Monday, April 17, 2006

The Pesky Fly had an interesting Sunday Dinner

UPDATE: sorry for the screw-up on that! Pesky was with his folks..

with his family in the Clarksville area and he posts about it here.

I am stealing from the comments, first mine after Pesky noted that his father was upset about Kurita's departure, then Jeff's:

The DLCers really believe that HFJr can connect better with people like your Dad than Ros could. That's why they keep losing; it's as if they are TRYING to kill the Democratic Party. LeftWingCracker

I think they are. With everything the Republican party has done in their effort to build a one-party government (stated goal), from buying up media and electronic voting companies to Swift-boating John Kerry......would it really be all that surprising to discover that they have placed double-agents into powerful positions within Democratic ranks in order to sabotage any Democratic effort to regain power?

I mean, seriously, this is what states attempt to do all the time. If I'm not mistaken, the principle is described in the Art of War by Sun Tzu. This is what people at war do, and the Republican party has been in a state of war with the Democratic party ever since Nixon was driven out.

It's entirely possible, and I suggest probable, that powerful elements within the party are in fact saboteurs. What better weapon could you have in your aresenal than a go-to consultant who your enemy depends on for strategy. They'd be virtually helpless, and that, friends, is a fair description of the Democratic party at the national level. Jeff

Do things start to make more sense now?


GCantStandYa said...

IN the immortal words of GOB, "C'MON!". Double agents! Are we supposed to take this seriously?

hayduke said...

Maybe DLC really stands for Destroying Liberal Candidates.

Brassmask said...

I've been saying it since the Clintons undermined Howard Dean and then had operatives go on to sink the Kerry campaign.

If you will remember, Kerry was quoted somewhere as saying, "I was being told we had it sewn up..." paraphrasing.

When people want power, they will do what is necessary to get it.

I had a political neophyte tell me right after Bush stole the 2000 election that voting was not necessary becase the Bushes and the Clintons had made a backroom pact (she had no proof just conjecture) that Bush and neo-cons got 8 years and could do whatever they wanted and then Hillary would get 8 years and could do whatever they wanted.

At the time, I just laughed and said she was crazy. But when I look at how the Dems have just been limpwristed panty-wastes and Hillary has been consistently "middle-of-the-road" and seems a shoo-in for the nomination, alot of people saying it is a done deal since she has so much money, I have to say that it sounds less crazy these days.

I may be wrong but it seems like the DLC has a pretty crappy record with getting its candidates elected EXCEPT when there is a Clinton involved.

And you may recall that when Dean started sparking crowds the DLC came out and totally lambasted him in a letter.

Now, I'm not talking about lizard people or anything and this is pretty far out there stuff but I think about it sometimes and I'm not afraid to get into that side of it. (Meaning conspiracy not lizard people. :) I'm not that crazy yet! )

I mean, you only have to look at our mayor and know that playing on both sides is not uncommon.

mike said...

Paranoia is a sure sign of trouble.

I've said for years that Democrats learned the wrong lessons from the Clinton years. Yes, for Bill himself they were a fantastic time. But his charisma was a once in a generation thing that only benefitted him. For everyone else in the Party it was a horrible massacre. It was the biggest shift in elected officials (from Democrat to Republican) in American history -- both in numbers and percentages.

This is rightly a time of retrenchment for y'all.

I'll make a prediction: when the Republicans lose some house seats in the fall, Democrats will think they've done something right. There will be huge stories day after day about the "return of the Democrats."

Don't buy it. The problems of the Republicans are of their own making. The lessons of their '94 victory have been repudiated. Their spending and lax border security handling and the "Homeland Security" monster they've created have pissed off the base pretty badly. They're going to pay for that and, if they don't mend their ways ASAP will pay for a while.

That's just them being greedy now that they control the Federal money hose, trading principle for profit. It won't be y'all's doing, and don't forget that or you'll fare even worse for longer still.

polar donkey said...

I think politicians will cut deals with each other to maintain their political power. Even if it is not to a level of plotting, there can be a collussion of interests. A minority leader may work with the majority in order to keep that minority leader position. Better to keep a leadership position, even in the minority, than to be completely out of power.

It's about the establishment holding onto its power rather than surrender it to newcomers. The question boils down to are you more interested in individual political power and position or advancing the agenda. Some may argue it's more important to get any democrat elected to advance the Party. Others will argue, the party is a vehicle to advance the cause. It doesn't necessarily advance the party or cause to support any Democratic candidate, even marble dropping sabotuers, for short term political gains. Look at the religious right. They support the republicans as long as the party promotes their agenda. If the Republican Party doesn't perform, the religious right has no problem sitting at home on election day.

I think this is the main difference between Ford supporters and Ford opponents. Is your goal pushing the agenda forward or keep getting the same politicians elected?

PeskyFly said...

First, it's MY family who live in the Clarksville area. Secondly, not all speculation--wild or otherwise-- counts as paranoia.

Declassified documents from the 50's & 60's show that top ranking US officials had plans to commit acts of terror on US citizens. Until these documents came into the open, anyone who suggested as much were called paranoid.

Crying paranoia is nearly as dangerous as the affliction itself because it denies worst and/or unusual cases.

Lastly, I don't think we've got double agents, I think we've got free agents using the party mechanism for their own interests. I can't speak for Jeff, but I'd bet those are his thoughts as well. The rest simply makes for fun discussion/reading.

Brassmask said...

Most times when people see paranoia, I see healthy skepticism and open-mindedness.

mike said...

Steve, I thought I had your email but I can't find it. Can you email me (halfbakered at hollihan dort net)? I have an idea for something of a humorous but informative nature I think you might be interested in. Thanks!