Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?      Home login  
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 76
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?Page 4 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

There are a number of books out that expose this lie... Perhaps the best is "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Any way you slice it - Hitler rose to power in the SOCIALIST party, so Progressive historians had to give it a new name "Nazism" in order to make the claim that he was really a right winger... Ever seen a "right winger" rail against capitalism? Well Hitler did. In fact he used alot of the same anti-capitalist rhetoric I've seen right here in this very thread. I never claimed he was a Progressive. I clamed that Progressives are Socialists.

Goldberg is not a political scientist and has zero background in the field. Reviews from "Conservative" business magazines the Finncial Times and The Economist (hardly shills for the socialist establishment) both find his books claims meritless and ignorant of political and historical reality.

Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 77
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:23:19 PM
Oh no say it aint so madfiddler! I thought these nuts were on to something calling all the old timers for the last 60 years on their secret agenda to protect the left wing from having the stain of hitler on their record! *Said in complete Satirical fashion*

Talk about tin foil hats!!

seems like the Karl Rove and gang are up to the same stuff as usual trying to pin all their weaknesses on the left and rewrite history even though no true scholars even the nuttiest of them would ever call hitler a lefty. Nothing new here.

Oh but if rush and beck say it is so those historians nor certainly any political scientists and all of the people whom kept it a secret for the last sixty years were such dreadful liars! They had to all be red bastards!! At least pink through and through.. I mean OMG!!! How could they keep this a secret otherwise for the last 60 years?!

The other weakness that they tried to pin on democrats was their claim that republicans are better on national security and keeping us safe. Well guess what one of the worst attack on American soil was under the republicans watch and they responded by burying the country in debt from an unneeded war in Iraq and a mess in Afghanistan.. Neither made us safer only lose more money all while the economy tanks.

Brilliant job there guys!

So I am learning Tea-Baggers love Orwellian double speak as much as republicans more proof they are just another wing of the same lame duck.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 78
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:43:53 PM

No - it was the "National Socialist German Workers’ Party"... You left out a key word... The one that counts...

Why don't you actually READ the book? Even if you just read Wikipedia, you can plainly see that Hitler used a lot of the exact same rhetoric you hear from Progressives (Socialists) in America as we speak... Minus the Eugenics of course, unless you count Planned Parenthood...

Nice try , Swamp, but that may go over real well in Georgia - but not here.

Adolf Hitler: Greatness of Religious Fanaticism & Intolerance
The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12

Adolf Hitler: Christianity's Greatness Lies in Inexorable Fanaticism
The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12

Adolf Hitler: Imitating Christianity's Fanatical, Hysterical Passion
For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
-Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler: Imitating Christianity's Fanatical Intolerance
Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5

Adolf Hitler: Filling People with Blind Faith
For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5

Adolf Hitler: Imitating the Christian Creed
I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.
- Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pp. 239-40

Adolf Hitler: Media Must be Cleansed of Sexual Filth
Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

Adolf Hitler: Decline of Christianity in Europe is Dangerous
While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine -- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular -- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

Adolf Hitler: Institution of Marriage Must Be Defended
A Volkisch state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

Adolf Hitler: Burn out the Poison of Immorality
Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872

Adolf Hitler: The Nazi Party Represents Positive Christianity
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)

. Adolf Hitler: Fascism is Closer to Christianity than Liberalism or Marxism
The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...
- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican

Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values
By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.

Adolf Hitler: Woman's World is Husband, Family, Children, Home
Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.

- Adolf Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism

I hear a lot of the same rhetoric, all right........but not the socialist kind.
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 79
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:00:08 PM

Well said.

If there was even one mainstream political historian who used the word fascist when describing liberal/progressive thought, or described the Nazis as anything but the opposite of socialist (they were socialist in name only as my good friend, a Ph.D German historian and lawyer who's thesis was on this very subject would be the first to point out) I would be quite amazed.

Alas, the only people attempting to "Godwinize" (to pinch the term) the liberals or progressives thusly are the shrieking moonbats on the extreme right like Jonah Goldberg, following in the footsteps of fellow hyperbole peddler Ann Coulter, who ironically he fired.

The Nazi party were an authoritarian party of fiscal and social conservatism that appealed to traditional German values and ultra-nationalism. They were ruled by a despotic leader. They did not collectivize, nor was their any plan to. They maintained a free market although some businesses were managed as the country was on a war footing, however prior to the war this was not the case. Initially they also had no difficulties with the church but their long term plan was a state run church and an Aryan fusing of Christianity and Aryan mythology. Whether this would have come to fruition or not, we will never have known.
By David Neiwert Saturday Aug 29, 2009 4:00pm

One of the hallmarks of the American right's utter descent into complete wingnuttery is the increasing willingness of its footsoldiers to buy into palpably, provably false nonsense and embrace it as fact. This ranges from the Birthers' insistence that Barack Obama hasn't produced a birth certificate to the teabaggers' claims that health-care reform means we'll be euthanizing senior citizens.

One of the most persistent components of this is the right's ardent embrace of the fraudulent thesis of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism -- to wit, that "properly understood, fascism is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left." The embrace of this fraud as somehow truthful has produced those teabaggers' signs bearing swastikas (suggesting that health-care reform is fascist) and signs showing Barack Obama as Hitler and, moreover, the claims that Obama is marching the nation down the road to fascism.

It's been particularly embraced by movement conservatives in their efforts to whitewash from public view the existence of right-wing extremists among their ranks.

The impact of this embrace on our national discourse has been deeper than probably anyone suspected when the book was first published last year. Not only is Goldberg's thesis now taken as an article of faith by such right-wing talkers as Rush Limbaugh (who probably helped inspire Goldberg's thesis in any event), Glenn Beck, Michael Savage,, but also among the teabagging protesters whose ranks are increasingly filled by real right-wing extremists.

What's most noteworthy, perhaps, is that Goldberg's thesis is being used to attack anyone who points out the frequently violent and intimidating behavior of these extremists. It's not the right-wing protesters carrying open weapons, Obama=Hitler signs, and openly disrupting the discussion of health-care reform at town-hall sessions who are behaving like Brownshirts, they insist -- it's the liberals who show enough nerve to stand up to them!

We saw this a couple of weeks ago here in western Washington, where Rep. Brian Baird -- who had decried the ugly nature of the town-hall disruptions by in fact comparing some of these extremists to "Brownshirts," and then appearing on the Rachel Maddow show, where he compared them to Timothy McVeigh -- was attacked at his town-hall meeting on health care by a former Marine named David Hedrick who accused Baird and House Speaker of Nancy Pelosi of being the real Nazis.

Of course, this ensured him a guest slot on Fox News, and so Hedrick shortly thereafter appeared on Sean Hannity's program to explain his thinking. As you can see, he has absorbed and swallowed Goldberg's thesis whole:

Hannity: I read that one of the main reasons that you wanted to be there is because Congressman Baird had used the term "Brownshirts" to describe people showing up at the town halls. You confronted him on that. What happened?

Hedrick: I did confront him on that, and I don't think it's acceptable language that he is, you know, comparing us to Nazis. And it's -- Pelosi did this, he did this, now he's compared us to McVeigh, and talked about bombings there. And, uh, basically I called him on it, I said, 'You know what? If you want to call us Nazis, let's look at the Nazi doctrine. Let's look at National Socialism. And what is National Socialism? Since you let the cat out of the bag, we'll talk about it.

National Socialism is very much what we see today in this administration. It's a policy on what's line for line -- it's the same economic policy, it's the same political policy. And so if they want to talk about Nazis, then they better be careful about that conversation, because they might find that the swastika is on their own arm.

Of course, a little context for what provoked Hedrick's outrage might be useful. When Baird made his "Brownshirts" and "McVeigh" remarks, he clearly was referring to some of the tactics being used by some of the teabaggers. What he made clear shortly afterward was that in fact he and his office had been threatened by some of these teabaggers, who faxed death threats and made them by phone as well. One phone message from Aug. 10 said "You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder Truck out there with your name on it" (according to Baird’s Vancouver district director).

Those are, indeed, classically fascist attempts at political intimidation. Not only was Baird right, but Hedrick's claim about "the real Nazis" is incredibly obtuse for someone from the Pacific Northwest.

Because anyone who has lived any length of time in this region is all too familiar with "the real Nazis." For the better part of two decades, one of the nation's most prominent neo-Nazi organizations plied its white-supremacist wares and spread its vicious poison right here in our backyards.

Most of us can still remember its strange fruit: from The Order to Buford Furrow to Shawna Forde's killer Minuteman gang, the ugly scars of the murderous violence they embrace are with us even today. We remember them all too well. Indeed, it was only a few years ago they were marching on the steps of our state Capitol.

We already know who "the real Nazis" are, and they are anything but liberals. Indeed, they are precisely its opposite: they are true right-wing extremists. And they always have been.

What people like Goldberg, in responding to this point, have always claimed is that there's nothing particularly right wing about the kookery of people like the Aryan Nations or the Posse Comitatus -- they're just kooks, plain and simple. So when James von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum this summer, Goldberg disingenuously went on Beck's program and tried to persuade us that Von Brunn wasn't a right-wing extremist -- just a garden-variety kook. Just like Dr. George Tiller's assassin, Scott Roeder.

But this is palpable nonsense. What makes these people right-wing extremists is that they not only adopt right-wing political positions, they take them to their most extreme logical (if that's the word for it) outcome:

* They not only oppose abortion, they believe abortion providers should be killed.

* They not only believe that liberal elites control the media and financial institutions, but that a conniving cabal of Jews is at the heart of this conspiracy to destroy America.

* They not only despise Big Government, they believe it is part of a New World Order plot to enslave us all.

* They not only defend gun rights avidly, they stockpile them out of fear that President Obama plans to send in U.N. troops to take them away from citizens.

* They not only oppose homosexuality as immoral, they believe gays and lesbians deserve the death penalty.

* They not only oppose civil-rights advances for minorities, they also believe a "race war" is imminent, necessary and desirable.

And on and on. Every part of the agenda of the agenda of right-wing extremists is essentially an extreme expression of conservative positions. And that, fundamentally, is why American fascism always has been and always will be, properly understood, an unmistakable phenomenon of the Right.

Of course, that's only the tip of the iceberg for what's wrong with the whole "liberal fascism" thesis. As I explored in some detail more recently, the historical record itself unequivocally repudiates Goldberg's thesis.

Now, Goldberg has tossed some sneering bon mots my way (in his book, I'm merely the "always comically inept David Neiwart [sic] at Crooks and Liars" (ahem), but he has never addressed this point, which I've raised numerous times. Goldberg tosses all kinds of anecdotal evidence our way in support of his fraudulent thesis, but he refuses to come clean on the bottom line: The historical record is irrevocably clear that fascism, not just in Germany and Italy but also in America, has always been a phenomenon of the Right.

He's not only profoundly misleading large numbers of the American reading public, he is in the process misshaping our national discourse. Because when large numbers of people believe crap that is simply and provably false, not only is our resulting discourse deeply irrational, but so are the democratic outcomes.

I'll repeat the last section for emphasis.

The historical record is irrevocably clear that fascism, not just in Germany and Italy but also in America, has always been a phenomenon of the Right.

And when large numbers of people believe crap that is simply and provably false, not only is our resulting discourse deeply irrational, but so are the democratic outcomes.

Here's another review from a Conservative in the magazine entitled no less, The American Conservative - sorry, no labeling this one a lib hate piece, it's one of your own:

Not without reason was Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism widely expected to be a bad book. As many predicted from the title, Goldberg does not content himself with rebuking those who call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist. Instead, he invents reasons of his own for calling anyone who disagrees with Jonah Goldberg a fascist. Liberal Fascism confirms anew George Orwell’s remark—cited by Goldberg without irony—that fascism has no meaning today other than “something not desirable.”

Expecting an unkind reception, Goldberg has packed his book with caveats. “I do not believe liberals are evil, villainous or bigoted,” he writes. “I have not written a book about how all liberals are Nazis or fascists. … Liberals today are not responsible for what their forefathers believed.” Nevertheless, liberals must “account” for their history and “live in a house of distinctly fascist architecture.” Liberal economics are a “fascist bargain” and Hillary Clinton’s It takes a Village explicates “the liberal fascist agenda.” Liberals have “totalitarian temptations residing in their hearts.” Patient exegetes can determine for themselves which claims Goldberg is actually making and which he means to take back.

In the meantime, one can make out three reasons for calling liberals the true fascists. First, Goldberg points out that liberalism and fascism have many elements in common. Both fascists and liberals favor a minimum wage, an expansive social safety net, heavy regulation of industry, and redistributive taxation, but stop short of advocating the abolition of private property. Both scorn constitutional limits on government, indulge in economic populism, and see the working classes as their natural constituencies. Both distrust bourgeois values and traditional religion. On these points and others, Goldberg observes, not only do liberalism and fascism agree, but they reject the ideology of the American conservative movement.

That liberalism and fascism happen to overlap is not surprising. One can find just as many similarities between fascism and movement conservatism: both assail communism, exaggerate security threats, rationalize wars of aggression, and uphold nationalism (what sentimentalists call patriotism) and its symbols (flags, founding myths, worship of national heroes). Nothing in logic compels the ideas of liberalism, fascism, or movement conservatism to cohere into a system. On the contrary, creative theorists can mix sundry political ideas as freely as the ingredients of a****ail. Given the vast range of questions to which competing ideologies purport to provide answers, the real surprise would be if any two ideologies had nothing in common at all.

Goldberg nonetheless sees ideologies as discrete wholes. He makes much of his discovery, for example, that the Nazis supported organic farming and animal rights and even goes so far as to admonish us to “grapple with the fact that we’ve seen this sort of thing before.” Readers can spare themselves the energy. That Nazism and contemporary liberalism both promote healthy living is as meaningless a finding as that bloody marys and martinis may both be made with gin. Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. He tells us that Himmler bemoaned the Christian persecution of witches, just like Wiccan feminists do today, that Hitler once described his doctrine as “reality-based,” just like today’s progressives describe theirs, and that Mussolini was quite smart “by the standards of liberal intellectuals today.” In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence.

Often the parallels between liberalism and fascism prove only that they use the rhetorical strategies available to them. John F. Kennedy’s successors did not need obscure socialist theorists to tell them about the power of myth to unite their followers. The concept of a “third way” recurs in any ideology that claims to combine the best of various alternatives. Conspiracy theories run amok not just among Nazis and anti-Bush leftists but across the political spectrum, doubtless because they have more cognitive appeal than the counterintuitive models needed to understand how the modern world actually works. Goldberg’s own tendency to blame the world’s ills on a handful of evil philosophers from Rousseau to Heidegger is itself a kind of conspiracy theory. That does not make Goldberg an unwitting Nazi.

In elaborating liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. He devotes a whole chapter to proving that Nazism was left-wing. Hitler was a revolutionary, Hitler was anti-business, Hitler was a socialist: therefore Hitler was a leftist. Very well, but clearly one can also place Hitler on the Right. An ideology does not come under some kind of curse just because it is put in the same category as Hitler’s. Nor by lumping Hitler in with one’s political opponents can one can somehow burden them with his crimes. Other than scandalizing one’s enemies, little is accomplished by applying the categories “Right” and “Left” to Hitlerism.

Goldberg’s second argument for “liberal fascism,” presented as the official thesis of the book, is that liberalism and fascism share the same intellectual heritage. Like others who look to intellectual history for insight, Goldberg resorts to genealogical metaphor: liberalism is the “daughter” of progressivism, which is the “sister movement of fascism.” Thus liberalism today has an “embarrassing family resemblance” to fascism. But ideas do not simply beget other ideas; still less do they pass on genetic defects. These metaphors obscure the lack of any actual causal link between succeeding ideas.

Progressivism, for example, did not in any meaningful sense lead to liberalism. On the contrary, in 1922, Walter Lippmann, the leading liberal intellectual of the 1920s, wrote Public Opinion, one of the most trenchant critiques of populism and democracy (and, with it, progressivism) ever penned. Lippmann went on to become Mussolini’s most unsparing American critic, precisely because Lippmann saw in fascism the same dangers that he saw in progressivism. If we must describe intellectual history in biological terms, then it would be more accurate to say that liberalism drove progressivism into extinction than that progressivism gave birth to liberalism.

Even if an American species of fascism (i.e., progressivism) did lead to liberalism, as opposed to merely preceding it in time, this still would not mean that liberalism leads to fascism. For one thing, liberals are entitled at least once a century to change their minds. Even if some who we might call liberals once delighted in Woodrow Wilson’s suppression of dissent, fretted over the pollution of America’s genetic stock, or urged Franklin Roosevelt to assume dictatorial powers, today’s liberals may disown these ideas if they like. Associating modern liberals with the dubious judgments of their predecessors is an ad hominem argument, and not even a very beguiling one.

Indeed, liberals plainly have changed their minds when it comes to nearly every damning quotation that Goldberg unearths. This goes not just for the white supremacy of Wilson or the eugenics of Margaret Sanger but for liberals’ preferred political theories as well. For example, borrowing heavily from the enthusiasts at the Claremont Institute, Goldberg thinks it significant that progressive intellectuals scorned individual rights and the Declaration of Independence. Well, liberals these days do not. Goldberg cannot force liberals to stop championing the Declaration right now just so his attacks on liberalism can be vindicated.

At times, Goldberg seems prepared to concede the unimportance of intellectual history. “One objection to all this might be: So what?” he writes. Instead of answering his own question, he moves on to his third, most ambitious reason for calling liberals fascist: namely, that liberalism and fascism share the same inherent tendencies. Whatever the differences between liberalism and fascism, however much liberals are not actually evil, they both seek the same dolorous ends.

Now, it is unclear how exactly liberalism and fascism share a tendency—which Goldberg portentously dubs the “totalitarian temptation”—that, say, Goldberg’s own movement conservatism does not. Still less is it clear how this tendency actually works. It may suit the purposes of ideologues—who need to manufacture bogeymen to keep their followers entertained—to see ideologies as organisms with inherent tendencies to develop in certain ways. Goldberg, by contrast, has spent some time learning the unpredictable history of 20th-century ideologies. Yet he accuses liberals of harboring a hidden, unacknowledged agenda, even as he flies into a state of high dudgeon when they accuse him of the same thing.

The idea that liberals suffer from a “totalitarian temptation” is in any case without merit. To begin with, far from discerning liberalism’s telos, Goldberg does not even describe it correctly. At one point, he writes that liberals cavalierly “dismiss abstract arguments involving universal moral principles.” On the contrary, with the exception of a few eccentrics such as Richard Rorty, liberals do not hesitate to argue from abstract, universal moral principles such as human rights or equality. Celebrity intellectuals such as Martha Nussbaum even invoke Aristotle to prove that liberalism is everywhere and at all times morally correct. Whatever the errors of liberalism, a failure to appreciate abstract moral obligations is surely not among them.

Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. At one point, he exhumes the likes of Derrida and Foucault in order to pummel them once more for introducing postmodernism, deconstruction, and other continental horrors into the world. What this tiresome routine has to do with liberalism escapes the reader. From the outset, liberals opposed these fads as fiercely as conservatives. Just ask Ronald Dworkin or Brian Leiter. Goldberg, like many movement conservatives, grossly overestimates the influence of postmodernism, doubtless because avowed nihilists make such good straw men (if not good theater, as Derrida and Foucault well knew).

Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism. Goldberg’s liberals do not just favor a larger role for government, but worship a Hegelian God-State; they do not just welcome the putative moral advances of the 1960s, but are fascinated by apocalyptic violence; they do not just engage in identity politics, but are ushering in “a Nietzschean world where power decides important questions rather than reason”; they do not just hope to curtail tobacco use and fast foods, but are trying to create a Brave New World. Mere disagreement hypertrophies into a cosmic battle that must decide the fate of the universe.

For all his striving for theoretical sophistication, Goldberg manages to come off as something of a philistine. He treats the great philosophers less as thinkers than as figurines to be arranged on a chessboard, each capable of one or two moves. Thus Herder stands for nationalism, Hegel for the divination of the State, William James for the denial of truth, John Dewey for social engineering, Nietzsche for nihilism, and so forth. (Oddly, Goldberg reserves his most curt disdain for those theorists, such as Joseph de Maistre and Carl Schmitt, who faced the truth the most fearlessly.) These names do not lend Liberal Fascism gravitas so as much overweigh it with an importance it cannot bear.

To be fair, Goldberg did not come up with his ideas about liberalism on his own. He is a quintessential second-generation conservative, a man who grew up in the movement and chose to make his career within it. Nearly all the authors in the movement’s recommended reading list—Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin, Robert Nisbett, Allan Bloom—appear in Liberal Fascism’s footnotes. Not surprisingly, the silliest and most extravagant arguments in his book are also the most conventional, at least to anyone familiar with the ideology of movement conservatism.

Indeed, Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. Here you will read that Rousseau conjured all the evils of the modern world, that the influence of the Frankfurt School is destroying traditional values, that closet Nietzscheans are spreading the disease of moral relativism, and that Deweyan faith in “planners” is corroding our liberties. Intelligent liberals will not cry foul at Liberal Fascism so much as groan. They were not fixed in these formulated phrases before and they will not be so fixed now.

Goldberg does at times display a blush of shame. He qualifies his conclusions to the point of taking them all back, insisting that he does not actually mean to say that liberals are dangerous totalitarians. He grants that some of his points are trivial and others may appear outrageous, so that nothing he says should be taken as both true and interesting at the same time. He claims that movement conservatives also suffer from the totalitarian temptation, so that we are “all” fascists now. Why then link liberalism in particular with fascism? Here Goldberg is surprisingly candid: because, he argues, liberals do it to conservatives all the time.

He’s right, of course. Many liberals do impute nefarious designs to conservatives. With just a modicum of restraint, Goldberg could have written a very good book. “Look,” he could have said, “‘Fascism’ has no meaning today, but, in any case, not only does conservatism owe nothing to fascism, but, historically, conservatives in America generally opposed fascism while liberals and leftists often were sympathetic.” Instead, lacking even the excuse of ignorance, he chose to sling the term “fascism” around as casually as the most vulgar leftist. It does not speak well of Goldberg that, by his own admission, he wrote his first book not to enlighten but to exact revenge.

Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue. Perhaps it was hubris that made him do it. The last important book by a conservative was Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind in 1987, whose ideas had been in circulation for many years before. Goldberg may have convinced himself that by penning yet another disquisition into the “true nature of liberalism,” he could become the first movement conservative in a generation to write something lasting. In the end, he succeeded only in recycling 60 years worth of conservative movement bromides.

Austin W. Bramwell is a lawyer in New York City.

And in this cute little blog we are reminded of Goldberg's pants-piddling encounter with Jon Stewart:

It’s sad to see Goldberg get it so wrong, in fact, so wrong that one wonders if there is a large dark spot in his brain tha precludes him from actually researching but it’s even sadder that so many people are buying into this pseudo-intellectual’s book.

When confronted by his own arguments he can barly defend himself; as what happened to him on The Daily Show (now, due to the writers strike calling itself A Daily Show) with Jon Stewart. During the interview Stewart confronts Goldberg on him calling organic food advocates Nazis; for his response Goldberg fuddles around by stating that Nazis were obsessed with purity to which Jon states, “That’s like calling mustaches fascist because Hitler had one!”

"In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "Apparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist." Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war."
(from the wiki entry)

I read Allan Bloom's "Closing Of The American Mind" and found it to be brilliant, engrossing and for a book written by a conservative intellectual, contained many ideas about academics that I agreed with wholeheartedly.

Jonah Goldberg is no Allan Bloom. And frankly having attempted to wade through some of the b.s. that makes up Liberal Fascism, I wouldn't wrap fish with's intellectually bankrupt and poorly researched dreck, van
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 80
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:08:53 PM
Some additional reviews of Jonah Goldberg's puff piece:

Comparative essays by some real experts on fascism and Jonah Goldberg's lack of expertise exposed...

This bit is also worth quoting:

This absorption of the "liberal fascism" thesis dangerously distorts the public discourse precisely because, like so many other components of right-wing belief systems, it’s fundamentally untrue. As the four essays that follow make thoroughly clear, the historical record itself unequivocally repudiates Goldberg's thesis. As such, Liberal Fascism has distorted and polluted the public’s understanding of the nature of fascism, nearly to the point of rendering the word essentially meaningless.

One of the more striking aspects of Goldberg’s dishonesty is how he manipulates his definitions in self-serving fashion that lets him move the goalposts at will, as though we were playing Calvinball. John Cole calls this “the Goldberg Principle”: "You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words." For instance, his operative definition of fascism is actually just the generic definition for totalitarianism, and it omits entirely the special characteristics that distinguish fascism from other forms of totalitarianism. One of these, for instance, is its overpowering, indeed dominant, antiliberalism – a fact that Goldberg conveniently omitted from throughout his entire 400 or so pages, and later dismissed by claiming that the “liberalism” it opposed was not modern liberalism, but classical liberalism (as though the two have no connection whatever).

Goldberg’s whole approach, for that matter, involves omitting contradictory factual information. His thesis begins with a real fact: fascism originally based its public appeal, like most right-wing populist movements, by claiming to represent a “neither left nor right” solution but a transcendent unifying force. As such, it often made socialist-sounding appeals in its rhetoric, particularly in its nascent stages. Goldberg explores this in depth by trotting out multiple examples of socialist-sounding rhetoric from fascists, as well as endorsements of fascism by gullible socialists. As Michael Tomasky noted in his scathing review for The New Republic:

Yet for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions--and on the day after May Day, 1933. Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned. And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike. Hitler did many worse things, of course. I single out this act because it would hardly seem to be the edict of a "man of the left." And there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism, none of which seem to have found their way into the pages of Liberal Fascism.

Goldberg responded by arguing that the fascists were just foreclosing on their competition: “All that need be said is that if Hitler’s ban on independent trade unions disqualifies him as a leftist, then Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not leftists either.” This is, in fact, the argument that Goldberg attempts to make in his book as well: That the fascists occupied the "political space" on the Left, and thus were simply out to compete against their fellow leftists.

But this is where Goldberg most deeply portrays a lack of respect for the historical material available to him, because any careful study of the actual details of how the fascists came to power in both Italy and Germany makes abundantly clear that they were occupying the available political space on the right -- and had charged hard in that direction from early on in their drive to power. The ideological shift by Mussolini and Hitler away from appeals to socialist sensibilities occurred in the defense of wealthy landowners and the established economic and cultural powers, and it entailed a wave of murderous violence against socialists, leftists, and any form of progressive.

As you will see laid out in detail in these essays, the path to power for both Italian Fascists and German Nazis was essentially the same: They presented themselves as "revolutionary socialists" in their initial appeals but, finding the political space for such a movement already well occupied on the left by socialists and communists, shifted their appeals and their alliances to the right and center, particularly with business capitalists who financed them, sponsored their activities, and essentially contracted with them to engage in systematic violence against the Left. Yet there is not even a scintilla of acknowledgement of this historical reality in Liberal Fascism.

In assessing the broader effects of Liberal Fascism, it may be useful to recall George Orwell’s concept of “Newspeak,” the official language of the totalitarian regime of 1984. Newspeak combines two ideas that, conventionally speaking, are virtual (if not precise) opposites, and presents them as identical -- thereby nullifying the meaning contained in each word: "War is Peace." "Ignorance is Strength." "Freedom is Slavery." It serves two functions: It deflates the opposition by nullifying its defining issues, and throws the nominal logic of the public debate into disarray; and it provides rhetorical and ontological cover for its speakers' own activities and agenda.

Goldberg’s book, merely in conflating the seemingly contradictory terms “liberal” and “fascism,” fundamentally nullifies the meanings of both words – and its core thesis, that fascism was “a phenomenon of the left,” is a historically false fraud. At its core, Liberal Fascism is an act of Newspeak that pollutes the national discourse by destroying our understanding. And when large numbers of people believe nonsense that is simply and provably false, not only is our resulting discourse deeply irrational, but so are the democratic outcomes.
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 81
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:16:14 PM

So is Jonah Goldberg LBJ's love Child? Or a Clone of Linda Tripp.....

seems like the Karl Rove and gang are up to the same stuff as usual trying to pin all their weaknesses on the left and rewrite history even though no true scholars even the nuttiest of them would ever call hitler a lefty. Nothing new here.

It was pointed out today that the Definition of Fascist was changed in 1987 in the Merriam Webster dictionary. 1987 was the year of the Transnational Corporation purchase. The current Definition is nothing like the Original Mussolini definition.

Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 82
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:33:49 PM
And...strangely....this all leads back to the original tone of this thread...

In this week’s protests at town hall forums, some conservatives have used Nazi imagery to compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler and congressional Democrats to Nazis.

In an interview this week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of the town hall protestors loudly assailing President Obama’s health care reform push, “I think they are AstroTurf -- you be the judge, carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care. This initiative is funded by the high end. We call it ‘Astroturf,’ it's not really a grass roots movement. It's AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people of America.”

That some of the protestors are comparing President Obama and congressional Democrats to Adolph Hitler and Nazis is unquestionably true.

That they’re “carrying swastikas and symbols like that” because the protestors themselves are supportive of Hitler and the Nazis, does not seem to be true at all.

Pelosi’s office says she meant the former, not the latter.

Conservatives seized upon the latter.

Yesterday, conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh said that “the Speaker of the House accusing people showing up at these town hall meetings of wearing Swastikas -- that is not insignificant folks. This woman is deranged. They are unraveling. But that is not insignificant. You have the Democrat Speaker of the House saying that people -- citizens -- who are concerned about health care are now wearing Swastikas. She’s basically saying that we are Nazis. She is saying that the people who oppose this are Nazis.”

Limbaugh said it’s liberals, not conservatives, who are the ones who invite the comparison.

“Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business -- they hated big business. And of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working, one of which was the Autobahn. They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals, but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare.”

Limbaugh said that “this is why I have always bristled when I hear people claim conservativism gets close to Nazism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Nazism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded like a Hitler-like logo.”

Limbaugh said, “Oh, another similarity. Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right out of the White House,, asking citizens to report people who are saying weird, odd things. You know the White House responded, ‘No, no, no, we're not taking names here. We're not taking names. We're just taking people who are putting up faulty arguments and refuting them.’ Well, that's not the intention. Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis....[Obama] is sending out his brownshirts to head up opposition to genuine American citizens who want no part of what Barack Obama stands for and is trying to stuff down our throats....Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. His Cabinet only met once. One day. That was it. Hitler said he didn't need to meet with his Cabinet; he represented the will of the people. He was called the messiah. He said the people spoke through him.”

The ADL’s Foxman specifically said cited Limbaugh’s comparison as offensive, saying “comparisons to the Nazis are deeply offensive and only serve to diminish and trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime’s crimes against humanity and the murder of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust. I don’t see any comparison here. It’s off-center, off-issue and completely inappropriate.”

The American Jewish Congress issued a statement, “The Limbaugh comments comparing Obama ( and Pelosi )to Hitler and the Nazis are grossly offensive and intolerable. They reflect a nasty and hyperbolic tendency on our political culture, one which makes reasoned discourse impossible, confuses disagreement with evil, and which makes it impossible to distinguish evil from ordinary politics. ... It behooves all participants in the political process to unequivocally disavow the comparison and to make it plain that peddlers of such noxious comparison have no place in our politics, no matter how large their audiences. And all Americans should make plain their disgust at the comparisons by talk show hosts by a prompt use of the off button.”

Another such comparison was made in Pueblo, Colorado, shot by an employee of the Democratic-allied Service Employees International Union, as first reported at Talking Points Memo.

In the video, a spokesman for the groups “Patients First” -- part of the conservative group “Americans for Prosperity” -- describing the health care reform bill as pushing euthanasia for the elderly, which he compares to Hitler’s Final Solution for the Jews.

“When you reach 65 and every five years thereafter you’re going to have to have counseling session with some, um, some federal airhead,” he says.

“Part of this process is called End of Life counseling.” He says, a section of House Bill 3200. “And part of End of Life counseling can be an End of Life order. ’End of Life,’ what’s another word for that? ‘Death.’ ‘Order,’ what’s another word for that? A ‘sentence.’”

He says Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe issued “End of Life” orders -- in their respective genocides.

"Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders,” the speaker says. “He called his program the Final Solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours."

In House Resolution 3200, page 425 refers to “advance care planning consultation,” defined as a senior and a medical practitioner discussing “advance care planning, if…the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.” This includes an “explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to,” an “explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses,” and an “explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”

It directs the medical provider to give the patients “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning,” and an explanation “of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title,” as well as “an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders.” says the “accepted definition of end-of-life planning means thinking ahead about the care you would like to receive at the end of your life -- which may include the choice to reject extraordinary measures of life support, or the choice to embrace them….the bill would not make these sessions mandatory.”

Hmmm...Americans for Prosperity.......I seem to remember that name from somewhere.....hmmm....let me think....

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a Washington D.C.-based conservative political advocacy group which describes itself on its Web site as "... an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels." It was founded in 2004, by David H. Koch of Koch Industries, who in 1984, had also established its predecessor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, from which Americans for Prosperity split in 2003. (Citizens for a Sound Economy rebranded as FreedomWorks.)

Patients United Now
In May 2009, Americans for Prosperity launched Patients United Now, a website self-described as a project offering information for those opposed to what they describe as "a government takeover of the United States health care system."A subsequent series of television ads in opposition to Democratic health care reform proposals was launched under the Patients United Now brand. In one TV ad, a Canadian woman "Shona Holmes" is featured saying she got a runaround for brain tumor surgery and ultimately was treated in the US, although she actually had a benign Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. Columnist David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times wrote that a single-payer Canadian style insurance system is not part of any leading reform proposal as the ad suggests.Media Matters for America called the ad "Strong on emotion and weak on facts." Amy Menefee, a spokeswoman for Patients United Now, replied to the criticism saying "The point of the ad is to show the extremes where things could go". "This would be a bigger role for government than we've ever seen. It's a power grab in this area of the economy."

On February 27, 2009, in collaboration with others, the organization sponsored a Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and Washington, D.C. Tea party protest.

Americans for Prosperity is by far the slickest of the astroturf groups organizing disgruntled right-wingers of the "regular folks" variety into shouting mobs at town-hall meetings focused on health-care reform.

Sponsored in the past, according to SourceWatch, by the oil interests of Koch Industries, and a foundation headed by notorious right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife, AFP is wedding public fear about health-care reform -- fear it has done its best to stoke -- to a larger agenda embraced by ground-level activists that includes opposition to the cap-and-trade climate bill and Internet neutrality.

Indeed, AFP's exploitation of fears about health-care reform appear to be merely a means to a larger end.

Think these guys are appeased by the administration's talk of dumping the public health insurance option from the health-care reform bills currently working their way through Congress?

Not Your Father's Astroturf

Americans for Prosperity is, perhaps, the brightest and shiniest of the astroturf organizations responsible for the misinformed, disruptive and sometimes dangerous citizens who continue to turn up at town hall meetings conducted by members of Congress over the August recess. All count themselves as members of the Tea Party movement of anti-tax activists.

His activists tour the country in a big, luxury motor coach painted in red, white and blue, sporting the slogan, "Keep Your Hands Off My Health Care!" With its spiffy graphics and tech-savvy persona, the aesthetics of Americans for Prosperity are reminiscent of the Christian Coalition events and materials of the mid-1990s.

That's not surprising, given that AFP President Tim Phillips is a former business partner of Ralph Reed, who, as its executive director, brought the Christian Coalition to national prominence. Phillips and Reed continue to work in tandem.

Although Reed went on to ignominy for his involvement in the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal, he is now attempting a comeback with a new organization, the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

While Phillips was the master of ceremonies at the RightOnline event, Reed shared the stage with****Armey at an anti-health-care rally in Atlanta that was co-sponsored by Americans for Prosperity.

Phillips, the AFP president, worked on Armey's political campaigns.

While Fox News has hardly been secretive about its involvement in the anti-health care cause, the reach of its parent company, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., goes further than the utterances of its pundits over the airwaves, or Beck's 9-12 Project.

The Americans for Prosperity roster of RightOnline conference speakers was heavily populated by those who toil for Murdoch -- fully one-third of the list of 15 -- in addition to two others who have links to Murdoch.

Fox News contributors Michelle Malkin and Jim Pinkerton addressed the crowd, as did columnists John Fund and Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, another News Corp. property. AFP Policy Director Kerpen writes a column for Pittsburgh radio host Glen Meakem works for a Clear Channel station whose featured programming includes the Wall Street Journal Report, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Ronald Kessler writes for NewsMax, which was founded by a former reporter for the New York Post, yet another News Corp.entity.

When I asked Phillips about the Fox/Wall Street Journal connection to his organization, he looked surprised.

"We have someone from Fox News?" he asked.

"Well, Fox News Channel contributors," I replied.

"OK. So, they're not on the payroll of Fox News. Do any of those guys get money from Fox News?"

He's asking me? "I don't know if they're paid by Fox," I said, "but I assume that they are. Do you have a partnership with Rupert Murdoch?"

"Not at all, not at all," he replied with a little laugh. "The fact is, the Wall Street Journal's my favorite newspaper; I love those guys. I like what they write. I look at Steve Moore and John Fund, and those are two of the smartest guys. They're also entertaining, in addition to being philosophically sound.

"I don't know if you've read The End of Prosperity, Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore's book; it's one of my favorite books of the last three or four years. I've really found it to be incisive, so I really like those guys. But there's no partnership -- financially, understood, or anything else."

I checked with the Fox News Washington bureau, and indeed Malkin and Pinkerton are paid by Fox, and are branded by the news channel, listed on the "talent" page of its Web site. Fund and Moore are full-time employees of the Wall Street Journal, and AFP's Kerpen has a weekly platform on Fox's well-traveled Web site.

What Murdoch Hath Wrought

In the cable and broadcast spectrum occupied by Fox News Channel and Fox Television, Murdoch operates through a public trust, as do all cable and broadcast outlets.

As much as he hates to share, Murdoch is using the common property of the United States to turn out mobs at town hall events for the purpose of intimidating members of Congress and spreading disinformation about what's in the health care bills.

There's nothing unusual about media properties whose editorial and opinion content reflects the views of the owner. What's new here is Murdoch's use of his media empire as an organizing tool in a campaign designed not only to affect several very particular pieces of legislation, but concocted to "break," in the words of DeMint, a U.S. president.

While Phillips may have been a little shy about his kinship with Murdoch and his minions, the minions themselves were not.,_media_mogul_murdoch_is_big_muscle_behind_fraudulent_astro_turfers/?page=entire

So Swamp's old buddy of note is part of this, and we do remember that person's past......

Phillips and Enron

Century Strategies first big client was Enron--the $60 billion energy company that imploded over-night under shady business operations and fraudulent accounting. From 1997 to 2001 Enron and Century Strategies shared a business relationship.

In 1997, Phillips and Reed were contracted by Enron to mobilize "religious leaders and pro-family groups" to generate support for energy deregulation in Congress and in state assemblies. Phillips and Reed used multiple mediums including advertsing on conservative talk shows, placing op-eds from community leaders in major newspapers, and having major political campaign contributors to press Congress to pass the favourable legislation. It is estimated Enron paid Century Strategies $380,000 for its services.

Phillips and the Northern Mariana Islands

In 1998 Jack Abramoff hired Century Strategies to pressure Congress to vote against legislation that would have made the U.S. commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands subject to U.S. federal wage and worker safety laws. The legislation came as a response to a federal report which found that Chinese women in the Northern Mariana Islands were subjected to forced abortions, as well as forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry.

However, in the mail-out campaign Phillips conducted to oppose the legislation, he stated that Chinese workers "are exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ, [and many] convert to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand."
Phillips and Nefarious Political Attacks

In 2000 Century Strategies worked on the "Bush for President" campaign. According to the Century Strategies, Phillips "spearheaded the direct mail, telemarketing, coalition building and strategic services" for George W. Bush's campaign against John McCain in the 2000 primaries.

During the primaries, McCain's presidential campaign was unraveled by an anonymous public relations operation that spread false rumours about John McCain and his family. The operation tarnished McCain's reputation by sending leaflets, emails, and telephone calls to South Carolina constituents explaining to them how McCain's adopted child from Bangladesh was really an illegitimate child he fathered with a black woman. McCain's team never uncovered who was behind the campaign.

In 2000, Phillips was also hired by Virginia Senator Stephen Martin to manage a direct mail campaign against Eric Cantor in the Republican primary for a Virginia's congressional seat. It was during this campaign that Tim Phillips set up the Faith and Family Alliance. The Faith and Family Alliance then proceeded to conduct an anti-semitic smear campaign on Eric Cantor--the organization sent out thousands of pamphlets and made phone calls which stated that Cantor did not represent "Virginia values," and that his opponent was the "only Christian in the contest." Phillips claims to have no knowledge this smear campaign.

Tim Phillips is also associated with helping to engineer political victory for Senator Saxby Chambliss during the 2002 senatorial election. During this election, a Chambliss television ad aired which claimed incumbent Democrat Senator Max Cleland was soft on national security by showing images of Osama Bin Laden, and then blasting his voting record on domestic security.

In a 1995 speech at a Christian Coalition conference, Tim Phillips, then a strategist for Rep. Goodlatte, told members of the Christian Coalition that were interested in running for school board positions to use "stealth tactics to find the most 'hard-core' people aligned to conservative values." Phillips recommended inventing a phony polling firm. This false surveying group would then phone residents and ask loaded questions about abortion, homosexuality, and school prayer. Those respondents that gave the most desired responses would be reminded to vote on election day.

So this excuse for a fellow, Richard Mellon Scaife, David H. Koch, and a whole bunch of people from Murdoch's clan are out there making sure that average Americans are being protected from abuse from government, and their are ready to spend untold millions helping out those lucky people.

God Bless America.....with friends like these, you really don't need enemies.

And while we are at it, let's look at the dittohead commander and chief :

. Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business -- they hated big business.

The stormtroopers also carried out terrible acts of violence against socialists and communists. In one incident in Silesia, a young member of the KPD had his eyes poked out with a billiard cue and was then stabbed to death in front of his mother. Four members of the SA were convicted of the rime. Many people were shocked when Hitler sent a letter of support for the four men and promised to do what he could to get them released.

A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul von Hindenburg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany.

Incidents such as these worried many Germans, and in the elections that took place in November 1932 the support for the Nazi Party fell. The German Communist Party made substantial gains in the election winning 100 seats. Hitler used this to create a sense of panic by claiming that German was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution and only the NSDAP could prevent this happening.

By 1930 Thyssen was one of the leading backers of the Nazi Party. The following year he recruited Hjalmar Schacht to the cause and in November, 1932, the two men joined with other industrialists in signing the letter that urged Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Adolf Hitler as chancellor. This was successful and on 20th February, 1933, they arranged a meeting of the Association of German Industrialists that raised 3 million marks for the Nazi Party in the forthcoming election.

Thyssen supported the measures that Hitler took against the left-wing political groups and trade unions. He also put pressure on Hitler to suppress the left of the Nazi Party that resulted in the Night of the Long Knives. However, as a Catholic, Thyssen objected when Hitler began persecuting people for their religious beliefs.

Afraid of a Bolshevik Revolution....attacking socialists....against trade unions......and left wing groups .with big business backing them....wait a dog gone moment, that strangely sounds familiar.....

They were insanely, irrationally against pollution.

As opposed to being insanely and irrationally for it, like in those oil spills Koch Industries were fined for ?

A Nazi like logo, that looks suspiciously like the universally recognized symbol for nursing - the caduceus ?
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 83
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/10/2010 6:54:19 AM
It is worth noting that East Germany was officially called the German Democratic Republic. So what's in a name, really?

Whether Nazi Germany was more righty than lefty or not is, at the end of the day, largely moot. Have some forgotten (or never realized) that the political spectrum is circular, not linear? Ideologies become more similar at the extremes, not more different.

It becomes a matter of choosing which oppressive totalitarianism you prefer. Hopefully that is something we can all agree upon, historical revisionist or not.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 84
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/10/2010 8:19:11 AM

Another such comparison was made in Pueblo, Colorado, shot by an employee of the Democratic-allied Service Employees International Union, as first reported at Talking Points Memo.

In the video, a spokesman for the groups “Patients First” -- part of the conservative group “Americans for Prosperity” -- describing the health care reform bill as pushing euthanasia for the elderly, which he compares to Hitler’s Final Solution for the Jews.

“When you reach 65 and every five years thereafter you’re going to have to have counseling session with some, um, some federal airhead,” he says.

“Part of this process is called End of Life counseling.” He says, a section of House Bill 3200. “And part of End of Life counseling can be an End of Life order. ’End of Life,’ what’s another word for that? ‘Death.’ ‘Order,’ what’s another word for that? A ‘sentence.’”

He says Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe issued “End of Life” orders -- in their respective genocides.

"Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders,” the speaker says. “He called his program the Final Solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours."

The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) 2.0 ?

That was passed into law with nary a Goodwinian reference to be overheard anywhere on the right, by George Bush.

The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1990 as an amendment to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Effective on December 1, 1991, this legislation required many hospitals, Nursing Homes, home health agencies, hospice providers, HMOs, and other health care institutions to provide information about advance health care directives to adult patients upon their admission to the healthcare facility. This law does not apply to individual doctors.

The requirements of the PSDA are as follows:
* Patients are given written notice upon admission to the health care facility of their decision-making rights, and policies regarding advance health care directives in their state and in the institution to which they have been admitted. Patient rights include:

1. The right to facilitate their own health care decisions
2. The right to accept or refuse medical treatment
3. The right to make an advance health care directive

* Facilities must inquire as to the whether the patient already has an advance health care directive, and make note of this in their medical records.
* Facilities must provide education to their staff and affiliates about advance health care directives.
* Health care provides are not allowed to discriminately admit or treat patients based on whether or not they have an advance health care directive.

The purpose of the Patient Self-Determination Act was to inform patients of their rights regarding decisions toward their own medical care, and ensure that these rights are communicated by the health care provider. Specifically, the rights ensured are those of the patient to dictate their future care (by means such as living will or power of attorney), should they become incapacitated.

Versus :

H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders … .

So this "first step" on the road to euthanasia was indeed taken by a Republican President, roughly twenty years ago. Far from trying to get patients to kill themselves under state encouragement, it was a much needed solution to the problems both health providers and patients were facing when the patient was unable to direct their own healthcare decisions. It helped to ensure that patients were cared for in the manner they wanted to be cared for, and that included the ability to accept or deny heroic measures as the patient saw fit.

It help to remove the confusion, and reduced the need for lawsuits or unwanted vegetative prolonged (and expensive) medical care when there was no hope - and (and only when) that was something not desired by the patient.

Where was Limbaugh when George Bush, while Governor of Texas, enacted the Futile Care Law ?

Note that Texas is one of the few states with a timetable allowing hospitals to decide when to end life support. Under existing law, the family is guaranteed only two days before the hospital ethics committee meeting then 10 days before the termination of treatment -- a total of 12 days, unless a court intervenes.

May 25, 2007
Futile Care Law Dies
Topics: Futile Care Laws

The bill that would modified the Texas Care Law has itself been declared futile:

A proposal to extend the time for medically futile patients before a hospital can cut off their life support has died in the Texas House, a victim of legislative deadlines and backroom disputes.

The legislation, already approved in the Senate, had been scheduled to be voted on in the House on Tuesday. However, it never came up for debate before a midnight deadline set for the passage of certain bills.

"It's dead -- dead for now," Rep. Dianne White Delisi, a Temple Republican who sponsored the measure, said Wednesday. She said the comprehensive proposal needed more time for debate than was available before the House gavel fell for the night.

Why you ask? Wesley Smith suggests an astonishing answer:

The "good" bill, which would have required hospitals to maintain treatment pending a transfer to another hospital would have breezed to passage, and in the process given a body blow to Futile Care Theory. Then, inexplicably, the Catholic Bishops (I believe at the behest of the organization representing Catholic hospitals) opposed the bill and threw its considerable heft behind a bill extending the 10-day cut off to 21-days.

If it had been up to her doctors, the Houston hospital where she was treated and the laws of the state of Texas, Kalilah Roberson-Reese would bedead by now.

Instead, the severely brain-damaged 29-year-old woman is being cared for in a Lubbock nursing home, where she’s become a focal point in a growing struggle over a controversial Texas law that permits hospitals to withdraw life support from patients whose conditions they deem hopeless – even if family members object.

And Texans are right out there hopping on that astroturf chuck wagon in large numbers...... in a state where the government has made it legal for the hospitals there to give a patient a two day window before they meet to start deciding their fate unilaterally, and ten more days before they do it - unless someone takes them to court to stop them.

Again, those with the most to gain allow themselves to be mislead and to act against their own best interests thanks to dogmatic front men for corporations misinforming them of what's actually going on.
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/10/2010 10:21:51 AM

Despite the propaganda spewed by the Left many Americans actually do read the proposed Bills and base their opinions on the actual Text of said Bills....

I thought the problem was No one had read the Bills?
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/10/2010 10:58:11 AM
If you are going to quote me, might as well complete my sentences instead of taking things out of context and trying to make it seem like I was insulting the rural people.

I was stating a fact, that the republican party under Karl Rove's direction has been exploiting cultural filters, and beliefs in order to get into office people some of whom even go so far as to put on an act to look like they are good folk from the country but, are really wolves in sheep's clothing. literally and metaphorically.

George W Bush PRIME example. People vote for a truck and belt buckle, oh he is from Texas, and he is someone I would like to drink a beer with but the reality is, he was born and grew up in the north east, went to an ivy league school, and then put on a fake southern accent and buys a ranch in Texas and talks like he is completely uneducated....

How strange he was born and raised up north, school; Yale, when in office did things that hurt people severely whom make what most rural people do, the worst. Yet they go crazy for him.

I am not saying the people are stupid, quite the contrary I am saying they are being manipulated skillfully like a master fiddle player.

here is the full context of what I was saying.

someone else posted this..

They don't even know that their rage is being manipulated to achieve the goals of billionaires that want to keep on screwing the rest of the people for as long as they can.

I responded with this and the above will help clarify for you since you obviously wish to spin my words, nothing new there either.

That is exactly the point and they took that script from the republican party for certain. They have been getting rural people to vote against their own self interest for the interest of the oligarchs for a very long time. Nothing new there.

Your bringing this up is yet another attempt to play on cultural filters. It plays on this very phenomenon of which you bring up, by demonstrating it perfectly for all of us right here. Without even knowing me you call me an elitist, then demonstrate the right wings disdain for an education.

Well since you are going to use that frame of thought I guess I should introduce myself a bit further to you.

I am hardly an elitist my friend. I am one whom believes he can learn from everybody.
I have learned some of the most profound things from people of the most humble of origins. Now, if you disagree with my assessment of the topic at hand then by all means please enlighten us with your view of it. It might be more effective than attempting to play on tricks from the 1980s, calling liberals elitists, bashing people whom cherish intellect, discipline, and all that... Wow! No wonder we are having a real hard time in this country with education. We have a party that leads us to believe education, intellect, and the discipline that goes with it, is somehow a bad thing..

Either that or are you saying you want people to be educated but when they research and learn something that we should just not use it and go with the same o same o that is broken and sinking?

do tell.
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 87
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/14/2010 3:56:52 AM
Thats why non Americans find American politics and the American system interesting.
Its like a Bizzaro world for gods sake.
Who ever heard of Nazism or Facism being the far left? It is the far right all over the world.
My parents still sing the songs, that have the words about killing communists and socialists lol.

Dont get hooked on a name.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 88
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/14/2010 10:16:59 AM
There's an odd tendency on the right in America to assert that nothing the right has ever done has ever been wrong, and that every bad thing that has happened has been the left's fault:

I saw a book a couple of years ago that was a re-issue of William F Buckley's defence of McCarthy for example. If it clearly comes from the right, then it's not evil. If it's clearly evil, then it must come from the left. I've seen people on these forums assert that segregation was leftist; that Roosevelt caused the Great Depression; that the left are war mongers; that the recent collapse was caused by too much regulation, not too little.
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 89
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/15/2010 12:29:55 AM
Post withdrawn.
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 90
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/15/2010 7:49:50 AM
BS most are the "Right" are more than willing to admit where and when Politicians on the Right have should take a closer look at those on the Left...Ask your self a few questions and check your immediate response? Why did we go to War in Iraq? Who was responsible? WHo voted for funding? Who voted for American action? What was the root cause of the Economic meltdown? etc.....All one has to do is read these Forums to see that most on the Left are the ones who have blame everything on the other guys syndrome.....

Those on the Left are really pushing the idea that the Tea Party movement is made up and expressing the opinions of only those on the extreme far Right and those with some other motives...unfortunately for the Left the Tea Party movement is primarily made up of American Citizens who are tired of the policies and agenda put forth by this most incompetent President and administration...
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 91
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/15/2010 12:51:43 PM
[I am sure that there are some groups that have latched on to the Tea Party movement but there are many Real Americans who are frustrated with this administration who see the Tea Party movement as a way to get their voices out there since Obama and the Dems seem to be deaf to the concerns of the average middle class American]

again I ask where in the hell were these "real americans" that are fustrated with the Obama Administration during 2000-2008 when the other guy ufcked things up so royally? surely if your fustrated with Obama then my goodness you sure were awfully silent and nonexistent during the wonderful, posperous g w bush years and republican's in control of the house and senate from96 to 06.....
definitely astroturf( the nice term, but we all know what they are really mad about *wink,wink*)
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 92
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 11:01:31 AM
I would normally agree with the assertion that Nazism was "right wing", but a little fact keeps getting in the way.
Ernst rohm (co founder of the SA ) was openly gay.

Röhm spoke of a "second revolution" against "reactionaries" (the National Socialist label for conservatives), as the National Socialists had previously dealt with the Communists and Socialists.

Doesn't sound as if he wanted to "join" them.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 93
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 11:30:45 AM
Hitler's Nazi party was different than the one Rohm thought he was involved in. Just like Lincoln's Republican party was different than Reagan's. Hitler kept the name and the anti-semitism, but took his inspiration from Mussolini.
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 94
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 11:36:54 AM
He was also executed on the "Night of the Long Knives" under Hitler's orders. Rohm was one of the only one's who took the "socialist" in the name literally apparently. From the wiki entry on him:

Second revolution

Röhm and the SA regarded themselves as the vanguard of the "National Socialist revolution." After Hitler's takeover, they expected radical changes in Germany, with power and rewards for them. However, Hitler's use of the SA as storm troopers was a political weapon he no longer needed.

Röhm had been one of the most prominent members of the party's "socialist" faction. This group took the words "Sozialistische" and "Arbeiter" ("worker") in the party's name literally. They largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for nationalisation of major industrial firms, expanded worker control, confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy and social equality. Röhm spoke of a "second revolution" against "reactionaries" (the National Socialist label for conservatives), as the National Socialists had previously dealt with the Communists and Socialists.

All this was threatening to the business community, which had supported Hitler's rise to power. So Hitler swiftly reassured businessmen that there would be no "second revolution." Many "storm troopers" were of working-class origins and had expected a socialist programme. In fact, it was often said at the time that members of the SA were like a beefsteak ("brown on the outside and red on the inside" because many of them were former Communists). They were now disappointed by the new regime's lack of socialist direction and also failure to provide the lavish patronage expected. Röhm even publicly criticized Hitler for his failure to carry through the National Socialist revolution.

Furthermore, Röhm and his SA colleagues thought of their force (now over three million strong) as the future army of Germany, replacing the Reichswehr and its professional officers, whom they viewed as "old fogies" who lacked "revolutionary spirit." Röhm wanted to be made Minister of Defense. In February 1934 he demanded that the Reichswehr (which under the Treaty of Versailles was limited to 100,000 men) be merged into the SA to form a true "people's army."
With Kurt Daluege and Heinrich Himmler, August 1933

This was horrifying to the army, with its traditions going back to Frederick the Great. The army officer corps viewed the SA as a brawling mob of undisciplined street fighters and were also concerned of the pervasiveness of homosexuality and corrupt morals within the ranks of the SA. The entire officer corps opposed Röhm's proposal, insisting honour and discipline would vanish if the SA gained control. And it appeared that the SA would settle for nothing less.

Hitler privately shared much of Röhm's animus toward the traditionalists in the army. But he had gained power with the army's support and he wanted the army's support to succeed the ailing 86-year-old Paul von Hindenburg as President.

Meanwhile, Hitler had already begun preparing for the struggle. In February he told British diplomat Anthony Eden that he planned to reduce the SA by two thirds. Also in February, he announced that the SA would be left only a few minor military functions.

Röhm responded with further complaints about Hitler, and began expanding the armed elements of the SA. To many it appeared as though the SA was planning or threatening a rebellion. In March, Röhm offered a compromise whereby a few thousand SA leaders would be taken into the army, but the army rejected it. [7]

On 11 April 1934, Hitler met with German military leaders. Hitler informed them of Hindenburg's declining health and proposed that the Reichswehr support him as the next president. In exchange Hitler offered to reduce the SA, suppress Röhm's ambitions and guarantee the Reichswehr would be Germany's only military force. William L. Shirer asserts Hitler also promised to expand both the army and navy.

However, both the Reichswehr and business conservatives continued their anti-SA complaints to President Hindenburg. In early June 1934, defense minister Werner von Blomberg, on Hindenburg's behalf, issued an ultimatum to Hitler: unless political tension in Germany ended, Hindenburg would likely declare martial law. Hitler was shocked to hear this from Blomberg, who up to that point had displayed a near lackey-like attitude toward him. However, when Hitler went to see the President himself, Hindenburg confirmed the ultimatum and knowing such a step could forever deprive him of power, Hitler decided to carry out his pact with the Reichswehr to suppress the SA. This meant a showdown with Röhm. In Hitler's view, the army and the SA constituted the only real remaining power centres in Germany that were independent — not reduced to submission to the National Socialist state.

The army was willing to submit. Blomberg had the swastika added to the army's insignia in February and ended the army's practice of preference for "old army" descent in new officers, replacing it with a requirement of "consonance with the new government."

Once the SA were reduced in number, their use as a tool was something Hitler no longer needed to achieve his goal and neither was Rohm. Whatever the SA was, it was no longer the NSDAP which may have had origins as a workers party but soon became something entirely different. This is why you simply cannot view it on a single continuum but must also view it on an x/y continuum of authoritarianism to libertarianism. Nazism clearly employed some socialist policies but the fact that it maintained private property and social class, despite nationalization of some industry on a war footing places is squarely on the right, despite the dreams of the SA. The game of trying to call Nazism left or right is mostly just trying to play "pin the swastika" on liberals or conservatives rather than correctly analyze it's place in an historical context and live with the results one way or the other. Fortunately there is an abundance of available history and scholarship to keep it clear.
 Ghost Reader
Joined: 9/12/2009
Msg: 95
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 11:54:54 AM

The game of trying to call Nazism left or right is mostly just trying to play "pin the swastika" on liberals or conservatives rather than correctly analyze it's place in an historical context and live with the results one way or the other.

Finally, we agree on something !
I would however , point out, there are many policies and agendas (in our current political system), that come a lot closer to resembling "Nazism"than the other.
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 96
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:02:27 PM
now lets not act like President Obama is using his army to carry out his political agenda....unlike the previous guy who actually order his troops to carryout his agenda which had nothing to do with 'spreading freedom' but more like lining the pockets of haliburton and his oil buddies.....
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 97
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:20:32 PM

But Obama has Acorn.......

Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 98
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:30:23 PM

now lets not act like President Obama is using his army to carry out his political agenda

Cmon Obama is a Kenyan spy and is raising a grand Nubian army and send all the white people to work on collective farms.I mean let's be "rational" here.

Re: As For those who think otherwise thats called sarcasm.
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 99
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:32:40 PM
But Obama has Acorn

Gasp I forgot obviously another commie plot.

Do you think more fluoride is going into our water supply as part as the new health care bill?"shudder"
Joined: 2/25/2008
Msg: 100
view profile
Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:47:44 PM

Have YOU EVER seen an ACORNIAN drink water?????

How do the Con's have time to post >>>> CPAC... They can Multi-task ..

Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Teabagger's - a grassroots movement or just more astroturf ?