President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 06, 2008 10:50 PM UTC
19 Comments
You cribbed all of this from the dust jacket and first few pages of Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism.” Not saying so is frowned upon in the blog world.
Hitler also liked to paint. Did you know? So clearly artists today are also Nazis. Vegetarian, organic-farming, elderly-supporting, anti-smoking Nazis!!
(With apologies to Godwin’s Law.)
although not with the radical right labels our “Goldwater conservative” is using. And I won’t say which policies he supported – in the manner Goldwater conservative used in this diary, I’ll challenge him/her to look it up.
Yes I did take that straight from “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg. And I meant to attribute it to him! I’m halfway through it right now, it’s a fabulous read, I encourage everyone to go out there and read this book. I highly recommend it. In fact if anyone wants a good reading list, just let me know.
However, I must add that when you said:
Yes, yes because that is exactly the point…
You obviously haven’t read the book either because then you would see how stupid that is. Goldberg’s argument is not that liberals are fascist. He is just pointing out how many modern liberals boast about how their movement stemmed from the American Progressive Era in the early twentieth century, which was a sister movement of the Fascist movement going on in Europe and how many prominent American Progressive admired and shared many views with Mussolini and Stalin and the rest of them and how the Left is always trying to persecute the Right for being fascist when in reality, the Left had closer ties to fascism than the Right ever did, but how that has been pretty much buried in our Marxist school systems, Marxist universities and Marxist media. And how Americans nowadays are more willing to accept fascist-like policies spun with a smiley face . And how important it is to see where many of these “progressive” polices are rooted from.
No, I have not read Jonah Goldberg’s book. I’m really not as interested in learning about the convergences of early 20th century schools of political thought as I am about fixing today’s politics.
Mr. Goldberg’s core idea simply doesn’t pass the smell test. (And he deliberately mischaracterizes current progressive goals to bolster his argument.) Ask the proverbial man on the street whether he considers Bill Clinton’s reign (or a future Clinton or Obama administration) to have more in common with fascism than George W. Bush’s current government. That’s a relevant discussion. Not tales of the Abraham Lincoln brigade and outright bullshit about how “the Left loved Stalin.” Come on.
When Cindy Sheehan was the media darling, Goldberg said: “Good for Cindy! She’s rallied the Nazis to her cause!” He just likes to say the word, and it’s unclear if it has much specific meaning to him. And frankly, it’s truly not worth my time to read a book written by someone who thinks “McCarthy was right.” That’s just nuts.
Marxist universities and Marxist media were my words, not Goldberg’s. I’m sure you know that, but I just want to make that clear.
That’s the point. Most people do not see things for what they truly are. I mean they might think they do, but they don’t.
Many times in my life I have either witnessed or been apart of debates and discussions between liberals and conservatives where instead of diving deep into the issues and defending their positions the liberals try to silence the conservatives by calling them Nazis, or fascists. When they did not want to argue the issue they resorted to name calling. Thats a great tactic to divert the discussion or debate, I guess. I mean that’s how many liberals discredit conservatives on this site all the time by calling them right-wing radicals and such. And most the time, not all the time, its left with the name calling and no actual justification of why.
Other examples:
If your against same-sex marriage, you’re a bigot.
If your for border control, you’re a racist.
If you speak out against radical Islam, you’re a hate monger.
I could go on and on. I’m not saying the Right isn’t ever guilty of this either, but it seems to me that it weighs heavily against conservatives most the time.
I mean, if i may speak for most the conservatives out there, there are times where you end up not speaking out because you know you’ll just be labeled as a bigot or whatever.
You also started off by saying that you are about fixing todays politics. I believe that confirms my point in that to truly understand todays politics you might want to start out on how those politics came to be. Why repeat mistakes from the past? Is it not easier to prevent mistakes from the past if you understand what went wrong and what went right?
Me, personally, I believe in the Constitution and that it was based on the Wisdom of the Ages. That it was God-inspired. That the founding fathers were God-inspired and that many of our problems today sprouted out when we started moving away from the Constitution. And so I want to find out why and when did we start moving away from the Constitution, for what reasons, who were making these decisions, what they believed they were doing, what ideologies did they buy into, who did they look to for inspiration or advice, and maybe most importantly what were their primary agendas?
Jonah Goldberg is perhaps best known for his feud with Juan Cole,
a leading US authority on Muslim culture.
Goldberg himself displayed fascist tendencies
in his efforts to interfere with tenure decisions
at what were formerly considered leading academic institutions.
“Among the most notorious Soviet spies in high-level positions in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations — now proved absolutely, beyond question by the Soviet cables — were Alger Hiss at the State Department; Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, later appointed to the International Monetary Fund by President Truman; Lauchlin Currie, personal assistant to President Roosevelt and White House liaison to the State Department under both Roosevelt and Truman; Laurence Duggan, head of the Latin American Desk at the State Department; Frank Coe, US representative on the International Monetary Fund; Solomon Adler, senior Treasury Department official; Klaus Fuchs, top atomic scientist; and Duncan Lee, senior aide to the head of the OSS.”
“A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy’s crusade. But there’s a reason ‘Communist’ now sounds about as threatening as ‘monarchist’ — and it’s not because of intrepid New York Times editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover.”
— Ann Coulter
is that she’s giving McCarthy credit for what Nixon accomplished. McCarthy is proven beyond all doubt to have cared about Communism as much as Stalin cared about it. For both, it was a means to an enf – personal power.
Oh, and leave it to a hard right wingnut to have no qualms about the way freedom of speech suffered during that era. There are no means too extreme to meet the radical right’s ends.
officials to investigate and expose them.
Now if you want to make the case the Senator McCarthy was Grandstanding in a Senate hearing, I would be shocked to hear that Senators do such a thing.
Well maybe not. I have seen the Bork and Thomas conformation hearings.
And free speech didn’t suffer. How many people invoked the 5th amendment repeatidly, no one took them out and shot them.
McCarthy investigated nothing. He persecuted but did not investigate, and there’s nothing more UnAmerican than persecuting people for their political beliefs. As for government spying, HUAC did some real investigating along with their persecuting, and in case you were wondering the H stood for House. McCarthy, being in the Senate, had nothing to do with it. If you know otherwise, then bring up the FACTS about it.
You need to hit “REPLY” when REPLYING. Or are you just being rude when you don’t do that?
When what I am saying applies generally to the discussion, I post a comment. I often times just post a comment when it is both. No intentional offence intended.
Now to the specifics. You need a good history lesson about the early 50’s and Senator McCarthy. I have not the time or interest to give you an in depth one right now.
SHORT VERSION McCarthy was not the boogie man the left makes him out to be. He was just another grandstanding Senator. Many of the conservatives from that era in the house, senate, and those outside government have been proven right about many of the allegations of communist spies and operatives in our government and entertainment industries.
McCarthy was also wrong about some things.
I don’t know if I agree with all of McCarthy’s tactics, but I definitely agree that he was right about a lot of things. And he was wrong about some things.
And I do believe that he was then smeared by the media and then the rest is history. I’m told a good book to read is, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies by M. Stanton Evans
I haven’t read it yet, but I am told by trusted friends that it is a fantastic read.
History was my major, and McCarthy someone I studied for a specific class. I read about the strength of American communism at the time (it was weak), about the Alger Hiss and Rosenberg cases (guilty), and McCarthy’s bio. I won’t call myself an expert but I daresay that I know it inside-out compared to you. Yes, OTHER true blue cold warriors (like Nixon) were right about specific cases, although in some cases charges of sedition were trumped up from very little, hence my observation about how our liberties suffered at the time.
But the main point I’m making is about McCarthy himself – pure demagogue, all about the personal power he accrued. If you conclude otherwise, either your research was very limited, or your personal prejudices are stronger than your ability to be objective.
You could say that about half the senate during the 1950’s (and now.)
Senator Brewster of Maine was a shill for Juan Tripp and Pan Am.
Senator Lyndon Johnson D-TX was well…er.. abusive of his power.
There were a few Statesman. Barry Goldwater, JFK had his moments, and others.
That McCarthy was like anyone else?
“I expect my elected
officials to investigate and expose them.”
Really ?
Maybe we should have a hearing about the foreign nationals/ dual nationals in the DOD Office of Special Plans that ginned up the phony evidence of Iraqi WMD’s in 2001-2002 ?
I said foreign spies, not foreign contractors.
il n’est pas un grande diffГ©rence
.
can you remember back, oh, I don’t know, a week ago
when I got a diary deleted for trying to ID you ?
how come you don’t show me the same courtesy I demanded for you ?
.