Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   How Republicans lost their minds and Democrats lost their souls   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 202
    More: Interesting, humans, Democrats, Sheila Jackson Lee, Chambers of parliament, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Baucus, Heritage Action, Dirksen  
•       •       •

3900 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2014 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-02 04:08:24 PM  
"spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".
 
2014-03-02 04:25:33 PM  

Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".


I think they mean "balls".
 
2014-03-02 04:34:00 PM  
Given who they face, and what will happen if they fail to stem them, Democrats can't afford a soul. To paraphrase the immortal words of Troy McClure, "If the GOP ever got the chance, they'd eat you and everyone you care about!"
 
2014-03-02 04:39:04 PM  

Mentat: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

I think they mean "balls".


Spines, balls, guts....it's all about courage. Democrats don't have enough of it. Sometimes they hold fast, but they only fight the fights they are sure they can win, and not the fights that need to be fought.
 
2014-03-02 04:42:27 PM  
It's not Dems vs Repubs.  That's the great lie.

It's the 1% vs everyone else. And the 1% are winning.
 
2014-03-02 04:46:40 PM  
Did you listen to Baucus testify about China, where he is soon to be our ambassador? ("I am no real expert on China.") Have you heard Jackson Lee hold forth, for example, on Vietnam? ("Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South ... living in peace.") Not inspiring.

That's the worst you can come up?


And the reason why Democrats have "lost their soul" is because liberals just give the keys to the people they elect and send them off.

We are in this mess because people refuse to discuss politics and become involved in their communities.

Granted the right-leaning paradigm is already there, but the right-wingers have us beat in terms of organization and community involvement.
 
2014-03-02 04:50:59 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-02 04:52:27 PM  

whidbey: Did you listen to Baucus testify about China, where he is soon to be our ambassador? ("I am no real expert on China.") Have you heard Jackson Lee hold forth, for example, on Vietnam? ("Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South ... living in peace.") Not inspiring.

That's the worst you can come up?


And the reason why Democrats have "lost their soul" is because liberals just give the keys to the people they elect and send them off.

We are in this mess because people refuse to discuss politics and become involved in their communities.

Granted the right-leaning paradigm is already there, but the right-wingers have us beat in terms of organization and community involvement.


I'm sorry, but I've seen packs of monkeys that were more organized than the GOP.  The Democrats, whatever faults they have, are far more organized than the retarded GOP.
 
2014-03-02 04:54:22 PM  
Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.
 
2014-03-02 04:57:31 PM  
Paraphrase: "Democrats have lost their conservatives and become too liberal. They're the party of unions and teh gheys."

*metaphorically wads up TFA, throws in general direction of wastepaper basket*
Today's Democrats are 1972's ultra-hardline Republicans.
 
2014-03-02 04:59:46 PM  

Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.


That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.
 
2014-03-02 05:05:26 PM  

fusillade762: Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.

That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.


This.  The Democrats have become the umbrella party that will take anyone that the GOP excludes (hint: everyone who is not white, male and not poor), and when your party ranges has both liberals, moderates and conservatives in it, it is going to be difficult reach consensus on many things.  That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't need to get their shiat together, but if they worked together more, they could pretty much crush the GOP at anything right now.
 
2014-03-02 05:09:08 PM  

Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.


I agree, but lets be realistic here there is a not insignificant segment of our party that douses their drawers at the very suggestion of a teabagger recall effort.
 
2014-03-02 05:10:10 PM  

fusillade762: Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.

That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.


Also true.
 
2014-03-02 05:10:11 PM  
It's interesting to see a retiring lifetime journalist with a powerful position (editor, Wash Post) write a vanity piece explaining why he never should have been in journalism (as it used to be defined and understood) in the first place ...

"Why? Because for me, the fun has drained out of the game. So has the substance. I used to get excited about the big issues we covered - civil rights, women's liberation, the fate of the country's great cities, the end of the Cold War. I loved the politicians who brought those issues to life, from Everett McKinley Dirksen and Howard Baker (Dirksen's son-in-law, curiously) to Russell B. Long and Edmund Muskie, from Bob Dole to George Mitchell - all people who knew and cared a great deal about governing. Watching them at work was exhilarating."

And then he left an important piece out of this last sentence ...

"Watching their successors, today's senators and representatives, is just depressing."

... because I enjoy big government and this latest group (elected in a massive landslide after we pushed through socialized medicine against the public's wishes) finally figured out how to halt it's expansion.
 
2014-03-02 05:11:11 PM  
I didn't lose my soul. I sold it for $20 and a bottle of Jack.
 
2014-03-02 05:11:34 PM  
Meth?

Is it meth?
 
2014-03-02 05:12:42 PM  

SunsetLament: It's interesting to see a retiring lifetime journalist with a powerful position (editor, Wash Post) write a vanity piece explaining why he never should have been in journalism (as it used to be defined and understood) in the first place ...

"Why? Because for me, the fun has drained out of the game. So has the substance. I used to get excited about the big issues we covered - civil rights, women's liberation, the fate of the country's great cities, the end of the Cold War. I loved the politicians who brought those issues to life, from Everett McKinley Dirksen and Howard Baker (Dirksen's son-in-law, curiously) to Russell B. Long and Edmund Muskie, from Bob Dole to George Mitchell - all people who knew and cared a great deal about governing. Watching them at work was exhilarating."

And then he left an important piece out of this last sentence ...

"Watching their successors, today's senators and representatives, is just depressing."

... because I enjoy big government and this latest group (elected in a massive landslide after we pushed through socialized medicine against the public's wishes) finally figured out how to halt it's expansion.


Ok look guy I'm trying to be on best behavior here and you're not making it easy.
 
2014-03-02 05:12:50 PM  
Oh, I love this line in particular

"The modern Democrats are a more liberal alliance of, mostly, interest groups: women, trade unionists, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, and most of the country's intellectuals."

Interest groups.  Yeah, those female interest groups and their anti-rape and pro-equal pay agendas.  The LGTB interest groups and their anti-descrimination agenda.  That 75% of the country he just described?  Special interest groups.  They're not white males, after all.

Why does every single beltway critique of one party have to reflexively negatively of the other?  This BSAB criticism almost literally breaks down to 'one side is openly hostile to governance and attempting to blatantly sabotage it while the other party hasn't managed to stop all the damage the other is inflicting'.
 
2014-03-02 05:18:24 PM  
The Democratic Party has also changed profoundly. It lost its white Southerners, who are now all Republicans, and lost its conservative wing. The modern Democrats are a more liberal alliance of, mostly, interest groups: women, trade unionists, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, and most of the country's intellectuals.

So, the Democrats lost their bigots, racists, and idiots, what the article calls it's "soul," to the GOP.

Oh no, what a loss.
 
2014-03-02 05:19:12 PM  

Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".


This.
I'm pretty sure the folks not trying to screw everybody else over in the name of profit/religion are the ones with actual souls. The spines are a whole separate issue.

Paul Baumer: Given who they face, and what will happen if they fail to stem them, Democrats can't afford a soul. To paraphrase the immortal words of Troy McClure, "If the GOP ever got the chance, they'd eat you and everyone you care about!"


I tend to agree, but don't you risk becoming the bad guy if you start acting like them? Like "when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you" or something along those lines?
 
2014-03-02 05:26:10 PM  

Mentat: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

I think they mean "balls".


In the case of both Republicans and Democrats: You can't lose what you never had.
 
2014-03-02 05:29:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mentat: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

I think they mean "balls".

In the case of both Republicans and Democrats: You can't lose what you never had.


Okay maybe just one.....

media0.giphy.com
 
2014-03-02 05:37:46 PM  
Oh, look: another journalist who spent his whole career covering politics as a horse-race complaining about party politics.

It is people like this, people who drained all the policy out of politics and presented politics as nothing more than vote-winning competitions, who ruined the system.

Is, say, the ACA good for Americans? Is it a good policy? This kind of journalist doesn't give a shiat (and can't be bothered to find out). They just want to report on the ACA as a fight between Republicans and Democrats.

And now he complains that the 'fun' and the 'substance' has 'drained out of the game'?

Fark you, man. Fark you. Your lazy 'journalism' made it a game. It is you.

Americans have to live in the world that this disdain for policy and governing has created, but editors at the Washington Post don't spend a minute in it.

I hope he chokes to death on a canapé at one of Anna Quindlan's cocktail parties.
 
2014-03-02 05:39:18 PM  

fusillade762: The GOP only has one: rich people.


The GOP has three, (arguably four), which is far worse. At a minimum: social conservatives/religious fundamentalists; corporatists; and militaristic neocons. And as anybody who grew up as one of three siblings (or is the parent of three kids), two are always ganging up on one in a never-ending power struggle that is inherently unstable.

The Democrats have lots of little cliques, so any dominant coalition is by definition broad, and any one clique has relatively little power in the threat to defect, so it's much more stable.
 
2014-03-02 05:43:30 PM  

Via Infinito: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

This.
I'm pretty sure the folks not trying to screw everybody else over in the name of profit/religion are the ones with actual souls. The spines are a whole separate issue.

Paul Baumer: Given who they face, and what will happen if they fail to stem them, Democrats can't afford a soul. To paraphrase the immortal words of Troy McClure, "If the GOP ever got the chance, they'd eat you and everyone you care about!"

I tend to agree, but don't you risk becoming the bad guy if you start acting like them? Like "when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you" or something along those lines?


I dig you - not saying there should be pogroms or anything like that, but really, the cost of failure to the Cruz's of the world is so high, that many, many, sins would be forgiven.
 
2014-03-02 05:43:51 PM  

SunsetLament: It's interesting to see a retiring lifetime journalist with a powerful position (editor, Wash Post) write a vanity piece explaining why he never should have been in journalism (as it used to be defined and understood) in the first place ...

"Why? Because for me, the fun has drained out of the game. So has the substance. I used to get excited about the big issues we covered - civil rights, women's liberation, the fate of the country's great cities, the end of the Cold War. I loved the politicians who brought those issues to life, from Everett McKinley Dirksen and Howard Baker (Dirksen's son-in-law, curiously) to Russell B. Long and Edmund Muskie, from Bob Dole to George Mitchell - all people who knew and cared a great deal about governing. Watching them at work was exhilarating."

And then he left an important piece out of this last sentence ...

"Watching their successors, today's senators and representatives, is just depressing."

... because I enjoy big government and this latest group (elected in a massive landslide after we pushed through socialized medicine against the public's wishes) finally figured out how to halt it's expansion.


Always the asshole idiot,  SunsetLament?

Can't you come up with something new?

/that was sarcasm.  I know you can't come up with something new.  You can't even manage to be honest.
 
2014-03-02 05:47:08 PM  

Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".


It's more coordination issues as the Democratic party transitions into being a consensus party containing both its previous left-wing adherents and the newer (at least newer in terms of having a significant voice in the party) conservative economically-centrist faction.  It's not really that there's a lack of conviction, it's just that it takes some time and effort to sort out a platform everyone can get behind when your party's base broadens.

Their big issue as far as standing up to the GOP was actually  too much conviction, honestly.  The die-hards that refused to acknowledge the change in the party's composition and decided to throw tantrums over their pet extremist issues (banning guns, etc) instead of coordinating with their new peers to find things they agree on is most of they the GOP kinda rolled them for most of the last decade.  Once they finally put their damned heads together and agreed on some basic shiat and made that the agenda things started getting done.  Gay marriage became a coherent drive, the message on Obamacare became much more coherent (barely in time for the mandate's implementation, but meh) and so on.  They're running pretty effectively now that they have their internal shiat sorted out.

Regarding TFA: this guy's an idiot.  Or, at least, he's mistaking  him burning out for there actually being something new and terrible happening to politics.  It's pure old-man-yells-at-cloud crap, any remotely realistic look at the last 70 years of politics that thinks the current situation is worse than the absolute farking madness of the Red Scare lacks impartiality to the point of outright stupidity.  The dude with a career including the age of farking McCarthy does  not get to throw stones about our younger generation screwing everything up with our hipping and hopping and bipping and bopping.  Motherfarker was part of the voting public that farked  the entire world for decades over a petty political dick-measuring contest with the Russians.
 
2014-03-02 05:52:57 PM  

bborchar: fusillade762: Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.

That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.

This.  The Democrats have become the umbrella party that will take anyone that the GOP excludes (hint: everyone who is not white, male and not poor), and when your party ranges has both liberals, moderates and conservatives in it, it is going to be difficult reach consensus on many things.  That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't need to get their shiat together, but if they worked together more, they could pretty much crush the GOP at anything right now.


The Republicans have a couple of decades' head start on messaging and framing the debate in the modern era.  Unfortunately, they perfected that in their mission of preaching ideological purity ahead of governance.

/Rush Limbaugh, as sad and irrelevant as he should be, has done some real damage to that party.
 
2014-03-02 05:55:43 PM  
SunsetLament:

<snip>


Hey, did you catch the part where he complained about "the disregard for facts that has defiled our public life"?

He's talking about you, and people like you.
 
2014-03-02 06:06:14 PM  
I didn't loose my soul, it's just been worn away ... like the bottom part of an old worn boot.  I just hope that one day I can heel.
 
2014-03-02 06:10:28 PM  

phaseolus: SunsetLament:

<snip>


Hey, did you catch the part where he complained about "the disregard for facts that has defiled our public life"?

He's talking about you, and people like you.


In all fairness I'd disregard any statement that contained the word "defiled" in a political context too.
 
2014-03-02 06:27:39 PM  

whidbey: We are in this mess because people refuse to discuss politics and become involved in their communities


You hate community government and charities in one thread and you complain people arent involved enough in their communities in this one.
You really dont know what you want, do you?
 
2014-03-02 06:29:44 PM  

fusillade762: Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.

That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.


Also the soon to be rich. Any day now.
 
2014-03-02 06:50:29 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: We are in this mess because people refuse to discuss politics and become involved in their communities

You hate community government and charities in one thread and you complain people arent involved enough in their communities in this one.
You really dont know what you want, do you?


I don't know what thread you're talking about, but I'm sorry that liberals irritate you so much.

Also, get back to me when you believe in man-made climate change.
 
2014-03-02 06:54:40 PM  
The 1980s changed America. These were the years when corporations and wealthy individuals organized to fight back against the liberal forces that had dominated the '60s and '70s. Moneyed interests organized new groups, especially political action committees that were prepared to spend large sums to achieve their political objectives. This began the three-decade process that has made money the most important element of our public life, a form of pollution way beyond the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.

He's right.
 
2014-03-02 07:07:49 PM  

quatchi: The 1980s changed America. These were the years when corporations and wealthy individuals organized to fight back against the liberal forces that had dominated the '60s and '70s. Moneyed interests organized new groups, especially political action committees that were prepared to spend large sums to achieve their political objectives. This began the three-decade process that has made money the most important element of our public life, a form of pollution way beyond the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.

He's right.


Except that he leaves out that much of the people doing that were Republicans under Reagan.
 
2014-03-02 07:13:31 PM  
The important thing is that the article's author is able to recognize that both sides are, in fact, bad.
 
2014-03-02 07:15:38 PM  
Someone who works at the Washington Post passing judgment on anyone ?!!?

/Not Katie Graham's Post anymore.
 
2014-03-02 07:18:18 PM  

Tenga: Also the soon to be rich. Any day now.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-02 07:21:49 PM  

shanrick: Tenga: Also the soon to be rich. Any day now.

[i.imgur.com image 800x601]


perfection
 
2014-03-02 07:28:07 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: It's not Dems vs Repubs.  That's the great lie.

It's the 1% vs everyone else. And the 1% are winning.


Until the molotovs start flying and the guillotine blades start coming down.
 
2014-03-02 07:29:05 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mentat: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

I think they mean "balls".

In the case of both Republicans and Democrats: You can't lose what you never had.


*ahem*

On the other hand, I did change my party affiliation...
 
2014-03-02 07:30:42 PM  

hubiestubert: Gyrfalcon: Mentat: Therion: "spines".

You meant "spines", not "souls".

I think they mean "balls".

In the case of both Republicans and Democrats: You can't lose what you never had.

*ahem*

On the other hand, I did change my party affiliation...


I really don't think the Whig Party is there yet, dude.
 
2014-03-02 07:34:07 PM  
"I got into politics because I was an idealistic young liberal excited by JFK.  It was fun to be for civil rights, to root for the USA instead of the USSR, and therefore know that I was a good person.  But now the easy issues are gone!  Now, we're expected to report on crap like tax reform - boooo-ring!  My job isn't fun anymore.  Boo hoo."
 
2014-03-02 07:38:12 PM  

fusillade762: Teufelaffe: Democrats don't lack souls, spines, or balls.  They lack consensus.

That could be because they have a diverse constituency. They have to appeal to unions, minorities, environmentalists, etc.

The GOP only has one: rich people.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is also a huge criticism of Democratic Party policy as well.

The rich definitely come first. Proposals are either watered-down or thrown out because it might negatively affect "the economy."
 
2014-03-02 07:41:46 PM  
Stop replying to the ancient troll, people. It was excusable in 2007, but in 2014, it's goddamn embarrassing.
 
2014-03-02 07:43:11 PM  

whidbey: quatchi: The 1980s changed America. These were the years when corporations and wealthy individuals organized to fight back against the liberal forces that had dominated the '60s and '70s. Moneyed interests organized new groups, especially political action committees that were prepared to spend large sums to achieve their political objectives. This began the three-decade process that has made money the most important element of our public life, a form of pollution way beyond the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.

He's right.

Except that he leaves out that much of the people doing that were Republicans under Reagan.


He leaves out a lot, in fact. It's not really a long piece considering all it covers. That noted, as a breakdown of the evolving (more correctly "devolving") political culture in DC over the last 50 years or so it's pretty much on the money. By far the most interesting and informative albeit depressing articles I've seen on the Pol Tab for the last couple of days. Which of course means it will be one the most unread and uncommented on articles this week.

I particularly liked this part...

Now the anti-government right wing dominates the GOP. Vigilantes from the Club for Growth and Heritage Action campaign to eliminate every Republican in Congress who toys with moderation or considers collaborating with Democrats. The vigilantes' key allies are members of "the base," the party activists who make up perhaps 10 to 15 percent of the country's population but can control the Republican nominating process. Their base consists principally of white evangelical Christians who, the pollsters tell us, fear that their America is disappearing. Of course they are right; it has probably disappeared already. Their America would not have elected a black president.

Ah, the stuff you can say only after you retire.
 
2014-03-02 07:44:14 PM  

TV's Vinnie: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: It's not Dems vs Repubs.  That's the great lie.

It's the 1% vs everyone else. And the 1% are winning.

Until the molotovs start flying and the guillotine blades start coming down.


When was the last riot in a gated community? These young dipshiats don't know who to punish, so they punish their neighbours.
 
2014-03-02 07:44:35 PM  

shanrick: Tenga: Also the soon to be rich. Any day now.

[i.imgur.com image 800x601]


I can understand being anti-Obama, but I can't understand how anyone can see that and consider it anything but the ramblings of a crazy man.

And he wants to impeach Obama over Afganistan?  Really?
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report