Check out this Norquist quote from 1997:

[RandomKoolzip]

But Clinton's good for us. I want Clinton standing at the end of four years. I want everybody around him gone and discredited, but I want Clinton standing there--Gorbachev. The whole house of cards under Gorbachev collapsed, the entire empire collapsed--but he's OK. He's happy. Like one of these buildings that implodes, Gorbachev stood at the top and floated down and walked away unscathed. I want Clinton to do the same thing for the American left. I want him to walk away with everybody around him bloodied and him going, "I'm fine."

-Interview with Reason Magazine

A few questions:

a) Isn't this pretty much what ended up happening, more or less?

b) Is it a mistake to focus too much on Bush, rather than going after the entire rightist platform? Does a narrow focus of attack on one man and his immediate cronies limits the effectiveness of the fight we face? Should we be fighting this battle on EVERY level, local, state, etc., every place rightism is popular, or is the goal just to remove Bush from office? I'm afraid that by channelling all (or most - I don't mean to stereotype) our energies at the president, we might be setting ourselves up for a political defeat again, as the ranks of the GOP swell underneath the battle going on overhead; I already see this going on with the controversy surrounding the port deal, as the most vociferous critics have been from the right, stealing what could have been some pretty loud thunder from our guys (triangulation, anyone?). Should we, like Norquist, instead work on making the whole rightist agenda a bloody mess, and let the MSM handle Bush?

[madinmaryland]

1. Isn't that what is happening to the * cabal/gang?

I don't remember that happening to the Clinton Admin. Clinton did come out standing and even stronger after the impeachment. Some left, but not discredited. Cheney did spend some time after the election bad mouthing the Clinton economy, but that was about it.

[armadafalls]

2. This is exactly right

Short of some kind of national emergency that would prevent him from stepping down, Bush will not be running for President again. We should not spend so much time slamming him. We should dpend more time uncovering the dirty deeds of guys like Frist and McCain who we will have to defeat in 2008.

[RandomKoolzip]

5. The thing is, it feels GOOD to slam Bush.

He really is a complete asshole, a man never meant to be anything more than a failed fratboy alcoholic in charge of one of daddy's companies. As a waterboy for the forces of destruction, as a innovator in the field of How to Fuck Everybody Over, as an agent of unfortunate change, and as a symbol of everything I think is totally FUCKED in America, Bush does a great job. I really really do hate the fucking guy (but not out of some irrational animus, because he's really done actual, real harm to the country, unlike Clinton).

I get the feeling, however, that the right sees in Clinton exactly what I see in Bush. And while some rightists continue to harp on Clinton, the smarter ones, the craftier ones, went behind everyone's back and began quietly dismantling the New Deal as the pettiness over the Top Dog raged on during Clinton's term. Where are our Norquists? Our Roger Stones? Napoleon knew better than to keep all his army unified on one front, fighting one flank at a time; he fought simultaneous battles. The left needs to craft their own devious strategies.

[cassandra uprising]

11. I think you're got it there.

What we are witnessing now has been at least 40 years planning, we all know that. So what is the left doing to plan their counter attack? Where's our strategery?

I've not as informed as I should be, but I can't help but think that the labor movement really spoiled the Dem's in the 60's. We didn't have to work for our base because it was already there organized and ready to act. It seems as though we haven't been able to figure out hope to mobilize people since.

[RandomKoolzip]

14. This thread was inspired by reading Norman Podhoretz.

From SourceWatch:

Norman Podhoretz is considered to be a "neo-con" (neo-conservative) and believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is connected with the Project for the New American Century.

He is the former editor-in-chief of "Commentary" (1960-95). From 1981-87, Podhoretz served with the U.S. Information Agency. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.





The following comes from (and was adapted from) the March 9, 2003 Jim Lobe article "Family ties connect US right, Zionists" (http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/09/int11.htm):

"As godfather of the movement, Irving Kristol played mentor to Norman Podhoretz, the long-time but now-retired editor of Commentary, the influential monthly publication of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Originally identified with the anti-war left in the mid-1960s, Podhoretz converted to neo-conservatism late in the decade and transformed the magazine into a main source of neo-conservative writing, despite the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community itself rejecting those positions.

"Podhoretz and his spouse, Midge Decter, a polemical powerhouse in her own right, created a formidable political team in the 1970s as they deserted the Democratic Party, and then, as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger -- like (Project for the New American Century) PNAC a coalition of mainly Jewish, neo-conservatives and more traditional right-wing hawks like Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - helped lay the foreign-policy foundation for the rise of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan's victory, Decter and Rumsfeld co-chaired the international offshoot of the committee, called the Coalition for the Free World.

Recently I've been trying to read as much as I can about Neoconservatism. I've been at the library, checking out stuff by Irving Kristol and Emmett Tyrell, just trying to get a handle on what it's all about, from THEIR perspective, not the Left's. The thing that struck me when reading sections of Podhoretz's Breaking Ranks was the fixation on Communism, and the assumption that all Leftwing thought and ideology flowed from that font, which I disagree with. But Podhoretz, in that part of his life (late 1970s) had moved from being a (rather milquetoast, really) New Left radical into a Reagan Conservative, and simply wouldn't SHUT UP about Soviet Communism. There was a real disillusionment in the Left's intellectual core about the "failures" of Soviet and Asian Communism, according to Podhoretz, because they had fixated on strong leaders like Mao and Kruschev, who had instead made life miserable for the people they claimed to represent. Why this kind of thing would drive anyone into Right-Wing ideology, I dunno, but it had me thinking and doing more research about the Conservative Movement's early days. There are some really interesting thinkers (I agree with NONE of them, but they're fascinating to read; Podhoretz's essay on why George Orwell would today be a NeoConservative was especially enlightening (and scary)) back then.

What this has to do with my original point is lost. So...how you doin', CU? :hi:

On edit: Oh yeah! My point was to try to understand the hatred for the Left that guys like Norquist (a self-confessed "former Trotskyite") feel, and Podhoretz was crucial in the fromation of this line of thought.

[cassandra uprising]

16. You, you are good.

The thought has come across my mind to do that but I haven't made the time to do it. Hats off love.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Gotta give you a k&r... Destroy the Repukes - Leave Bush standing!

I've been told hate is a strong word.

I HATE GROVER NORQUIST.

I believe his political success has caused more damage to our society than terrorism ever will.

What you wrote, however, is exactly what we should be doing. We have to destroy the Republicans, not Bush. If we were just to destroy Bush, then the Republicans WIN.

We have to show this country the evil that lies in the heart of being a Republican, and the lies they use to appeal to the good natures of those who continue to believe.

We have to make their retoric sound like what Joe McCarthy and Hilter sounds like today. I want future classrooms to show Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Reagan and Bush all in the same context where they BELONG.

We have to make future generations look upon these Republicans in the same way we look upon slave owners of the past and have those future generations ask how such a condition could have come about, and what can they do to ensure it will never happen again.

While others are talking about squeaking by a majority, I want to drown their politics in a bathtub and have them turned into an historical footnote right alongside the Whigs.

[formercia]

9. You forgot Joe Stalin

Aa a bushevik, he would have done well.

[tabasco]

4. America was strong when Clinton left office.

Thanks to the efforts of war profiteering corporations and the traitors who support them, the US is now much weaker, both at home and abroad.

[Marnieworld]

6. I reject your premise

I don't think anything was harmed by the attacks on Clinton. I don't think he was harmed by it or the Democrats by extension. During the impeachment proceedings polled Americans made it clear that they supported him and were against the impeachment. The only way Democrats were harmed by extension is that the RW scared them into thinking Clinton was a liability and they (Gore) didn't let him campaign for them as much as they should have. So no, I don't think Norquist got what he wanted.

As to your other point I don't agree that Bush as a person is our focus of activism. We fight against the policies and decisions of this whole team. We fight against the concept of a Unitary Excutive and the changing of the intent of our Constitution. We fight for fair elections because until they exist the intent of the governed is unknown. This is sooooo not going to end with his term and be a fight against the new opponent. This is a fight against what he has done and still can do. I think what you are suggesting that we should do is what people are actually doing. If it seems aimed at Bush it's because he's the face of the evil but not the target as you clearly point out.

[RandomKoolzip]

8. Cool.

Good post. I can see your points, and although I don't think we see things on this issue eye-to-eye (I DO believe the country in general has shifted rightward in regard to social issues at least since Clinton's term, as evidenced by the rise in Megachurches and Megachurch attendance; whether something like this counts as the "death" of the Left or not, it's still less than heartening), I think this was a great response. Most of us DO fight "The whole team," but I think there are many on the Left (people I know personally, not any specific DUers, in case you want examples) who have tightened their focus to Bush alone, when it's the guys pulling his strings that ought to be taken down.

[Marnieworld]

10. We both really agree

Kill the puppet and the puppetmasters holding the strings. In fact let's kill all puppet manufacturers to be sure. In my heart I hope for a radical consciouness correction in response to the results of "neo-conservatism." Sure they can keep their megachurches but maybe government can actually be able to do something for citizens like give them food water medicine and shelter during a highly predicted disaster such as Katrina. It's unlikely as it is now but a girl can dream. ;-)

[cassandra uprising]

12. That's the discouraging thing.

Why does political engagement happen only as a reactionary response? Why is it that people don't even know what there rights are until they are taken away? :banghead:

[Marnieworld]

13. I think it's human nature

You don't really appreciate something until it's gone or almost gone. Until then you just take what is good for granted and just consider it normal. There is a giant effort to keep people uninformed so it's even harder to get others on board. For many politics was left for others and they just want to live ignorant lives. They could do that forever if things hadn't changed so drastically so quickly. Political engagement is a luxury that many if not most can afford.

[Armstead]

7. I think you're correct

Bush is merely a symptom. The logial outcome of a whiole system of values and policies that -- unfortunately -- the Democrats have been part of as well.

We have lost our basic values, and allowed the notion of a national community to be superceded by a massive con job over the last 30 years. It can be summed up as "You're on your own, life is a jungle, let the strong survive and the winners take all."

Until we honestly deal with the roots of the problem as a nation, the elite will just continue to play musical chairs at the top while the average majority and the disadvantage get screwed.

[AX10]

15. We can all agree that the right wing needs to be crushed.

[f-bush]

17. Good Point but also

if we tear shrub apart and hopefully make him exit in disgrace, we'll have him imploding the right wing along with him. He's the kind of immature self-centered little snot that won't fall on his sword by himself!