Rahmadan

Loyal?
.
Rahm is loyal to Rahm. I don’t see him falling on his sword for ANYONE.
.
As for tough, right now we need, as was said before, a President with the debilitating-sized ‘nads of FDR.

As loathsome as I find him. How did I hear it eloquently put recently, “a centrist sell-out, the prime mover of Obama’s wishy-washitude”? Yes, that’s about what us DFHs think of him. But but but, blaming him for this admin’s failures is as absurd as the racists on the right claiming that Obama would have gotten nowhere in life without affirmative action. Selecting Rahm, being fully cognizant of his past, was a mission statement to DC and the dem party (particularly my unserious part of it Joe Klein). As was Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton… but I digress.
.
IMO, Rahm would have been onboard if Obama actually planned to enact a progressive agenda. And he’d have been highly effective doing so. Sadly, that was never our president’s plan.
.
This is the inverse of Colin Powell isn’t it? So many naive liberals deemed him the lovable republican in a rightist admin, thinking he’d go against his boss’ dangerous marching orders. Rahm may be centrist swine, but he does his boss’ bidding, something about bucks, stopping… IOW, we won’t have a referendum on his job performance in 2012

Rahm is one of the smartest operators in politics and should be the last guy to need to fall on his sword. What did FDR do that required nads? Uncle Joe toyed with him easily getting control of Eastern Europe. He was dying. He knew he was dying and he didn’t have the nads to face up to it by giving his VP any preparation.

Trying to figure out why my “comment is awaiting moderation” Was it the D-F-H?
.
As loathsome as I find him. How did I hear it eloquently put recently, “a centrist sell-out, the prime mover of Obama’s wishy-washitude”? Yes, that’s about what us D-F-Hs think of him. But but but, blaming him for this admin’s failures is as absurd as the racists on the right claiming that Obama would have gotten nowhere in life without affirmative action. Selecting Rahm, being fully cognizant of his past, was a mission statement to DC and the dem party (particularly my unserious part of it Joe Klein). As was Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton… but I digress.
.
IMO, Rahm would have been onboard if Obama actually planned to enact a progressive agenda. And he’d have been highly effective doing so. Sadly, that was never our president’s plan.
.
This is the inverse of Colin Powell isn’t it? So many naive liberals deemed him the lovable republican in a rightist admin, thinking he’d go against his boss’ dangerous marching orders. Rahm may be centrist swine, but he does his boss’ bidding, something about bucks, stopping… IOW, we won’t have a referendum on his job performance in 2012

Why am I in moderation?

Joe: What value do these soap opera ditherings bring to the edification of the public or the betterment of politics?
Since none of this has a security consequence, why must the traditional media spend their time passing around cr*p spewed by anonymous sources? Either demand names of sources or STFU. Do journalists have nothing better to do?
Continue clucking away a the lastest unsourced drama while real issues fall by the way side. The MSM is having massive layoffs yet have time to waste on this non news.
I love the breathless conjecture:
Who were the sources?
Is it true?
What is the impact?
What will happen?
Yakkety, yak.

A fine post, Joe. It’s too bad that we get all this gossipy chatter in newspapers, when, as you point out, it isn’t news.
-
But hey, you go into imperial decline with the media you have, not the media you wish you had.

This is rather a huge derail, but rdw56, I don’t really understand how the US was going to make the Soviets run away from all of Eastern Europe that it occupied by acting tough at a meeting.

Sad news. Jon Swift has died. Now THAT was a real blog.

Did you swear? That usually gets me.

Yes, that’s what’s needed right now, more “smart political operators” for whom process takes precedence over product…

Rahm picked some very lousy candidates who were corporate sell outs, who lost. He fought Howard Dean on the 50 state strategy. When Rahm flamed, and Dean succeeded, Rahm tried to take the credit. He is a punk.

That pretty much sums up it up very well.

Why does Joe think this is true about Rahm, “The immediate question is, who planted this harvest? The consensus is: not Rahm. Too brazen, too stupid. He’d never blow his own horn like this.”

Where is the proof that Rahm is smart when it comes to political strategy. He got lucky to be head of the DCCC at a time when a huge wave was heading his way. In fact, if he were smarter he would have gotten more out of that wave.

Seems to me that brazen and stupid (stupid in the way that all longtime DC critters are myopic) is a great description of Rahm.

I have only read the first two pages and feel like I am reading a paperback romance novel. Does it get better? Do not think this is from Rahm’s friends.

Joe,

You buried the lede. The observation worth reporting (and worth expanding upon) is this: “the President just doesn’t seem tough enough (and by tough, I don’t mean angry–I mean adept at the use of power)”. I agree. http://washingtoninsideout.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/who’s-afraid-of-barack-obama-or-wwlbjd/

“…and by tough, I don’t mean angry–I mean adept at the use of power…”
.
What do you need power for if all you intend to do is exactly what the power-elite want? Any way you slice it, that’s who’s attempting to cover Rahm’s ass here and, at the end of the day, that’s Rahm. I seem to remember another White House politico who was “[t]oo brazen, too stupid”, yet was feted as the political genius of his time by you and your fellows. Face it, you all live in the bubble made of your own hubris and it bites you in the ass all the time – and often the rest of us in the bargain.

OT, but here’s a Politico story that’s actually worth reading. (I know, I know. It’s like finding a unicorn.)
.

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”
.
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
.
…
.
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
.
“What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” it asks.
.
The answer: “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
.
Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.
.
One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.
.
…
.
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
.
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.” Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

.
That’s quite an effective message: “Dear Pants-P!ssing Morons: Fork Over the Money!” Good luck with that.
.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=25812D01-18FE-70B2-A811B1EBD2A3A5EF

What did FDR do that required nads?
.
You mean, aside from saving capitalism and then defeating the Nazis and Japanese Empire at the same time? Not much.

rdw, you put things in such simple perspective. Simple mind, simple perspective.

This is fearsome. I mean use of cartoons to appeal to the right wing. It will totally work.

I am watching Cool Hand Luke. I don’t like or trust Rahm. He can spend a night in the box as far as I am concerned.

Wonder if Rahm is behind this:
.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

Who does?
.
He might be a case of “keeping your friends close and your enemies closer”.
.
Does ANYONE know where his loyalties lie? Clintons? DLC? New Dems? Centrists? Israel? Multiple choice?
.
I’m gonna make a wild guess that he serves MANY masters.

RDW, the ultra-neoconservative, has a fondness for Rahm Emanuel? Why am I not surprised? Could it be because Emanuel is the most influential voice whispering in Obama’s ear, insisting he drop the Palestinian issue, defer to Israel on all matters, and not jeopardize the special relationship? Yes, I do believe so. Rahm Emanuel, son of Irgun Zionist terrorist, Benjamin Emanual. In other words, rdw’s hero.

spob, from your link:

“Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?”

I wouldn’t doubt Rahm’s fingerprints. But, seems to be a pretty good trade to me.

“I wouldn’t doubt Rahm’s fingerprints. But, seems to be a pretty good trade to me.”
.
Wow. Please, no more lectures from the likes of you.

Why is this man ANYWHERE where he can influence our foreign policy?

Why? Well, close friendship with Obama from the Chicago days. Impeccable party credentials. Clinton administration ties. And, oh yea, APAIC thoroughly endorsed his nomination.

spob, what we have here is a failure to communicate. One night in the box for you.

Exiled,
.
In other words, a well-connected Israel and corporate supporter who can be expected to push the right buttons and whisper the right words in the right ears.
.
Hardly an independent, unbiased voice.
.
Am I pretty close here?

Based on what I read below, Rahm’s value was NOT in his ability to select good Dem candidates or influenece campaigns in positive ways.
.
His real “sponsors” are more concerned with his ability to provide a certain level of protection for Israel’s interests.
.
Color me cynical, but something tells me the “good” of the USA isn’t the main objective here – unless one believes that Israel’s goals dovetail perfectly with our own.

Now I REALLY think he need to go.

Let’s think about this. We want him in the tent, urinating out, or outside urinating in? Tough choice. He would fit in nicely in the neocon camp. He stinks like Karl Rove and the worst of politics (Chicago style hotdogs). I don’t think he serves any progressive purpose.

If only the Presidents since FDR had the courage to say this: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself”. FDR led his country from hope not fear.

Fighting Polio when it was a disease that usually ended very badly
Fought Tamany Hall in NY
New Deal
WPA, CCC, NRA
Bank Holiday
Social Security
Lend Lease
Took on Republican isolationists before WWII
Glass Steagall Act, created FDIC
TVA
Led us through WWII

Of course, there were some really bad decisions like the internment of the Japanese. But, no one should ever accuse FDR not having big b*lls.

Sacred, I didn’t. The closest I came was the acronym DFH.

As long as I can remember the Republicans have been using fear as their election m o.
Isolationism
Commies
McCarthyism
Black Lists
Loyalty Oaths
Domino Theory
Chi coms
Race
Socialist
Illegal immigrants
Muslims
Colored Alerts
Nuclear Bombs
Unions

Their whole agenda is about fear. And, too often Americans fall for it.
As I said in an earlier post, I wish we had presidents that were as brave as FDR who said, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. This was when he took over during the depression.
His optimism inspired Americans through the depression and WWII.
The Republicans would rather scare everyone to gain and keep power.

“The overall strategy has been problematic as well: the President just doesn’t seem tough enough (and by tough, I don’t mean angry–I mean adept at the use of power).”
.
By tough do you mean actually demonstrating, by action, that you believe in something, other than the ability to twist language into a shape that suggests you do? Obama is weak alright, weak when it comes to backing the people who actually voted for him. He would rather play kissy face with those who despise him and are doing all they can to insure he fails.

I’m sorry to hear about “Jon.” His blog was literate and heartfelt, under its coat of satire.

It beats me then. It’s always been a swear word that sent me to the corner for a time out.

FDR was a politician who never served in battle or even in the military. He didn’t take on the Germany and Japanese. They took the USA on. It doesn’t take ‘nads’ to declare war on someone after they attack you.

exiled,

it has nothng to do with Israel. Obama and Hillary are ivy league types without experience or a clue. Rahm is a political operator not a foreign policy expert. Obama would love to follow your advice on Israel but it would be political suicide. The fact is he’s so incompetent,as is she, they can’t get their way on anything, anywhere. Brazil just announced they’re not uspporting sanctions on Iran. Those two think they’re smarter than everyone else and everyone else is using that smugness to their advantage. Obama is a babe in the woods.

kevin,

FDR tried to kill capitalism. The New Deal was a disaster. The depression didn’t end until FDR STOPPED making war with the capitalists and THEY went on to win it all. FDR didn’t defeat anyone and his idiotic diplomacy led directly to the cold war and Eastern Europe suffering under leftist thugs for 60 years.

elvis,

Think of Teddy, big stick and Reagan, peace thru strength. FDR stopped Patton and the rest of the allied armies allowing the Red army much of eastern europe. He held churchill back from strong diplomacy giving Stalin the correct impression Eastern Europe was his.

apr,

FDR had no balls. He sat back waiting to be attacked. As far as passing bills. What was the fear, a paper cut? It takes balls to be a soldier or a cop. It doesn’t take any balls to be a politician.

apr,

Your narrative on the depression is a cartoon. The NEW Deal was an economic disaster that extended the depression. Unemployment was 20% in 1938. WWII ended the depression because FDR finally abandoned the New Deal and relied on the capitalists to build the war machine.

Even liberal economists now admit the New Deal was bad economic policy. You’ve been drinking the MSM kool-aid too long.

Ah, yes, rdw, EVERYTHING in the world today is just one big political calculus problem.
.
The winners are the ones who can do the “math” correctly. Brazil just changed their policy because, somehow, Hillary and Obama plugged in a wrong number and the equation didn’t work out. Brazil saw our “math” mistake and bolted.
.
Did it EVER occur to you that, maybe, nations disagree with our policies because we have been so lousy at applying our principles consistently, that they have come to believe that the USA is in EVERYTHING for the good of the USA, and that THEIR welfare may of secondary consideration to us?
.
Why should it surprise you that they might start looking out for themselves, too, and THAT might lead to decisions that don’t match up with our own preferences?

Right now, we are “compromised”.
.
Saudi Arabia has been leading us around by the “wanker” for so long we feel like it’s natural. Saudis conduct the attack on 9/11 so, in response… we invade Iraq. Can’t touch the Saudis… they might cut back on their oil production squeeze the ol’ wanker. Besides, they’re “friends”.
.
China has a double-grip on our economic b*lls, as they own a BIG chunk of our debt and make most of the stuff we buy. Can’t do much to them either.
.
We just hope that, if they squeeze us too hard, our retaliation piercing screaming from the pain will convince them to relax their grip (out of a sense of “self-preservation” of course).
.
The rest of the world can see this too. It’s why they take a LOT of what we say with a “grain of salt” h*ll, a whole d*mn box of the stuff.
.
Our problems with the rest of the world aren’t calculus issues on the part of a few politicians, rdw. We’ve made this bed over a few generations, and we’re going to have to lie in it.
.
Just pray the other major countries in the world don’t start thinking that it’s China they need to start being kissy-face with, and throw us and our hypocritical foreign and economic policy history to the curb.

RDW~
My observation is that you reflexively denigrate the left, and especially President Obama. And yet you seem to respect, even admire Rahm. So, the question I pose is why? If it has nothing to do with his undying affection for Israel (he left the US and served in the IDF in the early 1990s and his father was a prominent member of Irgun who continues to villify Arabs through racist diatribes), then what is it specifially that allows Rahm to escape your partisan wrath?

Point taken, formerly.
.
But, at a certain point, with him inside or outside, the tent has become piss-soaked.
.
Ideally, you’d want him totally out of the entire camp so he couldn’t do any more damage.
.
But I’m enouhg of a realist to know THAT’s not going to happen… too well connected, unless he becomes too much of a liability for certain parties.

rdw, you aren’t really worth the time, but I have a few spare minutes. You seem to respect force and might (it takes balls to be a soldier or cop) and disrespect the left as pansies. You admire Rahm’s obnoxious A-type personality. You dismiss FDR on every level and note that he gave eastern europe to Stalin. On that issue, you might want to know that the soviet armies were responsible for 2/3′s of German casualties during the war. I don’t in the least dismiss it, but the fact is that American deaths were less than half a million. Soviet deaths (not casualties) were 27 million, military and civilian. Nobody gave the soviets anything.

FDR tried to kill capitalism. The New Deal was a disaster.
.
Really? Each of his terms in office saw GDP growth of 9%-10%, which is absolutely phenomenal.
.
And no, it wasn’t just World War II that did it. Gauti Eggerston of the NY Fed has said that the 1933-1937 period saw the single greatest growth in the American economy outside of the war years. Unemployment during that first term in office fell from 23 percent to 10 percent.
.
In doing this, FDR held off the forces that actually wanted to kill capitalism — Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, etc. — and set up the regulatory state that ushered in the longest period of economic growth in American history in the postwar era.
.
These are facts. Another fact: You’re an idiot.

More facts:
.
The Dow Jones Average under FDR’s first term expanded from 50.16 at his first inaugural to 194.40 at his second inaugural — nearly quadrupling in value.
.
Real Gross GDP under FDR’s first term expanded from 68.3 to 103.9; the Index of Industrial Production grew from 69 to 112; and national exports doubled in value from $1.67 billion to $3.35 billion (in constant dollars).
.
By literally every single metric we use to measure economic growth, the New Deal was an incredible success.
.
It did not completely end the depression, of course. That would require WWII and the total commitment of the government to massive amounts of Keynesian stimulus spending.
.
Turn off Fox News and stop reading Jonah Goldberg. They’re only making you dumber.

Unemployment was 20% in 1938.
.
Ah, the Amity Shlaes cherry-picking of 1938.
.
Here’s an actual historian with training in the matter — unlike Shlaes, with her BA in English lit — showing how badly she bungled that.
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169744/pagenum/all
.
Yes, unemployment spiked in 1938 after FDR listened to conservatives who worried about government spending and tried to balance the budget. It spiked not because he was pursuing the New Deal, but because he abandoned it.
.
When he resumed the New Deal efforts late in the 1930s, unemployment tracked down again. It was 14.6 in 1940 and then 9.9 for most 1941 — before American entry into the war.
.
And your claim that the government gave capitalists a free hand during the war is utterly laughable. Go read up on the War Production Board or the oversight work Harry Truman did in the Senate. The government didn’t relax its oversight and spending, it vastly increased it.
.
WWII didn’t show that Keynesianism didn’t work, it just showed that FDR hadn’t slammed down the accelerator hard enough.
.
Even liberal economists now admit the New Deal was bad economic policy.
.
Bullsh!t. Complete and utter bullsh!t. Name them.

Uh, oh… SERIOUS BS Alert!
.
A neocon quoting supposed “liberal economists” without citing examples or providing links.

Amity was far from the 1st. The data is unambigious. The depression didn’t end until after 1938 and he never returned to the New Deal. He actively ended his war with the capitalists. War prep started well before Pearl Harbor. No one said the govt wasn’t controlling defense spending. But it was in a partnership with the industrialists. Detroit essentially stopped making card and started making tanks in cooperation with the govt.

The vast majority of indepentent economist agree the New was a failure as economic policy. It’s success as social policy is a different issue. The only supporters are left wing whackjobs like Paul Krugman. Even old time libs like Arthur Schleshinger Jr and John Kennneth Galbraith agree WWII ended the depression not the New Deal. You can’t deny 20% unemployment
my friend.

speaking of liberal Icons I’d encourage you to watch a History Channel special in the 1919 peace conference. The great John Maynard Keynes walked out on Wilson for his draconian peace plan that bankrupted German and led to WWII.

Afguy, we’re talking about ‘The One’ here. Mr. engagement. Remember Sarah asking how’s that hopey changey thing goin? A nice phrase to tie up what you are saying was often used by Henry Kissinger. “Nations have permanent interests not permanent friends”. Obama should have known that but he thinks it’s all about him.

exiled,

your race baiting is childish. I admire Rahms political skills. I have no idea what his position is on Israel nor do I care. He could be a child molestor for all I know. I take shots at Obama because I think he’s a moron. That’s not an off the cuff comment made in anger. George Orwell once noted, “some things are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them’. I don’t think Obama is an intellectual but he is smart and well educated. The problem is he is so narrowly educated. Few places are as intellectually rigid as harvard. He’s been going thru what Joe Klein has referred to as his Rodney King phase. That’s a nice way of calling him an airhead. The President of France actually called on him to join the real world after that bizarre UN speech. Barak Obama actually believed his mere presence on the scene was going to change everything. People would see how smart and savvy he was and bend to our will via the power of his personality. He doesn’t have a base he has a cult.

James, aware of the Russian suffering at the hands of the Germans and you might be right they were going to take Eastern Europe anyway. The problem is FDR did nothing and totally misread Stalin. He actually opposed Churchill who was correct. The single biggest problem I have with FDR is the fact one of the reasons Stalin so out politicked him is he was so sick, He knew he was dying and did nothing to warn or prepare Truman who was a far better President. FDR actually supported socialism and fascism early on. He had zero foresight and was a very poor decision maker. Pity we didn’t have term limits then.

“Turn off Fox News and stop reading Jonah Goldberg. They’re only making you dumber.”

You have to respect the job they’re doing. Ratings are soaring and “Liberal Fascism” was an excellent book coming out atan excellent time. Jonah is an interesting guy very involved in reframing our understandsing of the progressive era and the nature of Fascism as a religion of the left with support from th American left of that era. We can at least agree coverge of the period from Wilson thru FDR was pathetic. So much of what we were taught was wrong and so much more left out. I consider myself a bit of a history buff and I never knew Wilson was a racist. I had American History in grade school, high school and college and nary a mention. I’m 56. Think about that. Wilson was once ranked among the top 5 Presidents. In a more recent ranking (2001) he was ranked 11. He’s going to tank. I was taught the 14 point peace plan was brillaint diplomacy, just ahead of it’s time. Now I Know it was a disaster and Wilson a major cause of Hitler and WWII. It was interesting reading many of the letters over the period following the publication of his book with other liberal bloggers actually admit the racism and the support of the progressives for Fascism.

You have to agree with the different point of view Fox and Goldberg are good for America because they bring up facts that would nevermake the light of day. Wilsons racism is a toxic issue but productive in the sense it’ll make for a more honest evaluation of what kind of person / Presidet he was. That’s a good thing isn’t it?

Wow, nice job of moving the goalposts. “WWII ended the Depression” is a far cry from your original claim that the New Deal made things worse. All historians and economists agree that it took WWII to end the Depression, and I never said otherwise.
.
The data is unambigious.
.
I agree. But unlike you, I actually know the data and I actually provided it here. You conveniently ignored what I posted above, so let me repeat the economic data for the first term of the New Deal:
.

Unemployment during that first term in office fell from 23 percent to 10 percent.
.
The Dow Jones Average under FDR’s first term expanded from 50.16 at his first inaugural to 194.40 at his second inaugural — nearly quadrupling in value.
.
Real Gross GDP under FDR’s first term expanded from 68.3 to 103.9; the Index of Industrial Production grew from 69 to 112; and national exports doubled in value from $1.67 billion to $3.35 billion (in constant dollars).

.
War prep started well before Pearl Harbor.
.
Well before? No. The Selective Service Act wasn’t passed until late 1940, but even with troops in place, they were largely practicing without material — they used broomsticks for guns in training sessions, and stovepipes for anti-tank guns. The real ramp-up of mobilization didn’t occur until Lend-Lease which came in September 1941. The reductions in unemployment by 1941 had nothing to do with the expansion of the wartime mobilization because it hadn’t happened yet.
.
Those are the facts. And all you have to refute that set of data — which shows, by every single metric that the claim that the New Deal “made things worse” is utter bullsh!t — is Amity Shlaes’ contorted claim that unemployment was still 20% as of 1938.
.
Again, actual historians — as opposed to English-majors-turned-right-wing-columnists — all dispute her numbers.
.
Here’s a post from Prof. Eric Rauchway, the historian who wrote the Oxford History of the Great Depression, on how Shlaes willingly distorts the data to get at that number:
.
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/
.
Short story: She’s a hack and a liar.
.
The vast majority of indepentent economist agree the New was a failure as economic policy.
.
No, no they don’t. I’ve actually read a lot on this, and the vast majority agree that the New Deal did a great deal to solve the Depression, but that it took ratcheting the Keynesian approach up to full speed with WWII to finish the job.
.
There is, as with anything in economics, disagreement on this, but according to a 1997 poll of the profession, the view you hold is one only claimed by 22% of economists. The majority of economists and the vast majority of historians say otherwise.
.
http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php
.
You know nothing about this. Nothing.

First of all, Liberal Fascism is a joke. Here’s what actual historians had to say about it:
.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html
.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html
.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122247.html
.
Goldberg and Fox do provide a “different perspective” but it’s one entirely divorced from facts and reality. But I guess if you like being lied to, that’s your right.

“By literally every single metric we use to measure economic growth, the New Deal was an incredible success”

Only if you game the data by starting at the low point of the depression and ending before the downturn in 1938. Which is what you did. Keynsian economics was a viable option at the time and always has some value but clearly supply-side tax cuts as provided by Silent Cal, JFK, Reagan and GWB are far superior. The growth from 1981 on was the most impressive in US History.

If you look at growth from 1927 to 1938 nothing happened. If you look at stock prices they were still lower. The New Deal is worth discussion on social policy grounds but as economic policy was a dud.

kevin,

you kind of miss the forest for the trees here. LS isn’t a history book. It’s about politics and ideology and adding some clarity to the pre-WWII era which has been so distorted by the Nazis. The fact is Fascism does belong on the left with it’s totalitarian cousins, communism and socialism. Modern Conservatism is actually classical liberalism. We want small govt. Thr distinction Jonah makes is that in 2010 fascism does belong to the liberals because it is they who seek govt control of all things using either socialism or fascism. Obama owns GM but seeks to control healthcare.

This is a worthy discussion. Reasonable people can clearly recognize conservatives are anti-fascism while liberals are pro-fascism. The parts about Wilson and racism are gravy. I mean if you want to destroy the reputation of a person let it be known they were a flaming racist. Once this buried fact becomes widely known Wilson will become toxic as he should be.

kevin,

you kind of miss the forest for the trees here. LS isn’t a history book. It’s about politics and ideology and adding some clarity to the pre-WWII era which has been so distorted by the Nazis. The fact is Fascism does belong on the left with it’s totalitarian cousins, communism and socialism. Modern Conservatism is actually classical liberalism. We want small govt. Thr distinction Jonah makes is that in 2010 fascism does belong to the liberals because it is they who seek govt control of all things using either socialism or fascism. Obama owns GM but seeks to control healthcare.

This is a worthy discussion. Reasonable people can clearly recognize conservatives are anti-fascism while liberals are pro-fascism. The parts about Wilson and racism are gravy. I mean if you want to destroy the reputation of a person let it be known they were a flaming racist. Once this buried fact becomes widely known Wilson will become toxic as he should be.

18.3 is obviously an error. I was trying to edit something rather than add the post. I wanted to add Goldbergs book has in fact been quite successful in it’s intent which was force people to look at where we are now and what fascism really was.

Jonah has done a nice job in touring and selling it spending a lot of time on college campuses at young republican clubs and debating professors when possible.

Again the key here is linking conservatism with classical liberalism and small govt while also linking fascism, socialism, communism, progressivism and liberalism all as religions of the big govt left.

I don’t see how you can deny that.

Reagan didn’t seek to enlarge govt or extend govt control. He tried to do the opposite. Obama is doing everything his can to extend govt control with by nationalizing businesses or taking effect control via regulation.

Any reasonable person today understanding Fascism = Govt control would place fascism on the left and ideologically opposite conservatism.

Short story: She’s a hack and a liar.

She’s a very successful and influencial writer and her data was correct. We don’t count temporary make work jobs paid for by the taxpayer and adding to the deficit. It’s not a real job.

Amity wrote for years for the WSJ and attracts a wide audience. Essentially what happened after WWII is FDR and the New Deal as well as Wilson and progressivism were deified by a slavish MSM. I look back as the history books of the 50′s thru 90′s and it’s embarrasing. Now were getting another look and as one could predict the MSM and Academia were awful propaganists. I was 54 before I read anywhere Wilson was a well known racist and resegraged many federal agencies such as the post office. Any historian who wrote on wilson and didn’t deal with that front and center is a fraud. The New Deal clearly had some advantages as social policy but just as clearly failed as economic policy. The New Deal is the reason it was a depresson althought Hoovers progressive moves to jump tax rates and lower trade started it.

The fact is big govt is deeply unpopular and will remain so. In part because of the questions raised by Amity regarding the New Deal.

“There is, as with anything in economics, disagreement on this, but according to a 1997 poll of the profession, the view you hold is one only claimed by 22% of economists.”

The poll is 13 years old and preceeds much of the critical discussion. Further, not being aware of the poll it’s likely to be among highly biased academics. The fact is supply-side has won the day and Obama’s stimulus package isn’t helping the cause.

Arthur Schleshinger Jr ran a Presidential poll he inherited from his Dad. They did it every decade or so and by the 70′s an 80′s all of those polled were academics. It had some preposterous results including JFK and Wilson in the top 5. On his last poll I think art himself ranked Reagan in the bottom 10. Since then the WSJ teamed with the heritage foundation to put together a board to select a balance pool of historians and political scientists too do their own valuation and the changes have been dramatic. JFK and Wilson were not top 10 in 2001 while Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan were. FDR was #3 but further behind than the old poll.

The Poll will be redone this year and it’s almost certain JFK and Wilson will fall out of the top 20. The more interesting position is FDR. I think he’ll still be #3 but closer to 4 than 2. Thanks to the new media and the downgrade of Academia as an objective source for anything it’s safe to predict JFK and Wilson will end up in the bottom half. FDR won’t be #3 in 2020.

The New Deal just won’t be respected and many of his policies that were ignored, such as internment, will be remembered with scorn.

“Goldberg and Fox do provide a “different perspective” but it’s one entirely divorced from facts and reality. But I guess if you like being lied to, that’s your right.”

People who say Fox lies can never name a lie. Give it a shot. Fox does the same thing ABC does. It covers what it wants cover. One of the great things about the recent climategate scandal is if you watched Fox you know all about it and could debate it intellgienty. If you read the NYTs or ABCNews you probably never heard of it. Yet Climategate destroyed Obama in Copenhagen and destroyed Cap and Tax globally and locally. It was a very powerful story than has essentially ended the IPCC and the entire global warming movement. You probably don’t even know that.

Possibly a better story is the Dan Rather scam or even the SBVs. Again. if you get your news from ABCnews you didn’t know about either. Fox carried both stories in depth. A child could see Dan was pulling a scam. The SBVs has 5 great angles that killed Kerry. MY favorite was that after telling everyone he was much smarter than Bush he could not afford to release his military records. They would have shown Bush was much smarter and has much higher performance evaluations.

Joe Klein is still livid about the SBVs but he knows Fox was smart to cover it.

Rahm is sitting in the Oval office every day. Where’s Dean?

rdw: You seem to have the Bush-Cheney syndrome.
Congress declares war. FDR, through lend lease and other means did all he could to prepare for war against the axis. Isolationist Republicans were his most vociferous critics.

Jonah Goldberg, son of Nixon operative, literary agent, Linda Tripp exploiter, Lucienne Goldberg.
Jonah Goldberg, chickenhawk, stated he couldn’t enlist because he had a family to support.
Jonah Goldberg who wrote chapter on Herbert Spencer, but said he had no time to read relevant literature.
Jonah Goldberg writes book filled with conservative cliches.
He is know in many environs as a “wide pant load” and with little respect for his intellectual acumen but riding on momma’s connections.
Sorry this is sort of a spiteful posting, but I really detest Goldberg. I have had a number of email exchanges that have continued over several days. He is a pompous, previledged, elistist.

“His real “sponsors” are more concerned with his ability to provide a certain level of protection for Israel’s interests.

Rahm doesn’t need to help Israel. They are doing fine. Obama has maneuvered himself into a box. He will remain null and void in the region.