Skip to main content

View Diary: OMG but John Harwood is a tool. (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What is wrong about it, maybe not "false" in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, Cpqemp, Ralphdog

    the sense of "deliberately misleading" is that while you may have more self-defined "liberals" or "progressives elected in this most recent election (who haven't taken office yet, btw) their effect in Congress is not to push bigger and bigger government efforts but to bolster the line against privatizing social security, slashing environmental protection, etc.
    They've looked for ways to bend as much as possible without handing the game over to the gop (and Kochs, Wall Street, etc) totally.

    Our problems have been caused by the coalition of radical religious right operatives and Wall Street whores in the gop, with an enabling function by some Dems (esp. Senators from farm states like Kent Conrad or banking centers like Joe Lieberman, aka Satan's waterboy.)
    This group have so screwed up the economy by raping and pillaging the middle class that they have pinched off demand, and have threatened the sustainability of capitalism itself.
    In other words, there's no equivalency.
    Wall Street is a massive tumor on the US economy, and it's hard for someone like Harwood to come out and state that clearly.

    John Harwood is often one of the better reporters, and calls bullshit on the gop from time to time, but his larger vision of what's going on is astigmatic from too much time in the beltway. Mainstream reporters are going to necessarily mush up the narrative, but there's ways to do that without contributing to a wholly fictitious narrative.
    If they just had an electrode implanted that would go off when they start with the "false equivalency" it would help tremendously. They could fudge and make nice for the right wing fanatics without victimizing the nation.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 05:49:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't disagree at all with your analysis of what (0+ / 0-)

      is wrong with the economy and indeed the nation. However, what Harwood said does not seem to be a false equivalency to me. As I said, I can only base this on the diarist's account of Harwood's statement, but it did not seem to me that he was blaming both sides, just stating that it is harder to get them to agree since they are more polarized than before. Maybe he said some other things that would have had me jumping up and cursing the TV, but judging by the one statement in the diary, I cannot disagree with him.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:00:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The left isn't more polarized; it's not even left. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marty marty, David54

        That's what's pure distilled Broderist bullshit here: the notion that the left is more polarized than it has been in the past. To the utter contrary, Congressional Dems are rightly notorious in recent years for bending over backwards to accommodate the lunatics on the right. "Thank you sir, may I please have another" comes to mind.

        After winning the election convincingly, the Democrats have finally taken that as a sign from the electorate that they should stop grabbing their ankles for the Republicans. That's not polarization; it's putting down the white flag for a change.

        The current Republican right is so far out on the lunatic fringe that the only way to 'compromise' with them is abject surrender. That doesn't fit any real world definition of compromise.

        No, both sides aren't equally at fault. Both sides aren't doing it.

        •  He did not say the Dems were more polarized, (0+ / 0-)

          he said the Congress was more polarized because the Repubs were more to the right and the Dems were more to the left than before. That is true.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:56:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  On what planet are Dems more to the left? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            This is just plain absurd. Yes, the ranks of DINO/Blue Dogs were thinned considerably. But the House and Senate Democratic caucuses are not remotely leftist or liberal. They are well to the right of Richard Freaking Nixon on issues ranging from energy policy to privacy to civil rights.

          •  Dems are more Left than before when? (0+ / 0-)
          •  I have to agree with Ralphdog. There is virtually (0+ / 0-)

            no "left" anymore.
            "Right/left" is not really a good polarity to construct a discussion anymore.
            "Conservatives" are not really "conservative" anymore.
            They're radically, destructively regressive.
            The average moderate Dem is more "conservative" than what is labeled "conservative".

            Progressives today, and certainly good faith Dems, are interested in preserving a sustainable form of capitalism rather than the catastrophic institutionalizing of destructive, unfettered greed that Wall Street represents today.
            That isn't even "free market". It's totally dependent on corporate welfare, especially in the MIC sector, and petroleum based agriculture.
            Lest we forget, it's also socialism for the behemoth banks when they get in trouble.

            It's "polarized" when we simply say "enough" and quit bending over and taking it up the ass from Wall Street and the gop.

            In the past few years, there has been a slight tick to a more liberal/progressive stance among Dem office holders. But if you look back 40 years ago, there were actually liberal Republican Senators that were more liberal than the average Dem today.  

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 05:33:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site