markos says what any political historian knows

[cali]

In a three part series of posts last night, markos speaks the simple truth.

"Party of Ideas
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM PST
Obama:

I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.
Bill Clinton:

Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas.
Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were "all the good" ones.

In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were "ideas".

That's not controversial, so I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign is making such a big deal out of it.

Especially "welfare reform" Bill Clinton.

Update: Edwards joins Bill Clinton:

Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party.
A nicely crafted straw man argument, if I've ever seen one. Bravo, John, for being an ass and dishonestly distorting what Obama said!"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126


"Party of Ideas, Part II
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM PST
From Crashing the Gate, page 107:

Think tanks sprung up like weeds. By the time the Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation launched in 1973, it was their eighth think tank focused on economic and foreign policy ideas. Through the 1970s, more such groups were set up, including the American Legislative Exchange Council in 1973 and the libertarian-leaning CATO institute in 1977. By the time Ronald Reagan came on the national scene to run for president against Jimmy Carter in 1980, the conservative movement had about fifteen think tanks pumping out ideas and refining the message. When Reagan won, Heritage gave him a 1,077-page document titled Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration, which Reagan promptly handed out to every cabinet member at their first meeting. The antigovernment and pro-privatization document was so detailed that it didn’t just promote offshore oil drilling, but specified particular lots that should be exploited. It provided a step-by-step guide on how to transform conservative principles into government policy. It may have been mind-numbingly boring to read, but the paperback version was not only a bestseller inside Washington, D.C., but tangible evidence of the Right’s new sophistication—one that had a detailed core set of ideas and policies. Amazingly, Heritage boasts that “nearly two-thirds of the 2,000 recommendations contained in Mandate were adopted by the Reagan administration.”

While Reagan ran as an antigovernment Republican in 1980, the conservative machine worked hard through the 1980s and 1990s to create a new agenda for the country, ready for the day that it took over Congress. It was prepared to make the transition from an opposition party providing a bulwark against liberal ruling orthodoxy, to a governing party. “When Reagan and Bush won in the 1980s, they did not have an affirmative agenda for America,” notes Stein. “Their agenda was to lower taxes and dismantle the liberal establishment, the structure of government. Get rid of the Office of Economic Opportunity, all these poverty programs, all these Legal Services—Gingrich, and later, George W. Bush and his frighteningly effective brain trust, drew heavily from Marvin Olasky, a product of the Bradley Foundation and author of the 1992 tome Tragedy of American Compassion. The antigovernment thesis of Olasky argued that only the faith community, private individuals, and charity organizations could tackle poverty. He dubbed his thesis “compassionate conservatism.”

Eight years later, “Bush used that term ‘compassionate conser- vatism,’ got elected, and then that affirmative agenda that they had worked on for fifteen years is now everything you see,” Stein said. “It’s Social Security reform, ‘tort reform,’ preemption as a military policy, No Child Left Behind, ‘Clear Skies,’ school vouchers, it’s the entire agenda.” And if you want any proof that those investments in think tanks and research foundations by the big money conservative donors paid off, simply check out the Heritage Foundation website, where you will find this blurb from Karl Rove: “Heritage is the intellectual centerpiece in Washington for conservative ideas ... We stole from every publication we could; we stole several key staff persons; we want to steal more of your ideas.”

There is nothing shady about this VRWC, there is nothing illegal about the network of conservative organizations promoting and coor- dinating their efforts. In fact, what conservatives have built over the past thirty years is nothing short of brilliant. We can admire it the way we would admire the precision, engineering, and craftsmanship of a stealth fighter.
Yes, Republicans had ideas. Yes, they were looking outside conventional wisdom for solutions to problems.

Yes, they were bad ideas. But Obama didn't say otherwise. He just said they had ideas.

And they did. Their entire movement was built on them, like it or not."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/195212/284/181/439165


"Party of Ideas, Part III
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM PST
I'm surprised I have to write this, but apparently I do:

Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't mean it's not an idea."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/21341/1391/173/439189

[Mythsaje]

1. They had ideas, all right. Really shitty ones.

That we're paying for now.

It sounds admiring on the surface. Maybe it's not. But maybe he should've tossed a caveat in just to make certain no one misunderstood.

There's a lot of popping off in this campaign--by Hillary, by Obama, and by their supporters in general. Saying really stupid shit that strikes the more discriminating among us as rather disquieting.

Say what you mean, folks. Don't make us GUESS at what you mean. That leads to trouble.

[FrenchieCat]

2. It's a 50 minute interview.....and Obama shouldn't need to be that guarded

in a conversation.

That's the problem now....no one can say anything without it being distorted. That's a shame, but it is not Obama's fault if there are so many willing to be Intellectually dishonest.

I have asked folks to listen to the entire interview.....but Noooo. Instead you see choice 12 seconds here and there.

We are the fucking problem, not Obama. We are doing this to ourselves.....cause that interview is awesome!

[ellisonz]

3. I thought intellectual dishonesty and primary season were synonymous.

[JDPriestly]

4. Obama is ignorant about history, and he really showed it.

Those of us who lived through that time know what we are talking about. Obama should not talk about things he does not know about. He was born in 1961 and was 18 in 1979 when Reagan was elected. He is talking about things he does not understand. That is the sign of a very ignorant person.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Actually, Obama is a very intelligent individual.....

Because he understands exactly how it came about that you had to live through what you lived through.

But I'm sure that what I just wrote will go way over your head as usual! :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

11. Intelligent people can be ignorant. I have several degrees

in various areas, but I am ignorant about nuclear physics. Obama does not know history. Enjoy your blind faith. I lived through that time. Obama is ignorant about the history of the '60s and '70s.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Call me blind, and I'll call you stupid.

I lived through the times too. You weren't the only one there. Doh!

[JDPriestly]

22. How old are you FrenchieCat?

I'm 64. I lived through that time. I have been a progressive all my life. How about you?

[DURHAM D]

28. I am right there with you.

I went out to dinner last night with a group of people just like you and just like me - 60 year old liberals and progressive. Conversation quickly turned to the elections - its what us boomers and pre boomers talk about.

And wow, it isn't just that they are not supporting Obama - they hate him. I mean they are really, really, angry at him for his admonishments and his ignorance. Combine that with his arrogance and blood pressures really rise. Our table was very animated and soon the surrounding tables got involved. Not a single person made a defense for Obama.

The young Obama supporters have no idea how pissed off some folks really are.

[cali]

8. yes, of course. Virtually all the political historians out there

kos, and Obama are wrong, and you're right. Obama is just a very ignorant person. Never mind that Gary Hart and numerous others think he's a policy wonk and brilliant. Never mind that the guy was the editor of the law review at Harvard and graduated magna cum laude. He's surely never cracked a book on the period. He's just an igorant....

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Mythsaje]

15. There's a difference between "cracking a book"

and actually GROKKING something.

America was fed a big stinking LIE, one remarkably similar to the lie Bushco has been selling us. It's the same lie, only from a better source.

That's what I don't get about this. Reagan was a scumbag and he represented scumbags and the "great change" he elicited was not only based on a lie, it was imminently destructive to America because it engendered the crap we're living with now. It completely repudiated everything good liberals had done for this country and everyone is suffering for it.

What is it about this that's SO hard for people to grasp?

[Mythsaje]

12. I was fourteen when Reagan was elected.

I never trusted anything that came out of his mouth. He was a tool. A muppet President.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Well that makes you smarter than the overwhelming majority.....

but Obama didn't say that he trusted Reagan.

Further, your candidate is the one stupid enough to have given Bush the benefit of the doubt on an issue like War....., and yet, you support him to lead us now.

[Mythsaje]

25. So might yours have

had he the opportunity.

What's your point?

[JDPriestly]

21. You were wise beyond your years. Clearly Obama was not.

What is he hiding by not discussing the political views of the grandmother he lived with in the '80s.

[ellisonz]

16. Because he doesn't say what you want to hear?

[JDPriestly]

20. Because he doesn't say what any progressive who lived through

the era in a conscious state will tell you.

[depakid]

6. Sorry- but this is a serious weakness of Obama's

He makes these sorts of off the cuff remarks because he's both inexperienced and grandious. At first, you could chalk it up to rookie mistakes, but the more he doesit- the more it seems ingrained.

As I've predicted many times before, eventually these will be his downfall. Hopefully sooner than the general election...

[cali]

9. There was nothing off the cuff about it

These were extensive comments and analysis, and they're virtually no different than what kos wrote years ago in "Crashing The Gate". They're no different than what most political historians and analysts say.

[FrenchieCat]

10. This was an In-Depth interview 50 minutes long.....

and due to it, he got that newspaper's endorsement.

He ain't playing your game.

He is not pandering to you.

He is telling us what he thinks. He is going to let us decide if we want someone like him leading our country. He is not going to try and pretend that he is someone other than who he is. He trusts us to make the judgement.

Like he says often....I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear, I'm going to tell you what you need to hear.

So excuse the hell out of him if he went unplugged. That was his clear intent. This interview in full will be heard by those who are earnestly interested in such intellectual matters, like political scientists and such. They will come back with the verdict that this guy is for real, and is accurate in his assessment as to how we came to be ruled by conservative idealogues bent on tearing up every good conventional wisdom that there ever was.

[JDPriestly]

5. Thanks for your post.

[Mythsaje]

17. You're welcome.

For what it's worth.

I surmise someone commented on my "intellectual dishonesty" in the thread, based on whoever's response. I'm sick of trying to defend my position to people incapable of seeing it no matter how I represent it.

My response to Reagan is what it's always been. FUCK the Muppet.

[FrenchieCat]

18. And so do we.

Obama wasn't praising Reagan...you just want to think he was....so that you can rant about Reagan.

Well you can alway rant about Reagan, without making to look like Obama agreed with the guy. That's the part about you that is intellectually dishonest.

You are moving the goal post, and I can see ya!

[Mythsaje]

19. Funny...it sure sounded that way to a lot of those who aren't

in the Obama camp to begin with.

Of course, that's not something you want to consider--that we have a valid point of view too. Much better to pretend we're being dishonest than admit it.

[Andy823]

30. I think all this crap

Is working for both Clinton and Obama to keep them from really coming out and discussing the "real" issues that this country has right now. They seem to love to "avoid" direct answers, or come out and tell the country "how" they are going to make the changes we need! All it is doing is making the party look bad, and if they think they can do this same shit in a general and get away with it, they are crazy!

We need to stop the shit, and get down to the issues. Edwards is doing that, to bad the "kids" can't get with the program!

[oasis]

23. Obama assisted rightwing nutjobs in the rewiting of HISTORY by

perpetuating the myth of "Reagan's Greatness".

[ShortnFiery]

24. Welcome Americans, to the right-wing duopoly MACHINE - hosted by both the DLC and RNC.

:scared:

The minority status of the Democratic Party was disguised by its lingering control of Congress (until 1994) and the fluke election (thanks to Ross Perot) of Bill Clinton. Social activists and progressives of various sorts remained the party's base, even as party leaders, embodied in the Democratic Leadership Council, sensing the limited electoral appeal of the progressive agenda, steadily drifted to the right. Their failure to re-articulate a compelling vision of social justice and democracy sealed the party's fate. Conservative attacks on 'big government,' and their promotion of 'deregulation' not only of much of the economy but of campaign financing, solidified the corruption of the political process. As early as the Carter years, conservatives captured the leadership of the Democratic as well as the Republican parties, and created the two-party, right-wing duopoly which now confronts us.

The right-wing duopoly is now virtually impervious to challenge, as the careers of figures as diverse as Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, and Denis Kucinich demonstrate. Kerry's right-wing campaign for president, echoing the exploitative domestic and aggressive foreign policies of Bush, confirms the end of meaningful political discourse in the United States. There are simply no remaining effective instruments of political action available to the restless masses, who are probably a majority of the country, and most of whom, as a result, no longer participate in the political process at all.

What is likely is the continued consolidation of the right-wing duopoly, most evident in the erosion of civil liberties and the war on terrorism. Somewhere along the line, America lost its political freedom without even realizing it.:nuke:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. Every historian knows Kos never picks winners.

[AX10]

27. True.

Kos, Huffington Post, TPM, etc are the hard core left wing. They don't pick winners, nor do their right wing counterparts.

[boston bean]

29. by saying they were the party of ideas, pretty much implies the dems had none. nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

31. why do you bother trying to educate these people?

they are either too dumb to understand what you're trying to say

or too dishonest to admit you're right.