This little nugget from the NY Times’ Frank Rich:
“The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that’s as trying as war.”
As trying as war? This is Obama’s disaster rhetoric being regurgitated by his base aka the MSM. Mr. Rich, we have been in trying times as difficult as war, in fact they are wars, two of them. As far as your beloved liberal democrats go, all-hands-on-deck would be the last way I choose to describe them during those trying times. No, instead as our soldiers took up the fight, your party screamed from the mountain tops that the ‘war was lost’. That, Mr. Rich, is clownish, that is childish, that is down right pathetic.
By the way, Mr. Rich, that lost cause in Iraq you liberals have smeared and railed against just saw another round of free elections. And wouldn’t you know it, the MSM didn’t seem to care.
Democracy lives in Iraq despite the efforts of your party, Mr. Rich, even as your new president slowly chips away at it here at home.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:33 am
This is an absolutely terrible post. The major problem is that it, ostensibly a response to Frank Rich, completely and totally fails to address what he actually says. Rich has two claims: we are in a crisis, and the Republican Party is “clownish” and “childish.”
Twain utterly fails to respond to the argument about the Republican Party being childish. He also does not refute in any way the argument that we are in a crisis or defend the Republican Party. Instead, he relies entirely on ad hominem attacks. His response is that the Democrats behaved badly on the topics of Afghanistan and Iraq. This, of course, does not actually address the quote he is responding to.
If Twain wants to attack, he should at least be honest about it. Setting it up as a response to Frank Rich is just silly.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
“Twain utterly fails to respond to the argument about the Republican Party being childish.” Does it not occur to anyone that Mr. Twain and other do not agree with the premise that the GOP is childish?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:04 am
2
Joe, Obviously we surmise that Twain doesnt agree with Rich. The point that Autodidact made – a very good point, is that Twain does nothing to make a case against Rich – he doesnt show that Rich said something wrong, he doesnt counter his logic, he actually has nothing at all to say about the substance of Rich’s argument.. He just launches into a mindless rant on a completely different topic from the one Rich addressed. IF anything, he helps prove Rich’s point.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
Are you kidding me, Tano and Autodidact?
I didn’t think that the post was anything great, but Frank Rich didn’t exactly do anything other than call names. You’ve got little problem with Rich’s “logic.” What “substance of Rich’s argument”? There is no substance.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
The more I think about it, the angrier it makes me — and Max’s point is very good, despite the poor tone — because he’s implying that war efforts are all-hands-on-deck, and Congressional Democrats voted for the war and then did what they could to undermine it: call the Commander-in-Chief a liar, declare the war “lost,” refuse to report good news, obsess over Abu Ghraib and Valerie f’ing Plame…bringing down the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war became their sole mission…they were invested in defeat. What was good for the insurgency was good for the Democrats.
Honestly, it’s unprecedented. At every other time in America’s history, there was debate leading up to the war, but once we were in, we were in it to win it and the opposing party shut up and got behind the military’s efforts. We put up a united front. No longer.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
4
Alex, you get a big “huh?”
Did you actually read Rich’s article?
Interestingly, it addresses just the point that Twain made in his other post. Rich actually makes the case that the economy is far worse than Obama is letting on. He gives a litany of facts to make that case.
Then he goes on to characterize the Congressional Republicans as utterly feckless in the face of this crisis – intent on finding ways to score political points, to prove their relevance, but with no real attempt to propose anything that would actually help the situation.
As he puts it: “No one should expect the Republicans to give the new president carte blanche, fall blindly into lock step or be “post-partisan.” (Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)
But you might think that a loyal opposition would want to pitch in and play a serious role at a time of national peril. Not by singing “Kumbaya” but by collaborating on possible solutions and advancing a policy debate that many Americans’ lives depend on.”
“If anything, the Republican Congressional leadership seems to be emulating John McCain’s September stunt of “suspending” his campaign to “fix” the Wall Street meltdown. For all his bluster, McCain in the end had no fixes to offer and sat like a pet rock at the White House meeting on the crisis before capitulating to the bailout. His imitators likewise posture in public about their determination to take action, then do nothing while more and more Americans cry for help.”
He then goes on to discuss Republican economic policies of the past and how they actually worked or didnt work in the real world. And he ends with noting the uselessness of some of the rhetoric of Congressional REpublicans, and Some of the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh – who for some strange reason is grabbing a lot of attention as some kind of spokesman for your party.
YOu need not agree with much or any of all this, but it is ridiculous to claim that Rich does nothing but call names. It is a serious argument – I think a telling indictment of your party. I suggest you take it seriously.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
“Honestly, it’s unprecedented. At every other time in America’s history, there was debate leading up to the war, but once we were in, we were in it to win it and the opposing party shut up and got behind the military’s efforts”
Attaboy Alex. Show us how little you know of American history.
Ever hear of Vietnam?
Here in the land of the free, when the ruling party makes a mistake, the opposition speaks out about it.
If you dont like that, well maybe you should go live in a dictatorship. There, I can assure you, that when the government makes a decision, everyone has to shut up – just the way you like it.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:35 am
No, actually, Tano, the parties were fairly united in the Vietnam War for the vast majority of the effort.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
When the ruling party makes a mistake, especially in a war, the opposition, especially one that voted to authorize the war in the first place (!!!), has a responsibility to put it in context, speak of it responsibly, not overlook the good, and put the soldiers first. The Democrats did not do that. They blatantly put people’s lives at additional risk for their own political gain. For that, I will never forgive Harry Reid.
WAR has never been a PARTISAN issue in America until very modern times. It didn’t happen in a vacuum, of course; honor and virtue and patriotism have all declined, too, with the cultural left being the first to abandon such traits.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
#7 Tano
“Here in the land of the free, when the ruling party makes a mistake, the opposition speaks out about it.
If you dont like that, well maybe you should go live in a dictatorship. There, I can assure you, that when the government makes a decision, everyone has to shut up – just the way you like it.”
Not only “when the ruling party makes a mistake” but also when the ruling party is going to make a mistake.
I think Twain was highlighting the irony in this article. Nothing else required.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Alex, you do not know what you are talking about.
By ’68 (essentially the third of the eight years of major involvement) the majority of the American people were turning against the war, and the level of contentiousness about the war was deafening. LBJ, before withdrawing, was challanged by an anti-war candidate. Bobby Kennedy became antiwar. Even Nixon ran on a platform of ending the war through withdrawl (with honor!), not victory. How exactly to do that turned out to be an enormously contentious argument that went on for the next 4 years, on a daily basis.
Seriously, your statement is absurd in the extreme.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War#1969
March polls indicate that 19% of Americans want the war to end as soon as possible, 26% want South Vietnam to take over responsibility for the war from the U.S., 19% favor the current policy and 33% want total military victory.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Does anyone really believe that Frank Rich truly wants an effective opposition party? Please.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Most Americans began to believe it was a mistake, but the public still wanted VICTORY, and neither party tried to obstruct.
THAT is what makes the behavior of today’s Democrats unprecedented.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
In what policy areas does Frank Rich wish the GOP to provide a more serious and effective opposition to the Democrats? Let’s see the list.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Rich claims the GOP is clownish and childish because of their opposition to Obama’s stimulus/welfare bill. Rather than acknowledge the very real problems in this bill, Rich sensationalizes the situation by claiming this economic downturn is the equivalent of a war in terms of its national importance and seriousness. Rich, of course, is completely wrong. Not only is the downturn no where close to as trying as a war effort, it is not even at the level of other downturns in recent history.
The 3.8 percent decline is only the 13th worst since the Commerce Department began doing quarterly reports in 1947. This means that there’s been twelve worse quarters since 1946, and none of them signalled the end of days. Times are tough, hard work needs to be done, but a war this is not.
“Here in the land of the free, when the ruling party makes a mistake, the opposition speaks out about it.” – Tano-Kos
Unless the ruling party is liberal, the mistake is a bloated stimulus leading to a 2 trillion dollar deficit, and the opposition speaking out is the GOP, right Tano-Kos?
February 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
16, well said.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
16, yes, well said.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
“WAR has never been a PARTISAN issue in America until very modern times.”
Hmmm. I wonder what you would make of the civil war.
“It didn’t happen in a vacuum, of course; honor and virtue and patriotism have all declined, too, with the cultural left being the first to abandon such traits.”
Honor and virtue and patriotism are alive and well Alex. The issue is simply that free people have a right, and an obligation to make their voices heard in a democracy. In fact, the very premise of a democracy is that a country’s policies will be better precisely because the people speak up – speak their mind.
Politicians, especially those from Texas, are prone to make mistakes, and some are terribly costly. LBJ and Bush may well have been well-intentioned, sincerely doing what they thought was in the best interests of the country. But they were mistaken, and it is downright unAmerican to argue that we the people should shut up about that if that is how we feel.
As it is, we killed 3 million – yeah, 3 MILLION Vietnamese, because we made an ignorant mistake, thinking that their decades long anti-colonial war of independence was actually some proxy war of us against the Soviets. By time most all of us came to realize this, we had lost tens of thousands of our own young men. It would have gone on for years longer, with millions of more innocents killed, and tens of thousands of more Americans, with the same end result, were it not for American people speaking up, and provoking a huge poltical fight.
‘but the public still wanted VICTORY,”
Actually, that is not right at all. Sure, in one sense, victory would be nice. But the American people wanted OUT. Because they realized that “victory” was impossible, unless we went in and nuked everyone in the country. And what would be the point of that? The war was a mistake. You stop digging.
I lived through that period Alex. I was a teenage political junkie, waiting to be drafted throughout the war. I remember every bit of it.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:43 am
19 – Tano, don’t be retarded; if you have to resort to the Civil War to make your point, then you’re only proving mine.
Also, no one is contesting their right to speak out. But I’m also saying that rights come with responsibilities.
Actually, no, the American people did not want out, at least not according to the polls.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The Rich column was about the behavior of the GOP as an opposition party, not about how Democrats mismanaged the war in Viet Nam. In passing it should be noted that the people of Iraq are now voting, which as someone said is what victory looks like. That’s in contrast to re-education camps, a Cambodian holocaust, and boat people, the species of outcome today’s Democrats were only too willing to see replicated in Iraq. But to get back to the actual subject of the column:
Frank Rich is nothing but a standard-issue shameless, rabid, partisan hack if the most pedestrian, predictable sort. His claim to wish that the GOP would be a more serious and effective opposition party is so blatantly disingenuous it’s laughable. His idea of opposition is “All Hands On Deck.”
I don’t think Rich really quite understands the concept of opposition, at least when it opposes what he favors. He just can’t conceive of such opposition having any principled basis, so it must be merely childish obstruction of what Frank wants. Rich is a fellow who knows what he likes, knows what he doesn’t like, and knows what his readers on the Upper West Side want to hear. What he is not is a deep thinker. That anyone can mistake his shilling and ranting for serious political analysis is nothing short of hilarious.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
How about a Super Sunday prediction thread?
February 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“I didn’t think that the post was anything great, but Frank Rich didn’t exactly do anything other than call names. You’ve got little problem with Rich’s “logic.” What “substance of Rich’s argument”? There is no substance.”
See, this is the sort of thing I’m talking about. Even if Rich was just calling names – literally – then why should Twain respond in kind? Just because the Democrats are slinging mud doesn’t mean that Republicans should do the same.
On the other hand, comment #16 is exactly what should have gone in the original post in the first place: a well-reasoned rebuttal to Rich. Well done.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
16
The name is Tano, not Tano-Kos. For someone who whines about namecalling, its rather odd that namecalling is your first instinct.
I dont see that you have much of a point. I have no problem with you guys dissenting from Obama’s policy. ITs just you do so in such an incompetent manner.
It seems to me that what is needed now for the economy is EXACTLY what our dearly departed president felt was the appropriate response to a war -namely, for the citizenry to go out and spend money – go shopping.
Your downplaying of the seriousness of the economic situation is at odds with the opinion of most economists, including republicans and conservatives. The 3.8% decline in the 4th quarter is only the beginning of a decline that is already baked in.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Tano, why do you stick around? You obviously think we’re a bunch of deranged whiners who can’t slap together a logical argument. Obviously, I don’t agree, but that’s clearly your point of view. All you ever seem to do around here is express (manufactured) righteous incredulity and look down your nose at everyone. It’s a little exasperating, and a waste of your time.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
People tired of the Vietnam War because of the fact that the military was not allowed to fight it to win. Near the end of it when Nixon bombed Hanoii for a short period, and mined the Haiphong hHarbor, he reached an all time high of 91% approval rating. The press and college campus’ showed a total lack of support to win the War, noone else. I was in the Marine Corps at the time. I could stand by the road and be picked up within a minute or two if I wanted to hitchhiked. They would drive way out of the way to help us get somewhere. You’d never know it by the press today, but that was the way it was. I lost a great 1st cousin in that War that our pansy butt congressmen wouldn’t let us fight.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Illinoisguy,
Either you are purposely spreading lies or you are totally clueless.
Nixon never had anything close to a 91% approval rating – his rating after the bombing of Haiphong (which was followed with the peace treaty a month later and complete US withdrawl – was 67%.
The military could not win the war, not without nuking every city in the North. You really should educate yourself about the reality of that war, rather than spouting this utter nonsense. T
“The press and college campus’ showed a total lack of support to win the War, noone else. ”
Once again – that is absurd. Nixon himself, when he first ran in ’68, ran on a platform of getting us out of there.
It is downright obscene that you can casually spout such complete falsehoods about something you know nothing about, and which had such enormous consequences on the lives of millions of people.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:15 am
Whenever you read the ravings of a leftwinger or a media pundit (but I repeat myself), the best way to understand their motives in writing/saying what they do is to view it as “projection,” a recognized mental illness. Whatever they accuse the right of, they are doubly guilty of.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
Well said My2Cents, I have never been to Vietnam, but I have no doubt that Illinoisguy is the one telling it straight.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
we have learned the lesson of vietnam, stay the hell out of vietnam.