Never mind

[nadinbrzezinski]

Last edited Sun Oct 21, 2012, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

We have crossed the rubicon and that is that.

[GitRDun]

1. Here! Here!

Love your post!

For many of my friends on the right, I am the only person they will even talk to with views other than their own.

I could never convince anyone they have not thought through things enough if I treated them as an enemy.

[Jim__]

2. "Mitt Romney truly believes that what he wants for the US is what the US needs."

If romney believes that what he wants for the US is what the US needs, then he should plainly state what he wants for the US. When romney talks to anti-abortion people, he's anti-abortion; when he talks to pro-abortion people, he's pro-abortion. When romney talks to the middle class, he is not going to cut taxes for the rich, when he talks to the rich, he is going to cut their taxes by 20%. If he believes that what he wants for the US is what the US needs, then he disrespects the American people by not being honest about what he wants.

All politicians color and sugar-coat the truth. Romney lies. I cannot pretend to respect Romney.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. The problem is that he does

politicians believe their shit, even if they change opinions to fit polls, but they do.

Now you and I are free to question exactly what he wants, but to say that he is the enemy of the state, or just wants to harm you and me is a step too far, and a dangerous linguistic step. At that point you start the dehumanization process.

Now I will say this about Mitt. And this is not his politics, but being the President of Bain... I do not think he believes workers are anything more than pawns... but that is not Mitt, that is his social class. And him dehumanizing workers, does not mean I have to join him, now does it?

[ljm2002]

9. He simply cannot believe what he says...

...since he contradicts himself on a daily basis. A person cannot at one and the same time believe that women should have access to contraceptives without interference from their employers, on the one hand, and then on the other hand believe that employers should be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans. Someone who could take both positions within days, is simply not being truthful about what they believe -- if, indeed, he believes anything at all, which for me is questionable. Well it's obvious he believes in the divine right of rich white men to rule, that much I'll concede.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Local Mayoral candidate

I call him Mitt Junior. Trust me, his stances have changed just as often, and he believes in every one of them.

As a poli sci instructor who worked for pols once put it, pols are the only people he knows off who can have two contradictory thoughts in their minds at the same time and give you a third pov.

I thought he was kidding until I started covering politics. You see this fairly often actually.

[ljm2002]

12. I've been following politics for 50 years now...

...and you don't need to report on it to understand how it works. Sometimes they believe things that are contradictory in nature -- i.e., "pro-life" people may really, really believe they are advocates for the unborn and are against abortions, while at the same time they are against policies that would actually decrease abortions such as increased sex education and availability of effective contraception. However, Mitt is not a dummy, and he takes positions that are overtly contradictory, changing them like the rest of us would change clothing for a different event. He does not believe his own lies, he is using them to manipulate and get votes, pure and simple.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Is he a politician? Or did I miss that part?

And I am not following them, I am covering them!

What I am failing to explain to you, my fault, is that Mitt is NOT that rare of a bird. This is actually common and party independent.

[ljm2002]

17. You say Mitt is not that rare of a bird...

...and yet even other politicians in his own party marvel at how easily he slips out of one position and into another.

Yes, I know you're covering politicians, not "just" following them. My point in case it wasn't clear, is that one need not be reporting on them to understand them. When I say I've followed politics for 50 years, I mean I follow the issues and the politicians in depth. I'm familiar with their foibles and I'm familiar with how easily they lie in general, compared to the rest of us. Even among that crowd, however, Mitt stands out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. He stands out only in one respect

he managed to get the nom for the presidency, but waffles... Jaysus, Reagan was infamous for them! This is not new. Oh wait, wasn't Ronald Wilson Reagan President? Oh and then there is this guy called George "Dubya" Bush, not too long ago.

As far as the dems are concerned, LBJ was capable of the same trick... and let's not go into Nixon.

But you are right. Mitt is a rare bird.

[XemaSab]

15. I can think he's wrong and think he's a liar without thinking he's Satan

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Liar is not dehumanizing, Satan is

[Voice for Peace]

4. is it ok to

call him the anticripes?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. As long as not the Antichrist...

I am just bringing this up because history is very clear on where countries end up when this language is normalized. It is not immediate, by any means... but damn it, that process has accelerated.

[Voice for Peace]

6. I understand and

was making a silly joke but agree with you.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

7. Newt is our generations grandfather of this type of language. nt

[ljm2002]

8. Mitt Romney is a manipulative bastard...

...who will say anything, anytime in order to get elected.

He really believes that most other people are beneath him, if not beneath contempt.

I agree he should not be called a traitor as that has a specific meaning. He does appear to follow most of the rules; it's just that the rules are rigged for those of his class and he means to not only keep it that way but to cement the class structure in this country. When he thinks of what's "good for America", he really means what's good for the rich white ruling class -- i.e. HIS version of "America".

Furthermore, the language of race war / revolution / etc has been roiling around the political world for many years now mostly on the right, and not just on the fringes. Unless you include Limbaugh and Rove and Ann Coulter and Luntz and Norquist and others, as "fringe", when they have shaped the right and shaped the discourse for decades now. So now when some of us on the progressive side want to call people like Romney out, suddenly it's on us that the political discourse has coarsened? Suddenly it's on us that families are having issues, or that there is a cold / cool / tepid civil war in progress? I'm not buying it.

Now it is true, when fighting an enemy, it is important to not become just like them in the process. There are lines that should not be crossed, rhetorically as well in our actions. But using strong language to describe Romney and his ilk is allowed, and is in fact required, in my book, as long as the language used describes truthfully who and what he is. Which is a self-important, hugely entitled, manipulative, possibly sociopathic, plutocrat bastard.

By the way: political name-calling in American politics has been around from the beginning. Our mistake as progressives and Democrats has been to sit by and avoid the rhetorical battle, while the right seems to coin a new term every day to demonize us ("feminazis" for one example). Well now battle is joined. If we do not fight rhetorically now, we will be forced to fight later, IMO. It's that old "pay now, or pay later" dilemma: if you pay later, you always, without exception, pay more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. As to your first sentence, he IS a politician

and a top ranked "businessman."

He is trying to close the deal, think of it that way.

As to your last, one thing is the rhetorical battle, you are right, quite another is to talk of the other as the other.

There is a difference.

[ljm2002]

13. I understand your larger point...

...about demonizing and dehumanizing "the other". But I think that on our side, such talk is still limited to the fringe, while on the right such thinking has been normalized for decades. We cannot fight it by ignoring it or pulling our punches, that's all I'm saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Don't pull punches, call them on it, regardless of who does it

because it is not just on the fringe, it has become normalized.

We may still have time to step away from that ledge by the way.

[ljm2002]

18. Sorry...

...I think our biggest mistake in the last 20 years has been not taking the fight right to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Did I say don't take the fight?

No, but calling them traitors, enemies of the state, and vile animals is not helpful.

What is next in your taking it up to them? The dem version of the Liberal Hunting Permit that is popular on the other side?

Now if that is your version of taking the fight to them, count me out.

[ljm2002]

29. If you think that some DUer somewhere is using that sort of language...

...then by all means call them on it.

My perception of what is happening seems to differ from yours somewhat. What I see happening is that for the last 20+ years the right has been using exactly that sort of language, and not just on the fringe. We all know how effectively they took over talk radio and turned it into a hate-fest against liberals. With Rush Limbaugh, of course, leading the way -- and he can hardly be considered fringe, since politicians of national standing have declined to take issue even with some of his most incendiary remarks.

Anyway I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see our side engaging in such language on a broad scale, while the right has made it anything but a fringe position to hate liberals and consider them immoral, wicked people who actively want to kill babies and suck the lifeblood from hard working 'Murkins.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. You can date it

when it became main stream for the right.

Newt's dictat after the majority win in 1994.

It is becoming normalized for the other side now.

[ljm2002]

38. Please provide some evidence...

...that such language has become normalized for the "other side" (i.e. our side) now. I'm not seeing it but am willing to be educated.

And just using the term "traitor" by itself does not really rise to that level in my book. When, for example, someone says that Mitt is a "traitor" because he ships jobs overseas and keeps the bulk of his fortune in offshore accounts, I think they are using a particular definition of the term -- in fact, here are the two definitions from the first entry at dictionary.com:

trai·tor [trey-ter] noun
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

You will note that the first definition doesn't mention treason; rather, it is a general term that conveys betrayal of trust.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Well that is one step

but you knew it.

And yes, this place has become more radicalized. It has not entered, YET, the norm of political speech in DC... but IMHO we are not that far from that.

But hey, we can disagree, or agree or not whatsoever.

At this point I fear it can't be stopped. So at this point enjoy the war.

And yes, I am dead serious on that.

The web has accelerated the process by leaps.

And no, I am not going to say or affirm that Mitt has been loyal to American workers, but hell, he was not the first to start that process m'kay.

Have a good day.

I see I am trying to reach where none can be done.

If nothing else, thanks for the exchange. We have crossed that line. It is too late. Now I know better. Start making plans for when the shooting starts. I am not staying in a country at full fledged civil war.

[sadbear]

19. Post this in FR with the name changed to President Obama

and see what happens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I know what will happen

and your point? This is exactly what I am talking about.

[sadbear]

26. My point is that a lot of DU'ers AGREE with you

including yours' truly, but the sentiment is moot when the other side WILL NOT AGREE WITH YOU UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. It doesn't matter how we see the other side because of the way they see us. We will never be able to negotiate with them because they would rather us die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Here is the deal, this has to be made so unacceptable

that it goes back (on both sides) where this language resided before. FOR THE RECORD, Free Republic is part of that fringe. They have spoken that language weel before Newt...

So both the POLITICAL CLASS and the Mainstream need to push this language exactly back where it belongs. But the first step is to recognize it and avoid doing it ourselves.

[sadbear]

28. I have ZERO faith in the other side

to do what's right ever again, even if we do adopt this approach. We are not the problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. It is not about the other side

it is about dehumanizing the other and making them less than.

That is a problem.

Look, I just raised the issue, do as you wish. None of us will stop you.

Me... if this continues, I suspect will pack my vehicle, and make a run for the border... as I am really not going to remain at a place in the middle of a civil war. I know what happens in civil wars, and I do not fantasize of them, or anything like that.

That is precisely where this country is moving to.

Carry on.

Now here is your other choice, calling any and all pols who do this shit, regardless of party, and demanding that this is NOT tolerated, and perhaps we can avoid a nice hot civil war. That is your other choice, Suffice it to say that all civil wars in the end do end, and people who hates each other's guts need to learn to live with each other. Some end in other countries, and never go home.

And of course there are the countless who end up in mass graves.

[sadbear]

32. I suspect they want a civil war

and perhaps it's already started.

I'm reminded of the class war. The wealthy have been waging this war on us for at least three decades now. We haven't really fought back in all those years, and see where we are now?

If we treat this the same as we did the class war, this country truly will be destroyed. They've already brought their guns and if we bring flowers, they're going to shoot at us nonetheless. If we lay down our weapons, they will steamroll us.

I like to see your optimism that it's not too late to end this, but again, your talking to the wrong side. We're the only ones even interested in ending this. We're the only ones interested in compromise.

Maybe you should pack up and leave tomorrow because no matter what we do, the other side will continue their war on us until they win unconditionally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Well welcome the shooting phase

have it your way.

Have a good war.

I am being very serious. Like most it will nto end by Christmas, even when they promise such, nor will it be blue vs gray.

Enjoy the war.

[sadbear]

34. I'd rather die fighting than be rounded up and executed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. So you already accepted this

have a good day... and a good war.

Suffice it to say, there is really no glory or honor in war, those are the lies we tell each other.

But since you will NEVER trust them again, and they are NOT the same as you, well, you already took those fateful steps.

Enjoy your war.

[sadbear]

36. Bye.

Enjoy expatriation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. And you enjoy the honor and glory of war

it will be glorious I tell you!

[OldDem2012]

24. Maybe you don't quite understand what Mitt and his right-wing buddies want to do....

....to the America in which I grew up.

I will be voting against that crowd precisely because they are the enemy.

It's dangerous for our US democracy to think otherwise.

They are the ones who have raised the alarm bells of civil war, not us.

You need to wake the hell up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Wake the hell up to what? CIVIL WAR?

I am being dead serious there.

If you want one of those, by all means, go for it. I will take my passport and my funds and will get out of dodge. Quite frankly, I am quite allergic to high speed lead.

And no, my dear, it takes two to tango in a civil war.

Oh and let me add this. I have raised the specter of one, but I am NOT LOOKING FORWARDS TO ONE, and even at this late hour I will try to stop one. You go on and fantasize on one.

[sanatanadharma]

40. Not evil...

...religiously deluded, spiritually empty, narrowly nurtured, compassionately constipated, incompletely educated, egoically emotional, etc.
Like all of us.
But very few of us ever get the power to implement disastrous ideas upon the futures of millions.
He is a danger because he identifies with a gang that is more devoted to power, wealth and control than to America or the future of this nation. Romney IS an pan-nationalist.