Skip to main content

(From the diaries -- kos)

Just when you think that Grover Norquist can sink no lower, he opens his mouth.  In an interview with Spanish paper El Mundo, Norquist hit a new low. When asked about if he thought Democratic Party was coming to an end Norquist told Pablo Pardo of El Mundo:

"Yes, because in addition their demographic base is shrinking.  Each year, 2 million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exeception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies.  They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party. And they are dying. And, at the same time, all the time more Americans have stocks. That makes them defend the interests of business, because it is their own interest. Because of that, it's impossible to bring to the fore policies of social hate, of class warfare."
That's right, the Bush camp is cheering on the death of America's Greatest Generation. Are they trying to channel the spirit of Joseph McCarthy?

Have they no sense of shame?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:42 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Let Me Answer Your Question (3.00)
    Yes. They have no shame, except if they get caught with their penis in somebody's butthole. Especially "drown government in the bathtub" Norquist.

    I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws -John Kerry

    by easong on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:24:43 PM PDT

    •  The question was more rhetorical than not (4.00)
      but seriously going after the Greatest Generation.  That just seems to cross the line.  The sad thing about it is I would never have known about this if it hadn't been linked to by a Spanish site I visit.  How mch of this stuff just floats away?
      •  Jesus christ (none)
        My grandfather, a veteran of the navy in the Pacific theater, is a staunch Republican, in Ohio no less; I guess it's appropriate for Norquist to be alienating him.  

        Maybe someone on our side mastered the art of mind control and is having a bit of fun.  I guess I should put on a nice shiny hat in case there's retaliation...

        The Republicans need a divided country. But we don't. --Big Dog

        by froggywomp on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:43:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  PS (none)
          This little tidbit isn't going to float away.  Yay for blogs!  This strikes me as potentially similar to Trent Lott--his comment nearly went down the river Lethe, but blogs kept it swirling in an eddy until it got sprayed all over the place.  It happened once; I hope it happens again.

          The Republicans need a divided country. But we don't. --Big Dog

          by froggywomp on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:45:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your grandfather (none)
          I hope you're sending this quote to him!

          I must not think bad thoughts. --John Doe

          by Joan McCarter on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:49:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Norquist is the center of the VRWC (none)
      His weekly meetings with the anti-government, fringy conservatives are the engine of destruction of our politics.

      I can't think of someone other than Norquist and Delay that have done more damage to our country, and now he's saying that anybody that supports any government activity is anti-democratic.

      What horsecrap!

      "pay any price, bear any burden"

      by JimPortlandOR on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:17:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan (none)

        It's early April, tax time, and Grover Norquist is moving into high gear. The President's $1.6 trillion tax cut package is working its way through Congress, and Norquist--president of Americans for Tax Reform and arguably Washington's leading right-wing strategist--is rushing from meetings on Capitol Hill to strategy sessions with antitax activists. One minute he's putting the finishing touches on planned demonstrations in Washington and all fifty state capitals on tax-return filing day; the next he is juggling appearances on right-wing talk-radio shows and stints on MSNBC and Fox. And, as he has for nearly eight years, Norquist is coordinating the agenda for his signature event, the regular "Wednesday meeting" that draws more than a hundred representatives of conservative groups to a standing-room-only conference room at his organization's L Street offices.

        The Nation

        "pay any price, bear any burden"

        by JimPortlandOR on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:26:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who exactly attends these meetings? (none)
        We hear so much the infamous Wednesday meetings and how they draw crowds of influential people, but who exactly are these "influential people?"  Let's have some names and creds!

        "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." - Grover Norquist

        by yatdave on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 08:55:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely shameful (none)
    So John Glenn, among others, believes in anti-American things? That guy probably gave up more of his life than all of the people that Norquist knows, combined. I'm sure Glenn, a decorated veteran, would appreciate being informed that he's against his own country. I bet if he saw a little shit like Grover Norquist, he'd beat him to the ground.

    "I'm not saying that John Kerry has all the answers, but Bush has none, and he's cheating off of Dick Cheney's paper."-Bill Maher

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:25:34 PM PDT

  •  Norquist audio (none)
    Am I the only one that didn't realize that the Norquist audio made the media and that they are citing as the source!

    here's my diary entry on it

    search google news for norquist and dailykos

    "9-11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit, it was a f-ck up by a guy on vacation." -- "New Rules" by Bill Maher

    by wunderwood on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:30:28 PM PDT

  •  aoeu (none)
    Isn't this the slimeball who compared the inheritance tax to the Holocaust?

    My turtles laughter
    was loud when the Yankees lost
    22 to zilch

    by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:31:41 PM PDT

  •  I wonder what (none)
    Bob Dole makes of this ...

    "Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth. It is wise and terrible!"
    Send Steve King back to Crawford County!

    by section29 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:32:31 PM PDT

    •  so force Dole to comment (none)
      the next time he's on Larry King or elsehwere bloviating

      or put it into LTE   --  

      and give Tom Brokaw a heads up

      or even better, copy his words, with his id, and go hand out copies at the WW II Memorial

      eamil it to all the merican Legion posts around teh Country

      hey, if the guy wants to be an idiot, let's indulge him in his idiocy

      Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:43:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  To hell with Bob Dole (none)
      I wonder what Shrub's daddy would think of this?
    •  good point (none)
      Bob Dole makes of this ...

      or Phyllis Schafly or Liddy Dole or William Buckley. Or, well, any decent boomer might be offended to see Grover celebrate the deaths of their parents. Even Lieberman and Novak might be offended. Grover sure has been shooting off his twisted, sociopathic mouth a lot lately.

      Actually, I think the guys to write are Andy Rooney, Jimmy Breslin and Studs Terkel.

      "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

      by colleen on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:57:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It depends... (none)
    on which America this Fucktard is talking about. His America or the America of everybody else? And the whole, more americans are investing is bullshit. More americans companies are offering 401ks which put american workers pensions on the market, but they have little or no choice on how these portfolios are managed except whether to buy or sell the lot. Just ask the faithfull employess of Enron.

    "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country." ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

    by Ralfast on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:32:48 PM PDT

  •  We absolutely (none)
    Have to nail him on this.  The Taft thing was small potatoes, he's calling the generation that served in World War II and lived through the depression Anti-American.  The only anti-american generation.

    Son of a bitch.

    Who do we know in the media that speaks Spanish? - member of the Democratic Signal Machine

    by Mikey on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:15:00 PM PDT

    •  Ok (none)
      I'm going to ask for people to reccomend this.  I want to see Norquist and Bush get nailed on this too.  We know the power of the Kos... Anyone know who I'd send this to with the Kerry campaign, by that I mean someplace it won't be thrown away.
  •  El Mundo is conservative (none)
    and a B-grade paper.  It is NOT a reputable paper on the order of El Pais.  It is a bit of a rag.  Norquist's giving an interview like this to El Mundo is like his giving an interview to the Washington Times.  Or something like that.
    •  Used to be true (none)
      El Mundo started to turn on Aznar because of the war in the last year.  I fail to see how that affects the content of Norquist's statement though.  It's not cravenly right wing like ABC.
      •  You're right-- not as right-wing as ABC (none)
        but still not a paper of the highest order. Good to know, what you say about their turning away from Aznar.  

        Norquist's comments are outrageous, but they are pure Norquist.  Anyway the real problem here is what happens often in such situations, in papers all around the world, when foreign pundits or activists are quoted-- in this case, many Spanish readers don't have a sense of the broad spectrum of American opinions and politics and they wouldn't necessarily know how to properly contextualize Norquist's comments.  

  •  Ann Coulter certainly is! (none)
    That's right, the Bush camp is cheering on the death of America's Greatest Generation. Are they trying to channel the spirit of Joseph McCarthy?

    She thinks McCarthy got a bum rap.

    •  Coulter also ripped the Greatest Generation (none)
      The Courtney Love of pundits said this: "Then there are the 22 million Americans on food stamps. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal."--WorldNetDaily, 12/10/03

      In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Spread it far and wide! (none)
    "Bush ally smears Greatest Generation as Anti-American."

    Seniors vote. The more who are disaffected with the GOP, the better.

    This space for rent.

    by YT on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:43:04 PM PDT

  •  Actually (none)
    I am surprised by his use of the term "anti-American" to describe the New Deal and other anti-libertarian policies.

    But he has a point about 401(k)'s being the death knell of liberalism.

    "Black folks voting for the Republican Party is like a bunch of chickens voting for Col. Sanders!"- JC Watts father

    by BooMan23 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:43:27 PM PDT

    •  Why are you surprised? (none)
      Norquist is a nutball. Anything relating to government action or tax collection is anti-American in his mind.
    •  I disagree (none)
      I've got a 401k, a Roth IRA, several mutual funds, and a deferred compensation portfolio that is mostly stock.  And my pension is heavily invested in the stock market.  But none of this has made me more inclined to support the GOP.  I've come to the conclusion that business is inherently evil, and we need to keep a tight rein on it.  Remember Enron!

      "Why do they call it the World Series if it's always played in the Bronx?"

      by randym77 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:05:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you disagree with? (none)
        I didn't say that everyone with a 401(k) is a member of the GOP.

        I said that Grover is correct that liberalism was wrecked on the shoals of the 401(k) plan.

        "Black folks voting for the Republican Party is like a bunch of chickens voting for Col. Sanders!"- JC Watts father

        by BooMan23 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:08:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Curious (none)
          Do explain this intriguing thought.

          "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

          by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:15:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The explanation is simple (none)
            Everyone who votes has a 401(k) plan, and many people watch CNBC or Bloomberg compulsively.

            Everyone thinks they are a player in the stock market these days, and they are unwilling to question free-trade, they are uneasy about raising the minimum wage.  They oppose costly regulation.  Etc.

            It undermines the ability to stand up to big business by appealing to class resentment.

            That doesn't mean that the 401(k) is a bad thing in itself.  It certainly has helped me save more money that I ever would have otherwise.  

            But it has had a corrosive effect on the viability of progressive issues from health care, to pensions, to environmental protection, to workplace safety, to wages, and on and on down the list.

            "Black folks voting for the Republican Party is like a bunch of chickens voting for Col. Sanders!"- JC Watts father

            by BooMan23 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:29:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Repeat After Me... (none)
              The Economy Does Better Under Democats.

              The Economy Does Better Under Democats.

              The Economy Does Better Under Democats.

              The Economy Does Better Under Democats.

              Its fun to say and it is true.  

              Don't make me get out my charts and aligator clip pointer.

              /Kerry-Edwards 2004/ - Because America Can Do Better, Must Do Better, and Deserves Better

              by ETinKC on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:36:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, but... (4.00)
                ...when's the last time the economy did well, consistently, providing a rising standard of living for a large number of folks? It was in the 1960s. The economy does better under Democrats but it does not do well under them, it's all they can do to get a little boom going. For true economic stability we need to revive the New Deal, for the 21st century.

                "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

                by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:41:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I figured that out (none)
              See my post below.

              I think Norquist is right on this matter. Americans have been cutting their own throats by owning stock and thus having a stake in increased corporate profitability, which has often come in the last 25 years at the expense of the American worker's wages and benefits, thus hurting everyone. It is a system with diminishing returns.

              Moreover, as I understand it, things like the IRA were only introduced in the later '70s or 1980s as people began to lose confidence in the New Deal system's ability to provide for a decent standard of living, thanks to Vietnam-induced inflation. In a real sense then, those IRAs are a direct attack on liberal, Democrat economic thinking.

              "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

              by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:37:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know this is late (none)
                and you may never see this, but people didn't just spontaneously begin to worry about Social Security then; it was these same people who planted the seed then to grow this stinkweed called the "Ownership Society."  Folks need to understand that this man isn't crazy--he wants to return America back to it's "more pure" form which means a return to pre-New Deal America.  ANY social investment is socialism in his eyes and is therefore evil.  This man wants feudalism, plain and simple.  But he's NOT crazy.

                The Republican economic platform: "Stop whining and pop a Prozac, girlie man!"

                by AuntiePeachy on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 06:12:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Nah (4.00)
              Look, I am a worker, and I am a stockholder. But for the most part, I am still a worker. My interests are still not the same as those of CEOs. It may, to some degree, encourage me to appreciate the issues involved in the company's well-being. But it doesn't mean I'm prepared to see workers' rights and such gutted in the name of seeing my handful of shares gain a buck each.
        •  I don't get that. (none)
          I own stocks. This does not make me any more inclined to vote GOP. Their platform is not pro-investor, it's pro-wealthy investor.
        •  I don't think that's true (none)
          Most of America is with the Democrats on that stuff.  They distrust big business.  They want to protect the environment.  They like social security.      

          I think it's the social issues (values) that are the problem.  This country was founded by religious fanatics, and it still shows.  That's what's polarizing the country.  The best predictor of how someone will vote is not whether or not they own stock, it's whether or not they go to church every Sunday.

          "Why do they call it the World Series if it's always played in the Bronx?"

          by randym77 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:20:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Y'all are missing the point (none)
      The rise of the 401(k) marked the decline of the guaranteed pension.

      And it's uglier than you think. My mom has a cousin. Worked for a steel company for 30 years, in the accounting department, or something. So he gets to be in his '60s, ready to retire, and guess what? The company declares bankruptcy, and Poof! No more pension!

      That's what the hideous little gnome is talking about.

  •  Is he stupid? (none)
    Or does he think no one will notice?

    My God, that is a dumb comment.

    Can we wrap him all around Bush?

    George W. Bush -- Disaster Accomplished

    by Unstable Isotope on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:44:43 PM PDT

  •  Guilt by assocation fallacy... (2.60)
    ...come on, let's not do this, I see it enough on rightist blogs to see it here too.  Blame Norquist and people who explicitly agree with him, hold them accountable for their words and deeds, but don't try and smatter them all across the collective "right."  Unless Bush or somebody actually representative of Bush says this stuff, it's a fallacious attack.

    And seriously, we've got enough real stuff on this guy to not have to resort to fallacies.

    •  BTW (none)
      When I say "actually representative" I mean a true spokesman, not somebody who happens to have ideological similarities or other political ties.  People can have similarities of those sorts and still not agree on specifics.
      •  Aaron (4.00)
        I understand where you're coming from.

        finding the looniest member of the other party and they unfairly hanging that on the candidate is an old, tired trick

        BUT - see the post below - guys like Norquist and Perle ARE the Bush administration.  Their distorted worldview guides this administration - we have to expose them for the slime they are and it's entirely fair to tar Bush with their idiocy - becuase they are the people who gave him the road map.  They, through Rummy, Chney, Wolfowitz, Feith - all cut from the same cloth - sold the lies about being greeted with flowers, oil money paying for it all.  

        Norquist isn't just any loon - he's a senior advisor to the adminstration. He has real serious clout and he is a delusional dangerous moron,.

        and we don't even have to "spin" or "slime" - we're just working to gain his exact words higher visibility.  They speak for themselves.

        sample LTE - dear editor - recently Grover Norquist, a senior advisor to the president gave an interview to a spanish paper... in that interview he said (direct quote).  I'd like your paper / media outlet to cover this statement....

        •  Alright well... (none)
          ...if it can be shown that Norquist is truly directly connected and that this administration should be specifically responsible for his personal views, so be it.  From what I know though, he's just a well connected Republican and while likely tied to the administration probably only in a "behind doors" way that doesn't allow us to surmise that they agree on this.

          Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize Norquist for what he said here.  I'm all for giving this more publicity and for holding him and whoever else can be clearly shown to agree with this accountable.  But at this point bringing the Bush administration into it seems premature.

          •  Good article reflecting Norquist's influence here (none)
            He's one of the few people they quote explaining Rove's strategy of sticking to the wingers rather than the moderates in this Boston Globe article from July.

            "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

            by bellatrys on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:12:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If the right (none)
            can tar the Kerry campaign for Whoopi Goldberg's off-color jokes about George Bush and her bush, then I see nothing wrong with calling out the right on Norquist's statements.

            This guy has the ear of the President...what else is he whispering in there? And it's known that GHW and GW Bush don't see eye to eye on many things; maybe GW gives statements like this some merit. We won't know till someone in the media grows some cojones of substantial size and asks the right questions.

            "If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry

            Prune the Shrub!

            by Cali Scribe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:41:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  FWIW, Norquist bragged about... (none)
      how he "had the President's ear."  Wish I could remember where I saw or heard that quote.  But it seems to me Norquist's been extremely effective at operating under the media radar.  The question is, how do we bring him out?

      "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." - Grover Norquist

      by yatdave on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:55:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Could be true... (none)
        ...or could just be Norquist bragging without substance.  If we can get some actual solid evidence that Norquist really is an influence on and/or truly representative of this administration, then I'd say okay.  But until then it's just gossip, and as I said we've got plenty of real stuff to nail Bush with that we shouldn't have to resort to this.
        •  Who cares if it is true? (none)
          ...or could just be Norquist bragging without substance.  If we can get some actual solid evidence that Norquist really is an influence on and/or truly representative of this administration, then I'd say okay.  But until then it's just gossip, and as I said we've got plenty of real stuff to nail Bush with that we shouldn't have to resort to this.

          It doesn't matter if Norquist has the president's ear , or not, he has a tremendous amount of influence in the Republican party. He gives almost daily briefings to Republican functionaries, and lobbyists. His organization dispenses talking points that are adhered to religiously by Republican lawmakers. Norquist is intimately involved in crafting policy through his associations with congressional aides. Only a Democrat would say something like "if we can get some actual solid evidence that Norquist really is an influence..." Republicans on the other hand send direct mail to homes in West Virginia claiming that Democrats will ban the bible. The former is why we lose, and the latter is an example of why they win. Norquist represents the  the baseline mentality, and ideology of activist Republicans, Democrats should use it as just another example of the exceedingly stupid things these men say, often in public, because they are arrogant enough to believe they'll get by without being taken to task for it.  

          •  Nope, sorry (none)
            This isn't about Democrats or Republicans or tactics, fair or unfair.  This is about logic, fallacies, and the fact that we have plenty of real material to use to criticize Bush so we should stick to that.

            Nowhere have I advocated being gentle, nowhere have I advocated letting Norquist off, nowhere have I argued that we shouldn't do everything we can in this campaign.  But committing logical fallacies just reflects poorly on us, and what's more, is not necessary.  That's the bottom line here - we don't need to lie or commit shenanigans to win.

            We just need to have a good message and stick to it.  That's all it takes.

            •  Re: (none)
              No lying required; no logical fallacies present. Norquist is a totem for an influential strain of caveman Republicanism, his comments are fair game. Make of them anything we can. The Republicans often make hay of opinions and commentary that has in no way the official imprimatur of the Democratic party, we should respond in kind.  
              •  That still doesn't make him... (none)
                ...a true representative of the current administration or the entire "Right" - in fact, there is no such thing!  There is no single person whom you could look at and say represents the entire "Right" as ideologies just don't work that way.

                Look, I'm not saying we should go easy on him, I'm just saying it's a logical fallacy to try and associate his words with other people.  Even if he has relationships with the administration and other "rightists" that doesn't make them accountable for everything he says and does.

            •  The Republicans (none)
              love to point to the fringes of the left and hold them up as an example of "what is wrong with America"; witness how they used Clinton's philandering as a symbol of Democrats' "lack of moral values" when chances are the majority of ordinary Democrats had never cheated on their spouses.

              Sure, we can find a good message and stick to it...then cry in our beverage of choice on November 3 when the press is writing about Bush's plans for his second term. I see nothing wrong with pointing to the fringes of the Republican party and showing how out of touch they are with average Americans, along with speculating how pervasive these ideas are in the Administration. At the worst, it puts GWB in a quandary; does he repudiate Norquist's statments and put down an insider, or does he say nothing and create the impression that he agrees with Grover?

              Just a thought...

              "If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry

              Prune the Shrub!

              by Cali Scribe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:49:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And one more example (none)
                When the Right talks about the "gay agenda", what do they bring up? Outlandish costumes at the gay parades and groups like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They're not going to show the lesbian couple at my church who are raising a little girl from China they adopted, or the gay couple who are active in social justice issues, or couples like Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who have been together for longer than many marriages.

                It's time we start to hold them to the same standard they foist upon us; if we have to be responsible for our "lunatic fringe", they have to deal with theirs.

                "If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry

                Prune the Shrub!

                by Cali Scribe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:03:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Two wrongs don't make a right (none)
                  And the ends don't justify the means.

                  And, perhaps most importantly, we don't have to resort to these tactics, and I honestly think we'd be more successful if we don't.

                  Yes, you're right that it is a common tactic among rightist pundits to hold up the nuttiest "lefty" they can find and say "this is what's wrong with America."  Yes, you're right that it's effective.  But that doesn't mean we should do the same thing.

                  Rather, if we want to both be logical and effective, we should handily refute them whenever they commit this fallacy, and then stick to our positive message, criticizing them when applicable but not fallaciously spreading guilt.

                  As I've been saying, I'm not advocating going easy on Norquist here, we should publicize this and criticize him for it and even highlight the connections he does have.  But to argue that this reflects directly on the administration, that Bush implicitly agrees with everything Norquist says and is responsible for it, is fallacious.  And, not necessary - we have plenty of real dirt on Bush.

                  So, as I've been saying, I'm not advocating "going easy" in the name of some pseudo-intellectual moralistic stance.  Rather, I honestly believe that being truly logical and consistent is the best course of action to take, as well as the correct one.  Criticize folks for what they say and do, don't fallaciously spread guilt, call people on that fallacy when they commit it, and stay on a positive message.  If we did that effectively, I very much doubt we'd be crying into our drinks on November 3rd.

                  •  Or in other words... (none)
                    ...the only reason this fallacy is so effective is because people are so bad at recognizing and refuting it (and fallacies in general, it seems).  I swear, this country/world would be so much better if a basic "Logic" class was right up there with "Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic" in elementary school curriculum (though these days even the latter three are often neglected).

                    Rather than resorting to the same fallacy, we should go out there and confront them when they do it.  I see rightist pundits get away with fallacies and arguments by assertion and intimidation far too often.  Those who do confront them often do it on their terms (e.g. on shows they control) and hence can't do it effectively.  The key is to do it on fair terms and do it consistently.  On a daily basis, if you talk to random people about politics, you should try and clearly point out when somebody is being illogical.

                    I'm not trying to be a Vulcan here, but I honestly think this is important to improving our society.  The best way to deal with pigs (the rightist pundits) isn't to get down there in the mud with them and wrestle them, but to come up with an intelligent solution (a pen or something, I don't know this analogy is a bit strained but I think you get my point).  Rather than "debates" we should strive for "dialogues" - rather than use their flawed devices, we should refute them and use our own.  We can't beat them through mimickry, as they're better at what they do than we would be.

                    "Don't fight with a moron - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

    •  aoeu (none)
      If the election were one big logic fest then we all know who would win.

      My turtles laughter
      was loud when the Yankees lost
      22 to zilch

      by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:31:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't know shit (none)
      Does the phrase "Wednesday Morning Meeting" mean anything to you?

      Thought not.

      Grover is the sub-rosa leader of modern, slash 'n' burn "conservative" thought.

      •  Sigh (none)
        Just to sum up my posts:

        1. I'm not advocating "going easy" on anyone here.

        2. I realize Norquist is connected.

        3. I'm just saying that, despite the connections, it is fallacious to assume that the administration blindly agrees with Norquist and to attack them for what he says.

        Criticize Norquist for what Norquist says and does.  Criticize the administration for what the administration says and does.  God knows they've both done enough stuff that warrants criticism.

        And while you're at it, try directing your vitriol and rhetoric at somebody who deserves it.  The treatment my comment has received, both in terms of responses and moderators, has not encouraged me regarding the willingness of the Kos community to, you know, step back for a moment and not being dogmatically partisan...

  •  Iraq war architect (none)
    Greg Palast was talking about him tonight on Majority Report as being one of the neocons who had a map of Iraq with resources to divvy up in March 2001. He was one of those pushing copyright protection laws, private property laws, and seizing Iraqi property for U.S. businesses. When Jay Garner saw providing security and giving jobs to Iraqis as the key to peace in post-war Iraq, not copyright laws!, Norquist pushed for his ouster, saying democracy was not as important as property rights. Norquist has a lot of blood on his hands.
  •  This may be a dumb question... (none)
    but how old is Norquist??  I thought he was in that generation himself.  

    The people I know who lived through the Great Depression and World War II are some of the kindest, hardest working, most genuine and wonderful people I know.  My great grandmother (who lost her husband in a logging accident and had to raise 3 young children on her own during those hard times), my great great aunt, my great aunt, and my grandma... these are my idols, the people I can only hope to be like someday.  

    "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry

    by tryptamine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:50:16 PM PDT

    •  How old is Norquist? (none)
      He graduated from Harvard in 1978. so that puts him around 47 at this point.

      Interestingly enough, he grew up in Weston, Massachusetts. For those of you who don't know, that's, without a doubt, the wealthiest town in the state. Makes me wonder if he has any comprehension of the lives of normal working people.

  •  Damn! I didn't know I... (none)
    wasn't supposed to have stocks. Nobody tells me anything.

    This guy is a real piece of work.

    I solemnly swear that I, Jim Riggs: am not trying to change your vote, will never belong to any political party, and will vote for John Kerry in 2004.

    by Jim Riggs on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:51:10 PM PDT

  •  WWII Veterans for Truth (none)
    George H W Bush crash landed his plane to get medals and position himself to run for president.
  •  OK, what groups need to know about this? (none)
    The problem is that most of the world doesn't give a flying fuck about this little worthless pus-filled boil on America's ass. But are there any Republican-heavy veteran's groups that should know about this? Would the American Legion care?
  •  "anti-American"? (4.00)
    What he means by that, and let us never forget it, is that the World War II generation was anti-Fascist.

    Which is unforgivable, to Norquist.

    We Democrats are deciduous. We fade, lose heart, become torpid, languish, then the sap rises again, and we are passionate. -- Garrison Keillor

    by Evan on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:55:47 PM PDT

  •  The comment bothers me on so many levels (none)
    I do worry about the younger generation.  My kids have me to set them straight and drag them to rally's.  What about the kids who grow up on FOX, the passive, inept, war loving media, the world of multi nationals and reality TV?  They don't even know who to be mad at when the Ken Lay's of the world roll over them.  I know some of those kids and it scares the hell out of me for the future.
    •  Generation Y gives me the creeps (none)
      The males, especially, seem to be mean, macho and stupid. Exactly the type of voters (assuming they vote) who would put a Fascist government in power.

      In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:04:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, please (none)
        I'm at the old end of Gen Y, and I'm as mean, macho and stupid as the Greatest Generation is anti-American.

        If you really want to get into a generational war here, it's the baby boomers that are to blame, putting their self-interests first at every opportunity, adopting liberalism when they were out of power and completely abandoning those same principles and turning right when they got the reins.

        But really, that's a gross oversimplification, too.

      •  No Worse (none)
        Than the 'males' were when you were an adolescent.

        The evil men of this world have applied every means possible to deceive its occupants, and each time with greater success than anticipated.

        by Slade on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:12:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because... (none)
      if the Bush administration does decide that military staffing numbers are not up to snuff for the "defense" of the realm and requires a general mobilization/draft, there are plans for processing as many of these youthful, warmongering little zealots into compulsory military service as soon as possible.

      Decrease the Rethug surplus population.

      Just make sure you have lined up the CO (conscientious objector) paper trail for your children.

      Kind of like lamb's blood on the lintel of your homes. Protect your draft age male sons from the Grim Reaper.

      No, the Sultan's demands are still not sufficiently rational; the only lasting peace is one based on reason and scientific principle -- Horatio Jackson

      by rgilly on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 03:49:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disdain (none)
    Grover Norquist has total disdain for the people who vote for Republicans. We, at least, think that some of these people can be educated to see that their best interest lies in ridding the Republican Party and the Republic of these disgusting maggots that currently infest the Republican Party and run our nation and replacing them with real Republicans like Lincoln and TR.

    Norquist thinks that all Republicans will continue to vote for the Republicans that are running because they are too stupid to see that they are being hoodwinked.

    George Bush is suffering chronic mendacity syndrome.

    by freelunch on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:56:43 PM PDT

  •  This pisses me off so badly (none)
    that I can barely type.

    How dare that motherfucker talk about MY grandparents that way.  Fuck him.

  •  Poltics of Hate (none)
    Hmm, so it's ok to hate gays because they love each other, and it's ok to hate Muslims because they follow a different religion, but it's not ok to hate rich people who take all my money?

    I think this guy need to have his head examined.

  •  Norquist wants my Virginia state senator dead (none)
    That's the gist of another mean-spirited hit, the "Virginia's Least Wanted" poster at the ATR website (warning: that poster is a humungous 33456 x 5183 pixel monstrosity, download at your own risk). Speaking of the Republican senators who voted in favor of Gov. Warner's tax compromise, the poster says, "These senators are a dying breed of Republican. On average 12 years older than pro-taxpayer senators, they won't be around much longer."

    Support Al Weed, the right Democrate to oust Virgil Goode in Virginia's 5th Congressional District!

    by DavidSewell on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:02:29 PM PDT

  •  Norquist: The Greatest Generation Is Anti-America (none)
         ...if the greatest generation is anti-american;then,Bush W needs to keep an eye on on his father and mother.

         Knowing that those two helped in the,"...creation of a welfare state..." they might be trying to call up Laura Bush to get,"...the hook-up on a dime bag of some fire-azz,weed."

         Besides,Norquist is the type of person who hated Winston Smith;and,loved Big Brother in,"1984."

  •  Hmmm? (none)
    Each year, 2 million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exeception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies.  They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party.

    My father was a WWII vet.  He was a Republican.  Norquist is insane.

    But say he's right and WWII vets are primarily Democrats.  Well, they were raised during the Depression.  Many know what poverty is.  What starvation feels like.  My dad sure did. I remember seeing my grandmother put some lard on a piece of burnt toast and eat it.  You just never threw anything out because you never knew where your next meal was coming from. Of course they wanted a more fair and equitable society for themselves and their children.  Sadly, the Republicans want to take us back to the bad old days.

    They aren't bushes; they are weeds.

    by pacifica on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:05:37 PM PDT

    •  Norqusit is not the only (none)
      pathetic one we must fear, asscroft is targeting voters, he thinks there are too many people registering as democrats and therefore needs to investigate, more fascism....

      read here:  

    •  Beautifully said (none)
      What this crazy, heartless ape says wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't essentially the "heart and soul" of the current Repub. party.  To criticize a generation of people who know more than any the true meaning of sacrifice and struggle speaks volumes about the character of this man and the party he represents.  Let's not forget how many of us lost family members we never met because they were fighting to secure American ideals.  I wonder how much time Grover has spent in the battlefield?  'Bout as much as Cheney and Bush I'm sure; that seems to be the common thread amond these fucking cowards.  
  •  Figures (none)
    Norquist, and many of the ultra-right wing scumbags like him, are nothing more than living, breathing corporations--they live for and will say and do anything to increase their material wealth.

    I wish like hell there was a way to banish such sorry excuses for people from civilized society.  

  •  Huh? (none)
    "...all the time more Americans have stocks. That makes them defend the interests of business, because it is their own interest."

        Sorry, but it won't wash.  Lots of Americans have mortgages, savings accounts, and insurance policies, too, but that doesn't make them knee-jerk supporters of business.  It's just that when capitalism is the only game in town and when you want to provide for your family's future, what else is there to do?  This notion of America as a nation of investors has been floating around ever since the 1920s, and it's never panned out.  Most people who own stocks aren't speculators or risk-taking entrepreneurs.  They're either participating in an employee stock-ownership plan or trying to provide a little extra dose of financial security.  If the market tanks, guess what happens to a lot of these "investors"?  They get out, as has been the case since 2000.

    •  He doesn't understand (none)
      that what makes publicly owned stock possible is government regulation and dispensation of privilege.

      Or more likely, he does understand, but just doesn't care.

    •  Norquist can kiss (none)
      my a**, Since the rethugs have taken all three brances of goverment my stock portfolio looks anemic thanks to the rethugs and their wreckless fiscal policys , these people are not about self reliance they are about GREED and lots of it..
      •  I second that... (none)
        I own stocks and there's no way in hell I'm voting for Bush.  I'll take higher capital gains taxes along with actual CAPITAL GAINS.  I don't care if they lower the taxes if all I'm taking is a loss anyway.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:07:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's not so far off (none)
      What it does is make people happy when stocks go up, makes them have a financial stake in corporate profitability. For most folks who own stock, average joes and Kerry voters, they are probably only dimly aware that corporate profitability, one of the most important aspects of a stock price, is usually attained at the cost of the American worker, the American environment, the American social fabric, etc.

      Moreover, if I follow Norquist correctly, any progressive movement in this country aimed at curbing corporate power would meet the wrath of 401k holders who would fear that increased regulations and corporate taxation would hurt their portfolios.

      How does that hurt liberalism? By making people identify with the needs of the CEO rather than the employee. It's insane, but true. Workers become less fixated on redistributing wealth via government and labor unions because they think they can get at that wealth via stock ownership.

      Although I could afford to have a modest portfolio, I refuse to own stock for moral reasons. And I submit that unless you are investing only in socially responsible companies, people here who claim to be liberal, who are Democrats, who oppose Bush and Norquist and the conservative movement, have been cutting their own throats for many years.

      "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

      by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:34:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will completely disagree (none)
        and I'm actually quite amazed to hear you say such a thing. First off, unless you are a socialist, I do not see how one can have an issue with the mere concept of investing in publicly owned companies. I don't invest in companies who I feel engage in particularly reprehensible practices (e.g. defense industry, tobacco, etc.), but I not only see nothing whatsoever wrong with the concept of stock ownership, but feel that most Americans that can invest should. Refusing to participate in the free market will not make it go away; if anything, it is an abdication of power, IMHO.

        Furthermore, your statement that "investing in stock makes people identify with the needs of the CEO rather than the employee" is a serious oversimplification. It is entirely possible to invest in a company, have concern for the well-being of industry, while recognizing the need for fair treatment and compensation workers. The two are not mutually exclusive.

        •  I actually am a socialist (none)
          So that may help explain things.

          As to stocks, I don't see it as providing much in the way of public ownership. Shares are usually controlled by other large corporations, large investors, or the corporate officers themselves. Further, my point about investment itself is that the goal is to see a return on your principal. Stocks normally rise with corporate profits. Corporate profits in the last 20 years or so have come by companies cutting back on wages, benefits, and hiring. How often is it that a stock goes up once a downsizing (to use the '90s term) or offshoring (to use the '00s term) occurs? Way too often. For most in corporate American, concern for workers and concern for profits are indeed mutually exclusive.

          I very much believe that we can have some sort of concern for the well being of industry without giving them the green light as we have been for them to be well at everyone else's expense. I just don't see how mass stock ownership has led to that. In fact I think it's clear that the financialization of the American economy since the 1970s has fundamentally weakened the average person, and stocks simply accelerate a toxic process.

          The overall point that Norquist makes, and that I am inclined to believe, is that anyone hoping to rein in corporate power and bring some real, progressive economic change to this country is going to face an army of 401k holders who would be spooked a new New Deal would be bad for business and thus bad for their portfolio. To Norquist, such an arrangement is wonderful. For me, it is not.

          "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

          by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:33:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, I see (none)
            Well, obviously you won't like stock ownership then. But anyways:

            "Further, my point about investment itself is that the goal is to see a return on your principal. Stocks normally rise with corporate profits. Corporate profits in the last 20 years or so have come by companies cutting back on wages, benefits, and hiring. How often is it that a stock goes up once a downsizing (to use the '90s term) or offshoring (to use the '00s term) occurs? Way too often. For most in corporate American, concern for workers and concern for profits are indeed mutually exclusive."

            Indeed. But how does this, by itself, indicate stock ownership is bad for American workers? If anything, they will at least stand to gain from the increased profit margins of the companies they own. Yes, you will point out, this profit gain comes at the expense of American workers' jobs, but it's also their profit gain, if they own stock. (This is not a justification of uncontrolled outsourcing, mind you, but of stock ownership.)

            And fundamentally, if people's income is coming primarily from labor, they're still going to (or should, at least, other political manipulation notwithstanding) identify with the interests of workers. Labor and industry will remain pitted against each other. The reason Norquist's claim isn't quite right is that, while stock ownership may inspire more sympathy with companies, most of them will still not be living off of their capital gains. People will still live on their wage or salary. Hence they will not suddenly be entirely sympathetic to their bosses.

            •  Do workers really gain? (none)
              My point is that corporate profitability has a nasty tendency to be wrung out of the sweat of the worker, who is overworked (more so now that overtime is being jiggered with), has his or her health benefits cut, and sees small if any wage increases, assuming they aren't the ones whose jobs are cut to help out the bottom line.

              I would also posit, though cannot prove (researching all this is a dream of mine), that the economic losses as a result of these cuts is not made up for by any gains the employee sees in their stock portfolio, assuming they still have a job. As you say, they can't live off their capital gains.

              So my assumption is that stocks don't help workers because their value rises as workers are hurt, rippling out through the economy as a weakening agent.

              The question about identification is difficult. I firmly believe most workers, and here I mention those who are able to afford some modest stock ownership or who have a 401k or who are in an employee stock program, do indeed identify with the wealthy class more than they do with what may really be their own economic interests. This is the point of Thomas Frank's new book, What's the Matter With Kansas, for example. That identification with the rich and thus the willingness to support things that help the rich a lot and help themselves little, like Bush's tax cut, may be explained by the fact that stock ownership gives one entrance into a different sort of outlook than just as a worker. There are other factors contributing to this identification, but stock I think is a big one.

              In short, these workers don't see themselves as 'labor' because they believe they're in a totally different environment where that binary doesn't exist. They are deluding themselves, but there it is.

              "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

              by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:59:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (none)
                Yes, well, you could look at the interests of the business owner and those of the worker as being diametrically opposed, and workers who own stock as dipping a little into the former and mostly into the latter. I think the workers you talk about are, as you say, simply deluded as to where they fall on that. They're being suckered into believing they're one of the elite. That needs to be addressed, but I still believe that giving more people more opportunity to reap the benefits of economic production, which public companies do, is a good thing.
          •  What about investing in bonds or municipal bonds? (none)
            Where do you draw the line?  By putting money in a savings account you're giving the bank money to lend out to people at rip-off interest rates.  Should we all just stuff our money under the mattress?  Also by working and buying goods we're making the system work.  So, does that mean we should all quit, live on welfare and starve to death?  Yes, it's an extreme example, but there's some truth to it.  

            It's one thing to have ideals, but you need to keep in mind what the reality actually is.  Our country is capitalistic on steroids.  I don't approve of the system, but that's what there is.  It has a lot of problems, most of which are not connected directly to the stock market, but rather to rampant consumerism and materialism.  

            The way I see it, if people want to buy a bunch of total shit, I have no problem skimming some profit off of them.  If they asked me, I'd tell them not to do it, but they don't.  To some extent pople have to take responsibility for their actions even if it stems from completely sheep-like behavior.  

            As far as socialism being some sort of bar to supporting private investment, I'm just not seeing the connection (this goes to the previous poster too).  There are several socialistic countries in Europe and they all have stock markets and private investors.  Are you thinking of Communism maybe?  The two terms are not one and the same.  

            Anyone who has half a brain is a socialist and I believe probably half the people visiting this site are, whether they realize it and identify with the term or not.  Personally, I would have no problem if we had a communistis system instead of our crappy capitalistic one, but the reality of the matter is we don't.  And, I'm sorry to say, but I'm not going to cut my own nose off to spite my face just because the system is not to my liking.  If it were up to me, I'd change it.  Until that time, I'll manage the best I can with what we have.  

            In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

            by Asak on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:19:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Keep the speculators out ... (none)
      ... of the market and stock prices will stabilize.  Most folks aren't about making a quick buck.  Like me, they are in for the long run via an employee savings plan.  I try to stay with only major stocks, reinvesting my dividends.

      I say pass a law that once you purchase a stock you cannot sell it until you've had it for at least a quarter, or until you see at least one dividend.  That would keep the greedy get-rich-quick idiots (who drive the markets into wild gyrations) out, or at least they wouldn't have the same detrimental affect.

  •  Well of course they're anti-American (none)
    After all, they had the audacity to be poor and hungry in the '30s, and then they had the gall to go fight a war in which the US made common cause with dozens of allies, including Communists! I mean, how un-American is that!

    Of course, Norquist's true beef with them is that they gave FDR four terms, Truman another, and the Democrats the Congress for 40 years.

    In all seriousness, I do wonder about his underlying idea that the Democrats are in many ways still cruising on the stuff they built in the Golden Age, from the '30s to the '60s. He is very right that the party has not actually offered any systematic plan for the country to the younger generations, has yet to update the New Deal for the 21st century. Norquist's claims here are despicable, truly beyond the pale. And yet we should not prevent that from asking whether or not there's a grain of truth there.

    "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Lennon

    by eugene on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:21:23 PM PDT

  •  Norquist is a flake... (none)
    ...who is shunned by conservatives also.  Nothing the greatest generation did was anti-American.  
  •  That leftist VFW... (4.00)
    The bizarre thing is that the whole "greatest generation" thing focusing on WWII is an incredibly right-wing version of history:  that the highest achievement of America was military hegemony over the world.  And has the VFW been a big bastion of leftist politics over the last 60 years?  I just don't get where Norquist is coming from here, especially since I don't think most people relate the greatest generation meme to the Depression, but to winning WWII.

    I've personally always disliked Brokaw et al identifying WWII as our nation's greatest moment.  If you need to praise warfare, what about the loyal Americans who defeated the traitorous, slaveholding Confederacy?  What about the Civil Right generation, like the folks Sharpton named in his Convention speech who martyred themselves for the rights we enjoy today?  Why was that generation greater than these generations (other than Brokaw's need to market his book as the one about THE greatest generation, not just one of several)?

    I may catch hell for this opinion here, but here goes:  I think that the gauzy vision of total war making our nation moral and upstanding is largely to blame for our endless search for "big enemies" since the end of WWII.  Despite Norquist's fascistic frothings, the US decided in 1941 that military hegemony would come before all other values in American politics.  We have been willing to sacrifice everything -- rights, health, the environment, millions of lives, democratic government, any real investment in social welfare, concern for truth in government -- in order to build a national security state.  Well we did it.  Americans in the 20s, 30s, and 40s endured extraordinary suffering and achieved an enormous amount.  But if post-War America was built by people seeking some socialist dream of economic justice and an end to capitalist oppression, it sure didn't turn out the way they wanted.

    •  Interesting idea (none)
      I suppose that we could have sat out WWII, if we had been willing to let the Japanese take over Indonesia and Hitler and or Stalin dominate the world island.  I'm not sure that that would have been any better for either the rest of the world or ourselves than the path we took.  Afterall, niether the axis powers or the USSR were nice governments by any stretch of the imagination and we would have needed to abandon our alliance with the British as well.   And of course without WWII we never would have had the Marshall Plan which I think was one of the more phenominally successful things we did in the 20th century.  I also wonder just what would have happened to the Jews in the US if we had sat out the war, would they have been the pretext for Hitler to invade North America, or would we have ourselves persecuted them out of fear of that happening?  

      I'm also curious as to why you picked 1941 as the decision point, we were already involved with the British through lend-lease at that point and the trade issues that actually lead to war with Japan were also well established.  For that matter I don't think we really established the cold war frame of mind that I believe you are refering to until the late 40's although I believe it started to become part of the policy world as soon as it became apparent that we could indeed win against Germany.  

      •  Logic of militarism (none)
        On your second point, yes, you could locate it all the way back in the 1890s with the Spanish-American war, I suppose.  As far as the Cold War is concerned, it seems to me that, having found such success and sense of purpose in winning WWII, it was easier to continue the same hegemony-seeking dynamic against another enemy, rather than radically changing the way nations related to one another.  

        Now, as far as fighting WWII is concerned, I think the problem with WWII as a justification for militarism is that fascism itself was to a large extent the mess that evolved out of European (and then American) militarism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Fascism grew out of WWI, and led into WWII.  I agree that it's hard to see a non-military solution to the problem of Nazi hegemony, but I would argue that Nazi hegemony itself resulted from the logic of militarism in earlier decades.  If militarism gets credit for solving the problem, it should also get the blame for creating it in the first place.

        And this is relevant for contemporary politics.  Cold War realpolitik helped set the stage for both Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, two American clients recruited to help further American hegemony.  Which of our current clients of convenience in our worldwide War on Terror will be our Great Enemies when my kids are grown up?

        But basically, I'm saying that I object to looking back whistfully at the days when we were fighting total war, making us the "best we could be", because I think it's inaccurate and it introduces a seriously reactionary strain into American politics.  And that's why Norquist's comments seem so odd to me -- that reactionary strain seems like something he might like.

        •  Good Points those (none)
          I see, you were talking more about the ultimate causes than the proximate ones.  While we're at, it WTF was wrong with Europeans at the beginning of WWI, they had several decades of relative peace(I don't think there was any significant military action on the continent between 1870 and 1914 and yet they spent the last decade or so of that time doing nothing but build up armaments, and gleefully took them out at the first handy excuse.

          At this point I'm almost inclined to just write this off as one of our many serious weaknesses as a species, but we do seem to be capable of thought and some really amazing one's at that, like the notion that someone who isn't part of our tribe is also human.  

          I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this always comes up because it's just plain easier.  We're lazy, and it requires a lot less thought to go to war over something than to find a non-violent solution.  I also am inclined to agree with you about the difficulties of the cycle of militarism, not only does it breed militaristic responses(eg. Hitler to WWI) but it also seems to benefit from our tendency to use the most readily available tool no matter how poorly suited to the job.  As the old adage goes:  "When all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail."  

          You also have a good point about the reactionary nostalgia, I find that pretty annoying as well, I think it is because we tend to blot out the more unpleasant parts of the past, so the problems become less visible.  I certainly have noticed that in my own memories.  One of the most intense periods of my life had a lot of really unpleasant things going on, but when I look back on it I mostly remember the good parts and gloss over the bad, so I don't find it at all hard to see how other people do this as well.

          Still, I have hope, I believe that we have indeed made real progress, even within my own lifetime and if we work hard enough I think we can continue  to make progress, maybe even enough to abandon military solutions to these problems.

          •  Have you read Major-General Butler on this? (none)
            He challenges all the conventional platitudes about how WWII was just forced upon us, here we were, innocent bystanders, had to defend ourselves, by debunking most of the mythos of WWI, and by pointing out, with numbers, how the plutocratic Hegemony was involved in stirring up the war with Japan during the 1930s, as well as selling weapons merrily to Germany then (as well as in the runup to WWI).

            Since he served in China, in Central America, Mexico, and WWI, as a Marine in combat, that he should turn peacenik and denounce the military industrial complex in the early 30s - and everything he says fits with other things I've read, contemporary materials from the era as well as retrospectives - perhaps we ought to listen to him when he condemns the Establishment as using and exploiting soldiers and workers alike of all nations, that they aren't interested in diplomacy, because they have a vested interest in Forever War, and insists that the budgets of science and development ought to be yanked from war to civilization instead. (He also had the radical notion that no one whose ass is not going to be shipped out, ought to be able to vote on going to war...)

            Weirdly enough, one of the war profiteers he condemns by name, (while pointing out that not even Congressional Hearings were able to get it all sorted out after WWI) is Union Steel.

            Union Steel is where the Mellons, and therefore the Scaifes, got their fortune...

            Some things never change.

            "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

            by bellatrys on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:37:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the link. (none)
              That was really interesting.  I think I'd heard about it but hadn't read it before, it wouldn't suprise me if that was a large component of the war motivation.  I did a paper a number of years ago on the U.S. labor movement during the teens, and given some of the absolutely barbaric things that the industrialists did to their workers with apparently the full backing of the government, it wouldn't suprise me if it was all about profit(and a convenient excuse to crush unions). I don't know as much about the 30's(at least that aspect of it), any other suggested sources.  

              This also gells rather nicely with what I picked up from Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy", a lot of the great fortunes had their roots in war profiteering(IIRC, the wealthiest person in the U.S. in the 1790's made their fortune off the revolutionary war, and there were plenty of others).  One of the things that I liked about that book was just how effectively he demonstrated that truly large amounts of wealth simply don't appear without government intervention, he could almost have presented just his lists of the great fortunes and their sources for each decade by themselves and his argument would have been just as effective.  

              BTW:  I'm jealous of your sig.  That was a good book.

              •  We generally can always find a Pterry quote (none)
                that will fit any situation these days.

                (Even the wierder ones, now - just like Monty Python.)

                 Oh, get this - how freaky is this Mel Brooks sound clip: Men In Tights

                "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

                by bellatrys on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:28:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hehe (none)
                  I'd totally forgotten about that line and its really very apropos of current issues.  

                  Going even more OT: What's your favorite Pterry book  anyway?   I'm leaning toward Small Gods as maybe being the best of them, but most of the rest are so amazingly good that I'd have a hard time choosing.  And here's one of my favorite Pterry quotes, just because:

                  "Because, you see, you just think for many rats," he said. "But you don't think of them.  Nor are you, for all that you say, the Big Rat.  Every word you utter is a lie.  If there is a Big Rat, and I hope there is, it would not talk of war and death.  It would be made of the best we could be, not the worst that we are.  No, I will not join you, liar in the dark.  I prefer our way.  We are silly and weak sometimes.  But toghether we are strong.  Your have plans for rats?  Well, I have dreams for them"
                  -Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents, pg. 186

                  •  That's *so* hard (none)
                    I think Feet of Clay, because I've always been fascinated with the Golem of Prague story, and free will, being a philosophy major and all. And mystery stories, too. But then Death is such a great character, so Hogfather, and Reaper Man, have to go high on the list. And Old Hollywood has a special place in my life, so all books dealing with it, like Moving Pictures or Barbara Hambly's 'Bride of the Rat God' too.

                    Pterry and Neil Gaiman are doing the best work, along with Diane Duane, imo, at tackling the worship of power and efficiency in our generation. They've taken up the fiery swords of Lewis and Tolkien and GKC (which they in turn inherited from Dickens and Johnson and other great humanitarians) and are carrying the fight against depersonalizing utilitarianism beyond the Century of the Fruitbat.

                    "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret" - T. Pratchett (change @ for AT to email)

                    by bellatrys on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  The "greatest generation" is ... (none)
      ... a euphemism for that generation that fought WWII.  They endured great hardship, albeit in order to fight a war.  

      I'm just glad the Germans were defeated.  Hitler really did envision a global empire.  If he was able to develop the atomic bomb first, we'd all be speaking german and singing "Deutchland, Deutchland Uber Alles".

    •  Personally (4.00)
      George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, George Mason, John Hancock, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, The Minutemen, the Sons of Liberty, the Continentals, I have my own candidate for America's "Greatest Generation".  But it really isn't any big deal.

      I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat--Will Rogers

      by Dancing Larry on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:21:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The men that volunteered to fight fascism (none)
      They volunteered to fight Franco in spain, and got blacklisted by our government, in return.

      I'm a Culture Warrior, drinking, smoking and screwing in the fight against Faithists!

      by bzbb on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:48:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "soaked in loathing and ignorance" (none)
    The right wing radicals are only concerned about grasping their slice of power and money. They hate government. They hate the military. Their purple-heart band-aids shame all wounded vets.  They distain social security. They loth Unions.  They just hate.

    James Wolcott is right. They have no conscience, they have no decency, so let's stop fake-pretending that they do.

  •  Norquist in Spanish (none)
    I skimmed the "El Mundo" article but couldn't tell whether or not Norquist gave the interview in Spanish. Does Norquist speak fluent Spanish? Anyone know?
  •  Use the standard Repug prefix: (none)
    If it were up to Grover norquist, Adolph hitler would still be in power! hell below us, above us only sky.

    by rightiswrong on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Do it right (none)
    Let's hang Grover like a millstone around Bush's neck for the duration of the campaign.

    First off, the place that our buddy Grover has gotten himself a profile is Ohio, which is pretty darn convenient.   We can Google search all the Ohio newspaper articles on his Taft remarks.  I'm sure a few in-state columnists had a word or two about this.  Make sure this gets to the same reporters and columnists that ran the Taft story.  He is always "Leading Republican strategist Grover Norquist" in any press release or LTEs.  Make "Leading Republican strategist" Grover Norquist all one phrase like "Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein".  We'll want a website, I suggest, everyone will remember "it's Grover", and by the time the Muppet people catch up with us, the election will be over and the site can come down.  There can be Grover shockers of the week, the man's a walking arsenal of political self-destruction.  Maybe get Jerry Springer to invite Grover to Ohio for a debate?

    I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat--Will Rogers

    by Dancing Larry on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:55:36 PM PDT

  •  Not only is he offensive, but stupid and wrong (none)
    Grover needs to notice a couple of things:

    1. The Democrats haven't lost the popular vote in a presidential election in 16 years.

    2. Their share of the total vote has gone up in each presidential election since 1984.

    IOW, the Democratic base is growing, not shrinking.  Dolt.
  •  Don't think old Grover... (none)
    will be so happy when he finds out who's coming down the pipe.  

    It's not the Democratic base that is shrinking, it's the Republican base.

    In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

    by Asak on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:55:32 PM PDT

  •  wow (none)
    first, they were nazis. it's ok to be proud of helping stop nazis.

    second, lord, this is disgusting. how widely can we spread this in english translation? like can we send this to veterans' groups' locals or something?

  •  wow (none)
    first, they were nazis. it's ok to be proud of helping stop nazis.

    second, lord, this is disgusting. how widely can we spread this in english translation? like can we send this to veterans' groups' locals or something?

  •  Is Grover Norquist ... (none)
    a friend of Ed Schrock & David Drier?
  •  Well.... (none)
    ...thank goodness we're seeing a demographic shift from World War II veterans and Great Depression survivors to hapless day-traders. That just promises a peachy fucking future. Stupid old Depression survivors never did seem to invest enough in the stock market.

    No, I don't have anything constructive to say. I'm just pissed off. My grandfather didn't die all that long ago, and considering the kind of guy he was, I guess I never expected anyone to say "good riddance."

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

    by Valentine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:12:45 PM PDT

  •  For your edification and instruction... (4.00)
    Here's the article, both in the original Spanish and my own English translation.  

    «En 20 años, el Estado de Bienestar en los Estados Unidos no será necesario»

    "In 20 years, the American Welfare State will no longer be needed"

    'The Wall Street Journal' le ha llamado 'el Lenin del Partido Republicano'. Otros destacados conservadores opinan que ese título le queda grande, pero no cabe duda de que a sus 48 años, Grover Norquist, asesor externo de la Casa Blanca, se ha convertido en la fuerza dominante de la política económica estadounidense

    The Wall Street Journal has called him "The Lenin of the Republican Party".  Other distinguished conservatives say that this title is an exaggeration, but it is beyond doubt that at the age of 48, Grover Norquist, outside consultant to the White House, has now become the dominant force in American economic policy.

    PABLO PARDO / Washington

    El carácter bocazas de Norquist se combina con una devoción ascética para su causa. Tanto que el programa electoral que aprobó el Partido Republicano la semana pasada para la reelección de Bush repite, punto por punto, su ideario. No es sorprendente. Norquist trabaja en estrecha colaboración con Karl Rove, el estratega electoral jefe de Bush, y tiene un amplio historial en promover la causa conservadora en Estados Unidos y el anticomunismo en el mundo.

    Norquist's big mouth [1] is combined with an ascetic devotion to his caudse.  So much so that the platform approved by the Republican Party last week for Bush's reelection repeats, point by point, his ideology.  It's not surprising.  Norquist works closely with Karl Rove, Bush's chief of electoral strategy, and has a long history of promoting conservative causes in the United States and world anticommunism.

    Es difícil exagerar la influencia de Norquist en la política estadounidense. Él fue el artífice de la arrolladora victoria de los republicanos en las elecciones legislativas de 1994, que colocó a su aliado Newt Gingrich al frente de la Cámara de Representantes.Desde entonces, los conservadores no han abandonado el control del Legislativo, un tradicional feudo demócrata.

    It is hard to overstate Norquist's influence in US politics.  He was the architect of the crushing Republican victory in the 1994 legislative elections, which placed his ally Newt Gingrich at the head of the House of Representatives.  Since then, the conservatives have not left control of the Legislature, a traditional Democratic stronghold.  

    Desde hace más de 10 años dirige la Coalición Dejadnos Solos, que todos los miércoles celebra reuniones abiertas en las que representantes de diferentes grupos conservadores plantean iniciativas y anuncian programas de acción, y a las que George W. Bush y Dick Cheney envían siempre representantes personales. Dirige el proyecto calle K, destinado a erradicar toda influencia demócrata de los grupos de presión -los famosos lobbies- que se concentran en esa calle de Washington. Y quiere -y todo apunta a que va a conseguir- que la efigie de Ronald Reagan aparezca en los billetes de 10 dólares. Pero su principal instrumento para influir en la política es el grupo Americanos por una Reforma Fiscal (ATR, según sus siglas en inglés).

    For over ten years he has lead the "Leave-Us-Alone Coalition" [2], which every Wednesday holds open meetings in which representatives of different conservative groups suggest initiatives and announce programs of action, and to which George W. Bush and Dick Cheney always sent personal representatives.  He runs the "K Street Project", designed to eradicate all Democratic influence upon pressure groups -- the famous lobbies -- that are concentrated on that street in Washington.  And he wants -- and all indications are that he will prevail -- the image of Ronald Reagan to appear on the ten-dollar bill.  But his main instrument to influence policy is the group Americans for Tax Reform.  

    Este grupo de presión certifica la política fiscal de cada legislador.Si el congresista ha votado a favor de subidas de impuestos, está acabado, especialmente si es republicano. Una mala opinión de la ATR puede liquidar la popularidad de cualquier legislador, y dejarle sin fondos para llevar a cabo una campaña electoral.

    This pressure group rates the fiscal policy of every legislator.  If a congressman has voted in favor of tax increases, he is finished, particularly if he is a Republican.  A bad opinion from the ATR can destroy the popularity of any legislator, and leave him without funds to carry out an election campaign.    

    Pregunta.- ¿Quién va a ganar el 2 de noviembre?

    Question:  Who is going to win on November 2?

    Respuesta.- Da igual. Nosotros controlaremos la Cámara de Representantes, y probablemente el Senado. Si gana Kerry, no va a poder hacer nada que no queramos nosotros. No le vamos a dar dinero para que gaste. No podrá subir impuestos. No podrá robarnos nuestras armas de fuego. Aunque perdamos la Casa Blanca, no va a ser el fin del mundo.

    Answer:  It doesn't matter.  We will control the House of Representatives, and probably the Senate.  If Kerry wins, he will not be able to do anything that we do not want him to do.  We will not give him money to spend.  He will not be able to raise taxes.  He will not steal our firearms.  Even though we lose the White House, it will not be the end of the world.

    P.- ¿Y si gana Bush?

    Q:  And if Bush wins?

    R.- El Partido Demócrata estará acabado para siempre. Si tenemos el control del Legislativo y del Ejecutivo, reforzaremos nuestro control del Poder Judicial para dirigirlo contra los demócratas.Llevaremos a cabo una modesta limitación de la capacidad de la gente para iniciar procesos legales contra las empresas, lo que dañará a los abogados especialistas en esos casos, que son uno de los puntales del Partido Demócrata. Aceleraremos el declive de los sindicatos. Recortaremos la financiación a grupos de empleados públicos, como los profesores, que son una de las grandes fuentes de votos de los demócratas. Y empezaremos a mover el Estado de Bienestar hacia un sistema privado, en pensiones y sanidad.

    A:  The Democratic Party will be forever doomed.  If we take control of the legislature and the executive branch, we will reenforce our control of the Judicial Branch to direct it against the Democrats.  We will brng about a modest limit of the ability of the people to initiate lawsuits against corporations, which will damage the lawyers who specialize in these cases, which is one of the props of the Democratic Party.  We will accelerate the decline of the unions.  We will cut funding to groups of public employees, like teachers, who are one of the great sources of Democratic votes.  And we will begin the move the Welfare State toward a private system, in pensions and healthcare.  

    P.- ¿El fin de los demócratas?

    Q:  The end of the Democrats?

    R.- Sí, porque además su base demográfica se está hundiendo.Cada año mueren dos millones de personas que combatieron en la Segunda Guerra Mundial y que vivieron la Gran Depresión. Esa generación ha sido una excepción en la Historia de EEUU, porque ha defendido políticas antiamericanas. Ellos votaron por la creación del Estado de Bienestar y por el servicio militar obligatorio.Ellos son la base electoral demócrata. Y se están muriendo. Y, al mismo tiempo, cada vez más estadounidenses tienen acciones.Eso hace que defiendan los intereses de las empresas, porque son sus propios intereses. Por eso, es imposible llevar a cabo políticas de odio social, de lucha de clases.

    A:  Yes, because their demographic base is collapsing.  Two million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die every year.  This generation has been an exception in US History, because it as defended anti-American policies.  They voted for the creation of the Welfare State and for mandatory military service.  They are the Democratic electoral base.  And they are dying.  And at the same time, more and more Americans own stock.  This makes them defend business interests, because they are their own interests.  That is why it is impossible to bring about a politics of societal hatred, of class struggle.

    P.- ¿Qué hacen los demócratas para frenar su declive?

    Q:  What are the Democrats doing to stop their decline?

    R.- Movilizarse. De ahí viene todo el apoyo que Kerry está recibiendo de gente como George Soros. Están como estábamos nosotros en 1968, cuando ganó Nixon, o en 1980, cuando ganó Reagan. Entonces, los demócratas controlaban el Congreso. Nosotros sólo podíamos optar a la Presidencia. Sabíamos que, si Nixon o Reagan no ganaban, y continuaba el dominio demócrata de la política de EEUU, entregarían el país a la Unión Soviética. Ahora ellos viven esa experiencia.

    A:  Mobilizing.  That is where all the support that Kerry receives from people like George Soros comes from.  They are just as we were in 1968, when Nixon won, or in 1980, when Reagan won.  Then, the Democrats controlled Congress.  We could only choose a President.  We knew that if Nixon or Reagan did not win, and Democratic domination of US politics continued, that they would deliver the country to the Soviet Union.  Now they are living that experience.

    P.- Usted quiere recortar el tamaño del Estado a la mitad en 25 años. ¿Cómo?

    Q:  You would like the cut the state by half in 25 years.  How?

    R.- La clave son las pensiones y la sanidad. El año pasado Bush aprobó la creación de cuentas personales en las que cada ciudadano acumule ahorros para pagarse la asistencia sanitaria. Y en el programa electoral para la reelección se incluye una privatización parcial de las pensiones. Esos dos capítulos son un tercio del gasto público en este país. En 20 años, la mitad de la población estará en sistemas asistenciales y de pensiones privados. Y el Estado de Bienestar ya no será necesario. A eso se sumarán reformas de la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente, y la reducción de competencias de la Administración Federal de Medicamentos (FDA), que autoriza la comercialización de fármacos.

    A:  The key is in pensions and health.  Last year Bush approved the creation of personal accounts in which each citizen accumulates savings to pay for health assistance.  And the platform includes a partial privatization of Social Security ("pensiones").  These two areas are a third of public spending in this country.  In 20 years, half the population will be in private assistance systems and pensions.  And the Welfare State will no longer be needed.  To this will be added reforms to the EPA and a reduction in the authority of the FDA, which authorizes the sale of pharmaceuticals.

    P.- Y será la sociedad que usted quiere.

    Q:  And that will be the society that you want.

    R.- Será una sociedad verdaderamente americana. Y enterraremos a los europeos. Además, reformaremos la legislación de inmigración, y cada año nos traeremos a un millón de los mejores cerebros de Europa. Ustedes también estarán acabados. Por de pronto, déjeme decirle que ya somos más libres que ustedes.

    A:  It will be a truly American society.  And we will bury the Europeans.  Further, we will reform immigration legislation, and bring over one million of Europe's best minds every year.  You will also be finished.  But quickly, let me say why we are freer than you.

    P.- ¿Por qué?

    Q:  Why?

    R.- Porque podemos tener armas.

    A:  Because can have weapons.

    P.- Pero también los europeos -y sobre todo las europeas- podemos desnudarnos más que los estadounidenses en la playa.

    Q:  But likewise Europeans -- particularly the women -- can take off more clothing on the beach than Americans.

    R.- ¿De quién son esas playas?

    A:  Whose beaches are they?

    P.- Del Estado.

    Q:  The State's

    La visión de playas estatales con gente desnuda -o casi- desconcierta a Norquist, aunque no está claro si es por la titularidad pública de esos espacios o por el aspecto moral de la cuestión. Con esa incógnita abierta, la entrevista termina. Norquist vuelve a su tarea de lobbista, y empieza a hablar con sus colaboradores del secretario de Energía, Spencer Abraham.

    The vision of state-run beaches with naked people -- almost -- disconcerts Norquist, although it's not clear whether it's the public ownership of the beaches or the moral aspect of the question.  With this unknown left open, the interview ends.  Norquist goes back to his lobbying work, and starts to talk with his collaborators who work for the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham.  

    Tras una breve interrupción para atender a un periodista de la Vieja Europa, la revolución liberal de Estados Unidos vuelve a ponerse en marcha.

    After a brief interruption to attend to a journalist from Old Europe, the libertarian revolution of America starts up again.

    El mismo Norquist ha declarado su objetivo: «No quiero acabar con el Estado. Sólo quiero hacerlo tan pequeño que pueda ahogarlo en la bañera».

    Norquist himself has declared his goal:  "I don't want to put an end to the State.  I just want to make it small enough for me to drown in the bathtub."  


    Nacido: El 19 de octubre de 1956 en Wenton (Massachusetss). Cargo actual: Presidente de Americanos por una Reforma Fiscal y de la Coalición Dejadnos Solos. Director del Proyecto Legado Ronald Reagan. Miembro del Comité de Dirección de la Asociación Nacional del Rifle. Trayectoria: Norquist dice que se hizo anticomunista a los 11 años, leyendo Missers of Deceit, escrito por el polémico ex director del FBI J. Edgar Hoover. Después de obtener un MBA en Harvard, pasó a dirigir la Asociación de Universitarios Republicanos y la Unión Nacional de Contribuyentes. En los años 80 trabajó en la Casa Blanca y fue asesor financiero de la guerrilla anticomunista angoleña UNITA, que combatía, con el apoyo de EEUU y Sudáfrica, al Gobierno de ese país, que contaba con el respaldo de decenas de miles de soldados cubanos. También trabajó con los 'muyahidin' antisoviéticos afganos.

    Born:  October 19, 1956 in Wenton, Massachusetts.  Current responsiblities:  President of Americans for Tax Reform and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition.  Director of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project.  Member of the Executive Committee of the National Rifle Association.  Career:  Norquist says that he became an anticommunist at age 11, reading Masters of Deceit, written by the controversial ex-diector of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover.  After obtaining a Harvard MBA, he went on to lead the Association of University Republicans and the National Contributors' Union.  In the 1980s he worked in the White House and was financial consultant to the anticommunist UNITA guerrillas in Angola, who fought, with American and South AFican support, the government of that country which enjoyed the support of tens of thousands of Cuban soldiers.  He also worked with the anti-Soviet Afghan "mujahedin".

    Translator notes:  

    [1] "cáracter bocazas" is not meant to be a compliment, hence "big mouth" was chosen over "outspokenness".  "Character" dropped since that word's usually implied in English.  

    [2] That's what Norquist calls it;  I don't know the degree of organization of this Coalition.

    •  aoeu (none)
      Norquist needs to be committed, he is clearly crazy.

      My turtles laughter
      was loud when the Yankees lost
      22 to zilch

      by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:28:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, yeah (none)
        We've known that for some time.

        But still, he wields all this power. What's up with that?

      •  I've gotta admit (none)
        even in my quick skimming, I'm scared shitless.

        I hope every Latino y Latina reads this and realizes what assholes like this in power would do to their children's future.

        And it makes me even more determined to get the Republicans out of control of the Legislative Branch; the bastard sounded so cocky when he said it doesn't matter who wins the White House, as the Republicans will have control of the legislature and Kerry can't do a damn thing about it.

        He talks about these "savings accounts" for health care and retirement...when Carlos and Maria or Chuck and Mary are barely making it paycheck to paycheck, where the hell are they supposed to come up with money for these "savings accounts"? Social Security and Medicare were partially started so that his grandparents wouldn't be eating dog food and freezing in the dark; wonder how they feel about his comments?

        I know this is disjointed; I'm supposed to be working, but I'm so *** mad I'm probably making 20 mistakes. Thank God/Goddess/Whoever I had my blood pressure followup yesterday, not today.

        Maybe it's time to turn off dKos and get some fresh air...who am I kidding? I'm hooked.

        Here endeth the rant...

        "If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry

        Prune the Shrub!

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:33:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  what a completely crazed bastard (none)
    Sorry, is this a safe space where I can voice that opinion?   I do think that many of the most far-out voices of the extreme right are certifiable looneys, Norquist being a prime example.   They are a bit like those in Italy who pined for the days of greatness under Mussolini, and eventually got the "Little Dictator" to replace him.  Ah, to return to greatness, where if a train did not run on time, it was cancelled and any news of the failure was suppressed!  Gad, what decisive actions were taken!   what medias were controlled and gelded!   Great wines were drunk, excellent mistresses were mounted and shown what a real man is!

    Norquist, being American, does not know from wine and mistresses.   He appears to want to return magically through the looking-glass into the world of Norman Rockwell paintings...   where all boys had freckles, everyone had a job and a house, the only minorities were negro people who did their own colorful thing at the other end of town and sang a lot in church, and nobody worried about getting old or ill, because it was a damn painting, remember?

    It is not that these folks have no shame, it is that they have no clue.

  •  I hope this makes news (none)
    I doubt if it will of course, but I can dream. Seriously, it's amazing the kind of things that Republicans get away with saying. Hell, Norquist himself is full of such quotes. Who can forget his "drown the government in a bathtub" quote? I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I'm still amazed that Norquist can say something like this, or that the WSJ can call poor people "lucky duckies". Where's the outrage? Oh, that's right, that would require a truly independent media.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

    by byoungbl on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:57:24 AM PDT

  •  Anti-american generation? (none)
    Why republicans hate most of America so much?
  •  I sent this (none)
    to Sen. Inouye.  I've met him and respect him a great deal.
  •  Apparently Grover Norquist (none)
    is about ready to drown Audie Murphy in a bathtub.  

    "Juntos pedemos" --George W. Bush gubernatorial theme, as interpreted by the Houston Chronicle

    by rhubarb on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 06:13:19 AM PDT

  •  Received in my email the other day: (none)
    We will reach out to [voters] with the President's positive agenda for America. Our Party's action and optimism provides a sharp contrast to the Democrats' protest and pessimism.

    That's why our Party is growing while their Party is shrinking.

    As the Democratic Party becomes smaller, it becomes more liberal, more angry, and more hate-filled. And as the Democratic Party becomes more liberal, more angry, and more hate-filled, it becomes smaller.

    Isn't that nice?  Ed the lying hypocrite even signs his name to his email full of bullshit.  I suppose if by "positive agenda" Ed means having their collective heads up their asses, and by "optimism" he means donning the next darker shade of rose-colored glasses, covering their ears, and yelling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" I suppose he's right on the mark in regards to the "president's" so-called "plan."  

    On the second point of the Democratic Party shrinking, well, we'll just see about that.  Fucking Ed Gillespie makes me want to hurl.

    What did we do to deserve George W. Bush?

    by republicans are idiots on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 06:49:31 AM PDT

  •  ¡Me disgusta, ese cabrón! (none)
    Grover Norquist es una comemierda.  Mis padres eran de «la generacion mas grande,» y no hay nadie mas patrioticos que ellos.  Sufrieron mucho para mantener nuestros derechos y libertad, y ese hija de la puta les insultó.

    -- "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."--Sam Adams&l

    by Otter on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:31:30 AM PDT

  •  write to the AARP: (none)
    This is what I just sent to the AARP, via their comment page at

    A senior Republican strategist, Grover Norquist, just announced that the WWII Generation is anti-American. I am not making this up. Here is the quote and the link:


    In an interview with Spanish paper El Mundo, Norquist hit a new low. When asked about if he thought Democratic Party was coming to an end Norquist told Pablo Pardo of El Mundo:

    "Yes, because in addition their demographic base is shrinking.  Each year, 2 million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exeception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies.  They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party. And they are dying. And, at the same time, all the time more Americans have stocks. That makes them defend the interests of business, because it is their own interest. Because of that, it's impossible to bring to the fore policies of social hate, of class warfare."

    AARP---I'm only a few years away from being your target demographic. This guy--with strong links to the White House--has just slimed much of your membership.

    Are you going to be silent and allow seniors to be denigrated?  Or will you ask the White House to distance itself from these kind of comments?

    Or are you just going to roll over and play dead to the Bush administration... like you did on the Medicare drug bill?

    Many of us will be watching for your response. If you won't defend the seniors now, why should aging Baby Boomers think you'll defend us when we're retired? Your credibility is already at a low because of your shameless support for the gift to the drug companies in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.

    We should also e-mail our elected representatives---Democrats--and get them to comment on this.

  •  Shame??? (none)
    Have they no sense of shame?

    Uh, NO.

    IS there anyone left who thinks they do?

    Oh, right -- all those undecided voters....

  •  The American Century (none)
    Someone should ask Grover why that un-American Generation was responsible for the rise of our power in the world.  The 20th century was the American century and those un-American New Deal programs are responsible.
  •  Norquist is a just a BIG CORP shill (none)
    Why pay any attention to this 2 bit CORP whore? His kind have hated everything that has happened in America since 1917. Except maybe for Nixon and Reagan. Norquist and his kind want an America owned lock stock and barrel by a few dozen Corp feudal barons. He already basically has what he wants so why does he bitch so much because for guys like Norquist enough is never enough.
  •  frankly (none)
    I own stock, and I always rememer the politics of class warfare and hate, because it's always trotted out on a national stage by the psycho-fascists that have taken over the Republican party. They figured out the carrot that the GOP would follow- electoral success- and they got a stick to whack 'em they, the fascists, are driving national policy through their host organism, the GOP.

    I'm just happy we're all starting to call people like Grover Norquist their real name: fascist. That's why they hate the "greatest generation" (note how Bush bashes his own father), they're freaking deomcratic people, opposed to corporate control of mankind. That's plenty to inflame the hatred of people like Grover.

  •  This is BS (none)
     I consider myself a fiscal conservative and I goota say this guy is full of a number btween 1 and 3.

     I think some of the new deal and great society ideas need to be tweaked to make the safety net just that instead of a hammock but what the hell was FDR supposed to do.Stand by and do nothing.

     And I mean all the greatest generation did was defeat the greatest threat to freedom in the history of the modren word.

     also,Bob Dole is a member of the greatest generation.Are you going to dis Bob Dole.

     Also anybody with an IQ above three would know that if anything these people are ardent patroits.FDR believed in using the power of big goverment to its utmost.You may or may not agree with that but nobody can rightly question his love for his country.

     Or Johnson or Kennedy or Wilson.Hell even though I hate the neglect that the military suffered under Carter,Carter's patriotism is beyond questionoing.He loves this Republic.He may notlike the way we are doing things right now,but he loves his country.

     My grand dad was one of the survivors of the indianapolis.He would not vote for me if I ran as a republican but if he was still alive I would challenge this moron to tell him that.I just hope he has a good dental plan.Cuase is grand dad Ronnie was still alive and he told him that he would knock the idiots teeth down his throat.

     Did this bastard float in shark infested waters knowing that no one knew he was in the water becuase the mission was top secret and no distress call was sent.I friggin doubt it.

     I dont give a damn if Kerry increases taxes to 99% these peices of excrement who surround Bush gotta go.

     I like Bush.I would have him for a Bar B Q at my house in a heart beat.But he has gotta go as chief executive.

     Sorry for being so flamey but this pissed me off.If you want to attack the social policy that came out of the greatest generation.Fine.

     But to attack their love of this country is a no class,gutless,spineless,sewer sludge sucking thing to do!!!@!!!

    •  Your first line made me smile (none)
      and god, did I need that this morning.

      I'm probably a little to the left of you, but I also think that the system needs tweaking, to eliminate waste and bloat and streamline the system for those who really needed while weeding out those who don't.

      Great job...

      "If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry

      Prune the Shrub!

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 10:42:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sure (none)
    We'd be a much better, stronger country if no one had fought to end those all-American practices of child labor, 16 hour days, 6 day weeks, company stores that sold goods on credit that you couldn't ever afford to pay off...

    Now, if only they could get rid of the public school system. I mean, why should some rich person be paying for my child's education?


    "You're born naked and the rest is drag." -Ru Paul

    by cshardie on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 11:07:36 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site