home

What Digby Said

. . . about the weenie Beltway Left:

Ta-Nehesi Coates and Matt Yglesias (both of whom I have great respect and even affection for) are being bizarrely literal about [Markos' book American Taliban. . . .] Since only one person in this exchange has actually read the book I'm guessing writing is not the real source of this argument. It feels remarkably like the many old arguments we've had over the years about whether or not "the left" is embarrassing everyone by acting out and breaking the rules of polite political discourse. And that argument's been going on as long as I can remember.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed. This is merely the continuing battle about Fighting Dems and Conciliatory Dems. When I was at Daily Kos (from 2003 through 2006) this was the never ending daily battle. This is more of the same, with the added bit of uninformed personal smears against Markos as good as the vintage smears by The New Republic against Markos. Digby writes:

I have to say that it's remarkably uncharitable for so many people to make the unsupported assertion that Markos wrote this book to gain attention, traffic or whatever.

Digby is remarkably charitable to call it "uncharitable." It is typical Beltway Left behavior from folks who have spent a lot of time defending the likes of Jeff Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan.

Speaking for me only

< When The Truth Matters | It's Still The Economy, Stupid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    There's irony all around. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by dk on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    Markos is the guy who wanted to primary Dennis Kucinich, right?

    But, I agree it makes no sense for the other bozos to be discussing a book that none of them has read yet.

    As if burning your bra or your draft (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    card was polite political discourse.  As if sending the National Guard in so that people could go to school was polite political discourse.  As if Bush threatening to arrest a woman outside his ranch wanting to know "What Noble Cause?" was polite political discourse.  As if everyone who showed up after the arrest threat to get arrested too was polite political discourse.  As if the thousands of people who drove to Crawford Texas that Saturday was polite political discourse.....but it broke the silence about questioning the Iraq War.

    What is likely to happen though is that a book I probably would not have read anytime soon because I'm not a big Kos fan will probably have to be read in short order to discover the truths :)

    I lost (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:41:48 AM EST
    interest in Kos from his behavior during the primaries but I would think that the critics should at least read the book.

    It's kind of ironic that Kos always wanted a fighting Dem or at least said he did and yet, his candidate of choice Obama, has turned into the ultimate wuss.

    No more primary talk please (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    That is pretty ironic (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:42:48 AM EST
    Apart From The Usual Suspects (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    The spite shown by some, because Markos campaigned for Obama, is remarkable, but sadly not surprising.

    Let's try to keep this sort (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:46:12 AM EST
    of thing down today, shall we?

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    If you tell the usual suspects here the same... A few of the comments in other threads are really unfair, imo.

    Parent
    The Talkleft Taliban :) (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    Hardly (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:55:42 AM EST
    Too petty, and self destructive for that comparison.

    I prefer not to dilute Markos' comparison of the Taliban, with the American right wing extremists, who are arguing that they hold the center. Of course the American Taliban's fearmongering does seem to draw in quite a few WATBs who would otherwise be more moderate.

    Parent

    So you are upset (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:57:51 AM EST
    because some on here voice dislike of Markos?

    Parent
    Let it go (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    It is unreasonable for people, who have not read his book to criticize it because he campaigned for Obama.

    Best to stick with arguments about the merits of the book, rather than play out vendettas using an unread book as fodder.

    Parent

    Let it go please (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    Sorry BTD (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    I couldn't let such a gross mischaracterization of my comment go without refuting it.

    If you want to delete the thread, that is fine with me.

    Parent

    Let's just drop it (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    I'll put up the occasional open fighting thread so that this can be discussed there.

    Parent
    The irony here should be obvious... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    ... to all but the usual suspect, that is.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    Digby (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    IMO makes and misses a point here:

    He isn't saying they are interchangeable. That's ridiculous. Obviously, one exists within a secular Western democracy with a rule of law and the other well ... doesn't.

    its true they are not interchangeable but IMO the reason they are not is BECAUSE one exists in an, at least to this point mostly, secular western democracy and one does not.
    I have stated my opinion before that without the checks we have there would be little difference.
    the goals are the same.  the rhetoric is the same.  hell, they share many saints.

    I think Markos may be the one being charitable.

    One thing that I notice (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:11:46 AM EST
    (without having read the book yet), I think this issue may be Markos' passion.  I think this may be what Kos is an activist about.  I say this because of some of his responses during the Pie Wars and about how he was not going to have his site censored in any way that mimicked what the right wing was culturally doing to our society.  I remember everything he said at that time fairly clearly because everything that was taking place at that time is somewhat seared into my brain.  I could not understand how he could be as blind as he seemed to be about objectification and how that can affect some individuals who have scars from being objectified.

    But perhaps the guy who dogged activists was blind to his own activist passion, and a passion in its early stages always involves a lot of learning....some of which will come with road rash :)

    Parent

    think its (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    clearly one of his passions at least.  for a while.  its why I have liked and identified with the guy even whey he said and did what I thought were dumb things.  

    also this is not exactly a new idea.  for example.  if you google "the american taliban" markos is not even on the first page.


    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    sorry on a second look he does have one entry on the first page.

    Parent
    He has been talking about (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    the American Taliban for years.

    This is not new.

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    I know he has.  was just making the point that this concept is not new

    Parent
    not new (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    but it just doesnt get a lot of media coverage.

    funny that.  maybe this book will help with this.

    Parent

    I think this fight, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    with the american taliban, will be battle of the new century.  they, not the poor stupid underfunded furriners, are going to be the ones to mount the most serious threat to freedom this country has ever faced at least since the civil war. I hate to sound like Cassandra but I believe it.  partly because as I have said many times I know and have seen it from inside my own family.

    I had a chat with our own relentlessly upbeat CST the other day about right wing extremism dying with this generation.  sorry CST.  I dont think so.  I think they are just getting their second wind.  they are represented in government and media in ways they have not been in the past.  they have the excitement and the momentum in this countrys politics.

    they are coming.  are we ready?  I dont think we are at all.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by dk on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    over CST regarding the idea that this stuff is not going away.  But, in a way, I think it's for that reason I disagree that this is the battle of the new century.

    To me, it's pretty much the same as it always was with that crowd.  All the bigotry and hatred (usually based on adherance to religion) is nothing new.  This has always, unfortunately IMO, been too religious a country.

    The real change over the last few decades, IMO, has been the concentration of wealth, power, control over the media, etc. in the hands of a limited number of very wealthy individuals and corporations that are decidedly not the American Taliban.  They are just old fashioned greedy people.  That's the battle of the new century, as far as I'm concerned.  Will those people manipulate the american taliban folks to service their own greedy ends?  Sure, people who are that religion seem by definition eaily malleable.  But the winners will be the oligarchy, IMO.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    well.  the oligarchy has been bitten on the a$$ before by people they sought to control.  IMO if the "oligarchy" thinks they can control the tea party, pass the popcorn.

    but I completely disagree that its "the same as it always was".  it isnt.
    these people would roast and eat Barry Goldwater in the ashes of the Senate.  

    Parent

    Well, I'm not talking about the (none / 0) (#29)
    by dk on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    politicians.  I don't really think most of them believe the stuff they say anyway. They're just pols.

    I was talking about the rank and file.  And I don't think they're all that different now.  

    Parent

    if you dont think (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    the overton window is being dragged to the right relentlessly you simply have not been paying attention.

    but then from some of you other comments I would guess that you dont get that.

    Parent

    I certainly think the Overton (none / 0) (#32)
    by dk on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    window has most certainly been dragged to the right.  But I think we are just disagreeing on what that means.  To me, that means the concentration of wealth in the hands of the oligarchs.   There is plenty of statistical evidence that this has occurred.

    Parent
    I wouldnt disagree (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:52:24 AM EST
    that the concentration of wealth is a huge problem that is probably at least partly to blame for our politics.

    but the foot soldiers dont give a rats a$$ about that.  they are marching behind Glen of Arc.  they have been completely co-opted.  Reagan showed republicans how to get them to vote against their own interest and that has since been raised to an art form.


    Parent

    Be nice (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    Do you think (none / 0) (#35)
    by hookfan on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    that younger evangelicals (say under 30) are becoming more moderate?

    Parent
    I know some are (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    but they are not in the drivers seat

    Parent
    For sure (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by hookfan on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    I'm not disagreeing with you. However, in the case of the Evangelicals younger generation, only 40% identify as Republican (down from 55-60% iirc before 2008). As to how many identify as democratic, I currently don't know (will have to get the pew poll and perhaps see), but it was like 30% before Obama.
       Although I don't agree with Obama now on much, one good thing he may have done is help drive a wedge between the generations of Evangelicals in that many voted for him, and their top priorities are no longer abortion issues, nor gay marriage. They seem to be broadening in support of more traditional mainline churches' interests in reducing poverty and also broadening into concerns about environmental issues.
       I wonder if we run the risk of alienating future support on issues like climate change, and the newly growing population of impoverished by painting all of them with the "OMG they're all going to kill us brush". However, you have a definite point with corrent leadership. Ten years from now, though, I wonder.

    Parent
    you have probably seen (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    seen my say before I am from a family of evangelicals many of whom are yellow dog democrats.
    they have always been around.  it might be interesting to see what impact expanding their viewpoint might have on politics.

    my suspicion, not much.  if they cant be whipped up with hate and fear what good are they to the republicans?


    Parent

    The less good (none / 0) (#39)
    by hookfan on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:46:59 AM EST
    they are to repubs the better, imo. Many Evangelicals, contrary to stereotype, have become middle class. I'm very curious how their now precarious financial situation (same boat as the rest of us) will/will not influence their perspectives and priorities.
      I remember well before the 80's that most Evangelicals were apolitical, and very focused on helping the poor and sick. Many were anti war. Those positions are still viable, and I wonder if a resurrection will occurr as their financial situation deteriorates. The "prosperity gospel" isn't too palatable if you're the one on the outs. It will be interesting to see.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:19:36 PM EST
    I have to say that again just from my own family experience, some under 30 are becoming less strident.  on the other hand others under 30 are far worse than their parents.  
    in my own experience the latter outnumber the former.


    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    with you too. Living here in Ga and seeing what they are capable of is why I never thought PPUS was a very good idea. The dems in washington seem so clueless as to actually how crazy these people are. Do they actually buy into the narrative that the 90's were all the fault of Bill Clinton? Maybe they are learning a little bit now or maybe they are not. I think they are shrugging off the criticism of Obama as racism and not really dealing with the reality of how nuts conservatives really are.

    Parent
    how crazy are they (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    Glen Beck is their new messiah. THAT is how crazy they are.

    Parent
    Maybe they see through Glen Beck (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    but just want their 15 minutes of fame.  For example, the obese woman stretched out in a lawn chair on the mall and a media mic a foot from her face.  

    Parent
    So, let me get this straight... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:21:59 PM EST
    a President who:

    1. As a candidate, normalized the Bush policy of warrantless surviellance by granting retroactive immunity to the telcos,

    2. Promised to close Gitmo and hasn't,

    3. Hasn't indicted a single torturer, and

    4. Claims the right to assassinate US citizens on command

    is not "the most serious threat to freedom this country has ever faced," and the tea partiers are? Why, please?

    Parent
    Kos isn't part of the Beltway left? (none / 0) (#42)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    Alrighty, then.