who have interest in seeing the Republican party as a party of crazy right-wingers. I did a little research, and found this article by liberal favorite Michelle Malkin, which included the points below and more.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/

Note, I copied, pasted, slightly paraphrased and edited for ease of reading.

NAZI's were nationalists and fascists not socialists, just because it is in the name doesn't mean it was a significant part of their platform.

EDIT: Beat with a more thorough explanation.

[JMS]

NAZI's were nationalists and fascists not socialists, just because it is in the name doesn't mean it was a significant part of their platform.

EDIT: Beat with a more thorough explanation.

Right... USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that didn't mean the Soviet Union was a Republic.

Red China is called the Peoples Republic of China, again we wouldn't call them a republic.

In understanding where a government or political agenda falls on the political spectrum names and rhetoric are less important than understanding where they seek their knowledge and solutions. From the Passed or the Future.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Right... USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that didn't mean the Soviet Union was a Republic.

Red China is called the Peoples Republic of China, again we wouldn't call them a republic.

In understanding where a government or political agenda falls on the political spectrum names and rhetoric are less important than understanding where they seek their knowledge and solutions. From the Passed or the Future.

Calling themselves "republics" just mean they aren't monarchies. Which they aren't, so it's accurate.

[JohnLockesGhost]

NAZI's were nationalists and fascists not socialists, just because it is in the name doesn't mean it was a significant part of their platform.

EDIT: Beat with a more thorough explanation.

Fascists are socialists. Mussolini invented Fascism, he was an avowed socialist.

[jpyaks3]

Fascists are socialists. Mussolini invented Fascism, he was an avowed socialist.

Fascists are corporatist and authoritarian not socialist.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Fascists are corporatist and authoritarian not socialist.

Are you saying Stalinism and Maoism aren't "authoritarian" therefore not socialist? You're right that ideally they were just representatives of the people who held the power, but that was just a bunch of crap. They were all about the power of the state. Mussolini was just honest about it.

[JMS]

Calling themselves "republics" just mean they aren't monarchies. Which they aren't, so it's accurate.

Republic doesn't mean "not a monarchy". Although it's true a Republic is not a Monarchy. Republics are institutions where citizens vote for representatives and those representatives make the decisions. The reason why neither the Soviet union nor Red China were/are republics is because their officials aren't elected by people who were themselves elected by the people..

The path to power in those countries rest upon being appointed by the leaders of the party, not by popular political support.

[JMS]

Fascists are socialists. Mussolini invented Fascism, he was an avowed socialist.

It is true Mussolini appeared on both extremes of the politicla spectrum at times. The flaw in your logic is you are assuming he did it at the same time.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Republic doesn't mean "not a monarchy". Although it's true a Republic is not a Monarchy. Republics are institutions where citizens vote for representatives and those representatives make the decisions. The reason why neither the Soviet union nor Red China were/are republics is because their officials aren't elected by people who were themselves elected by the people..

The path to power in those countries rest upon being appointed by the leaders of the party, not by popular political support.

Wikipedia says,

The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.

That's the definition I use.

And I guess practically you're right. North Korea claims to be a republic, but their little dictator, for all intents and purposes, is a king. Hell, he inherited the country from his daddy.

[PeterMP]

Are you saying Stalinism and Maoism aren't "authoritarian" therefore not socialist? You're right that ideally they were just representatives of the people who held the power, but that was just a bunch of crap. They were all about the power of the state. Mussolini was just honest about it.

It can easily be argued that neither Stalism or Maoism were socialist, though that is what they claimed to be at least trying to achieve.

(i.e. in neither case was their equal access to resources or the means of production)

[JohnLockesGhost]

It can easily be argued that neither Stalism or Maoism were socialist, though that is what they claimed to be at least trying to achieve.

Sure they're fascists too. Mussolini was a reallly brilliant guy, threw out the pie-in-the-sky stuff of his youth, where "the workers" rule, and just adopted "real world" socialism, where the state is king, as his official ideology. He just gave it a new brand name.

[JMS]

Are you saying Stalinism and Maoism aren't "authoritarian" therefore not socialist?

I'm not saying that. At the extremes both right and left look similar.

You're right that ideally they were just representatives of the people who held the power, but that was just a bunch of crap. They were all about the power of the state. Mussolini was just honest about it.

If your premise is that facism is an extreme left. and that communism is also an extreme left form of government. I think I can end the discussion pretty quickly in my favor.

To your mind what is an example of an extreme right form of government?

Are you claiming it doesn't exist?

Here is another thought. Look up the term "extreme right" or "far right" and you will find a refference to Nazi's, not communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right

Now look up extreme left, or far left and note the refference to communism not Nazi's or Fascism.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I'm not saying that. At the extremes both right and left look similar.

No-one on this messageboard clings to the one-dimentional political spectrum as tenaciously as you, bud. It's completely insufficient.

[JMS]

Wikipedia says, That's the definition I use.

And I guess practically you're right. North Korea claims to be a republic, but their little dictator, for all intents and purposes, is a king. Hell, he inherited the country from his daddy.

After all a Republic isn't a Democracy, or a dictatorship either why isn't that definition just as difinative as not a monarchy?

The not a monarchy is also the first definition given in websters. I preffer the second definition which Plato who coined the term wrote about and the one which our government is modeled after.

: a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

[JMS]

No-one on this messageboard clings to the one-dimentional political spectrum as tenaciously as you, bud. It's completely insufficient.

A linear political spectrum is a model, it's not a blue print...

It is sufficient for clearly differenciating many political issues, parties and people.

[JMS]

Sure they're fascists too. Mussolini was a reallly brilliant guy, threw out the pie-in-the-sky stuff of his youth, where "the workers" rule, and just adopted "real world" socialism, where the state is king, as his official ideology. He just gave it a new brand name.

So if Stalin was a Fascist, as you claim, why did Germany Attack him? Hitler a self professed Fascist and Musolini the guy who coined the term were allies. Why did they double cross and attack communist Russia before even taking care of the British.

Hitler in Mien Kampf made clear what he thought about communism. He didn't see it as a kindred movement to Nazism. One of his central themes in that book was to eradicate communism from the face of the earth.

[JMS]

No-one on this messageboard clings to the one-dimentional political spectrum as tenaciously as you, bud. It's completely insufficient.

I will take that as your Roberto Duran impression, "No Masse". Since you didn't acknowledge the fact that Fascism and Nazism appear in the definitions of FAR RIGHT. and Communism appear in the definitions of Far Left political movements.

Far Right..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right

Far Left..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left

The key to their political branding, the key to all political branding is whether they are inspired by looking to the past. The Third Reich. Or inspired by creating something totally new. Communism and Karl Marx.

[techboy]

JMS, I've always tried to be a civil debater of yours, but you're going off the deep end here. you are literally making stuff up.

You need to be fair here. I'm not going to say that JMS always has his facts straight, but he is sincere and passionate, and I don't believe he would make things up.

This is yet another example of the idea that if you have to begin a sentence with "I don't mean to be <blank>, but..." (or its equivalent), you're about to be <blank>.

Oh, and JMS, speaking of getting your facts straight , I don't think you should describe Jefferson as a powerful orator. I've read that he hated public speaking, and many historians believe that the reason he didn't deliver his State of the Union speech in person (he sent it in writing with an aide) is that he had a high, squeaky, nearly inaudible speaking voice.

Monticello's Jefferson Library has an interesting article about Jefferson's Public Speaking.

This is just a minor nitpick, of course, but it's the kind of note that many here seem to enjoy.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Hitler in Mien Kampf made clear what he thought about communism. He didn't see it as a kindred movement to Nazism. One of his central themes in that book was to eradicate communism from the face of the earth.

I'd argue fascists and communists had the same attitude towards power of the state. Towards the cult of personality. Towards collectivism or anti-individualism. Towards democracy.

However they did differ in some important ways. Their attitudes towards history, tolerance of class difference, and, probably most importantly, the geographical scope of their ideology.

Why did Hitler despise communism? Because it was an international movement where Slavic and German workers would be under the same banner. Could you imagine anything more repugnant to a fervent nationalist like Hitler?

[PeterMP]

So if Stalin was a Fascist, as you claim, why did Germany Attack him? Hitler a self professed Fascist and Musolini the guy who coined the term were allies. Why did they double cross and attack communist Russia before even taking care of the British.

Hitler in Mien Kampf made clear what he thought about communism. He didn't see it as a kindred movement to Nazism. One of his central themes in that book was to eradicate communism from the face of the earth.

Stalin's Soviet Union wasn't communist by any real definition of the word. They may have claimed to have been. There might have been some in the government that were actually trying to obtain a communist state, but they weren't one.

REAL communism might be on the extreme left as compared to facism, but Stalin's regime was much closer to Hitler's Germany than the definition of communism, especially when taken to the extreme.

Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for reasons not directly to its political status. The fact that he "double crossed" somebody to do it is not relevant to his reasons. He also broke the Munich agreement. Did he do so as the result of communism in Poland or France?

Hitler invaded the Soviet Union to gain control of area for Germany to expand into, general resources, and valuable land, like the Ukraine. All of which was also outlined in Mein Kampf.

[JMS]

Oh, and JMS, speaking of getting your facts straight , I don't think you should describe Jefferson as a powerful orator. I've read that he hated public speaking, and many historians believe that the reason he didn't deliver his State of the Union speech in person (he sent it in writing with an aide) is that he had a high, squeaky, nearly inaudible speaking voice.

I didn't not know that about Jefferson's speaking voice. It was the custom of the day to publish texts of speeches rather than deliver them. George Washington's fairwell address was not spoken but was delivered to a newspaper for publication. that fairwell "speech" becoming the most influencial document in american foreign policy for the next century.

Monticello's Jefferson Library has an interesting article about Jefferson's Public Speaking.

This is just a minor nitpick, of course, but it's the kind of note that many here seem to enjoy.

I enjoyed it...

[JMS]

Stalin's Soviet Union wasn't communist by any real definition of the word. They may have claimed to have been. There might have been some in the government that were actually trying to obtain a communist state, but they weren't one.

This is an argument geared towards which is real Communism. The ideals put forward by Karl Marx in 1848, or the form of government which at one time ruled over a third of the worlds population?

6th day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four

REAL communism might be on the extreme left as compared to facism, but Stalin's regime was much closer to Hitler's Germany than the definition of communism, especially when taken to the extreme.

What marks both Karl Marx's Communism, and Lennin/Stalin's Communism extreme left movements, if you chose to break them appart, is that both were trying to creat a new form of government. Something that the world had never seen before. A better form of government. Marx and Stalin only differed on tactics, not strategy.

Fact is Marx was a theorist, he didn't need to concern himself with tactics.

Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for reasons not directly to its political status. The fact that he "double crossed" somebody to do it is not relevant to his reasons. He also broke the Munich agreement. Did he do so as the result of communism in Poland or France?

He did so because Hitler saw himself as the rightful heir to a historical dynasty. Hitler saw himself rooted in history. Hitler gained his legitamacy from this historic vantage.

Stalin was in the business of white washing and destroying history in order to make up his new order.

They were polar oppisites, both employing similar tactics to achieve and maintain power.

Hitler invaded the Soviet Union to gain control of area for Germany to expand into, general resources, and valuable land, like the Ukraine. All of which was also outlined in Mein Kampf.

True, but he didn't focus on the oil fields in the balkins and urals. He focused on the population centers and Moscow. Stalins seat of power.