Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

TEA PARTY: GOP split helps Democrats

Letter by Mark L. Litchman, Olympia on Nov. 9, 2011 at 11:22 am with 113 Comments »
November 9, 2011 11:22 am

The tea party is not a real political party. It is a political instrument opposed to the whole political system. Tea party proponents vow no compromise and virtually say no to everything. They demand no or little government and no regulations for banking, transportation, environmental concerns, etc.

Tea party proponents seek to privatize most everything, including education and medical care, and they seek to abolish Social Security and other safety nets set in place to protect the average American.

We need a strong two-party system, not a weak GOP without direction. The GOP needs to get its mojo back. I predict that the old GOP will be intimidated by the tea party, causing a split culminating in the tea party forming its own party. That will help the Democrats win the next election, which incidentally is fine with me.

Leave a comment Comments → 113
  1. PumainTacoma says:

    What has the two party system provided you these days? I doubt Tea Party members believe all services should be privatized. But I bet they do agree not to throw money after money after money on government institutes (ex. education at the cost of $12,000+ per student) and keep incompetent teachers just “because” they need a job. Accountability and checks and balances are a cornerstone of our government. That includes dissension from everyone including Tea Party supporters and the rich and poor who favor competition in education.

  2. BlaineCGarver says:

    Since your discription of the Tea Party is totally false, none of your letter can be taken seriously. Calling a spade a bulldozer does not make it so.

  3. sandblower says:

    Calling the tea party either a spade or a bulldozer works for me.

  4. beerBoy says:

    Though I agree with little the tea leaves see as the future for our country, I would love to see them split the GOP. If only a similar thing could happen to the Dems and then we could actually have the possibility of decent representation rather than the monopoly of the “two” party system.

  5. I have some news for you leftists who think you can bitterly cling to the shreds of power you have left: the GOP is being taken over and reformed by the tea party. There is no retreat and there is only victory ahead.

    2012 may well be the year when WA state goes red. We shall see but it is sure looking like donkey party members are getting fed up with their party bosses. How many 99ers are off their unemployment checks? There will be no more checks for them so what are they going to do?

    They are going to be really P.O.ed when they find out how unemployable they are after sitting stagnant for three years. And they can’t blame it on the GOP or the tea party since both were screaming NO about extending the checks.

    We are about to have some real fun in 2012, boys and girls.

  6. LarryFine says:

    Mark, do you still proudly display your Hope and Change bumper sticker slogan ?

  7. klthompson says:

    The writer is clearly suggesting that the Tea Party proponents are in favor of anarchy, or as close as they can get. As a true liberal, I am continually amazed at the ability of writers, correspondents, etc. to continually confuse readers regarding descriptions. For lack space I suggest that readers spend the time to look up the definitions of various words like liberal, socialist, anarchist, Marxist, progressive, conservative, Democrat, Republican, when used in a political context. As an example many who view themselves as conservatives will probably be surprised to find out that they are liberals. Which is exactly where the majority of the Tea party types are.

  8. NickDixon says:

    There is still time for a third party candidate and the Tea Party has just the ego to do it. With any luck, it will be Bachmann and/or Cain. Romney has the old guard GOP already.

    I’m wondering how Boehner will do in Ohio with the new found life in union workers and their grassroots voting efforts. The real campaign is in Congress in 2012

  9. aislander says:

    It’s funny as hell when a lib sets out to define conservatives: they have NO clue! It’s even funnier, when, out of concern for their fellow man I’m certain, said lib gives us advice on how to improve our electoral chances…

    By the way: how’s “Bambi?”

  10. NickDixon says:

    and a “con” is so good at defining a “lib”

  11. aislander, agreed.
    A hit piece on the GOP by a Liberal. And it gets published.

    This is the template:
    GOP, run a moderate.
    GOP, you are racist.
    GOP, why do you hate women.
    GOP, don’t be corrupted by conservatives.
    GOP, Herman Cain is a token representative. See #2.
    GOP, the Occupy is like the Tea Party.
    GOP, if you are a conservative, leave and run a 3rd party.

    What did I miss?

  12. Um, yeah.. Nice try Mark. And let’s be sure and nominate Dole or McCain, heck, it’s their turn, right? They’ve paid their dues, and say all the right things at the country club.

    Anyway, your laundry list of lies simply tells me that you’re a program letter writer, and have most likely sent letters to every major newspaper in the state. The tea party is not complex. They want the government to live within their means, and don’t waste taxpayer money before asking for more. That’s all. Pretty simple, really.

  13. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I’m confused, Bambi… er, Mark, you say you want “strong two-party system”? What the hell does that mean to you? It’s abundantly clear from your and you daughter’s consistent denigratory tone toward Republicans, in the many Letters to the Editor you two waste bandwidth on, that the complete elimination of anything to the right of European-style socialism is what you need.

    Casting such ridiculous aspersions on the Tea Party and Republicans while ignoring the long-term negatives of OWS, and their inevitable detrimental effect on the Democrat Party is laughingly convenient though.

  14. sandblower says:

    Here’s an accurate definition of conservatism: it is a “reactionary defense of elite privileges against challenges from below. It is always, at its core, about subjugating society’s lower orders. Its populist appeal speaks to and for people who have lost something, marrying this sense of loss to authoritarian models of restoration through variously, the state, the work place, gender roles or race. It is power over, rather than power to, that links conservative practice. It has a serious contradictory allure to non-elites.”

    Without reading between the lines that does define the comments here from our favorite righties who exhibit no regard for humankind.

  15. old_benjamin says:

    Mark, you forgot the main planks in the GOP platform. All citizens over 65 are to be skinned and eaten. The Social Security trust find will be turned over to Exxon to drill for oil in your back yard. The federal government will be abolished and Dick Cheney will be appointed Grand Wizard for life. The Rush Limbaugh Network will replace all electronic media, and the Washington Times will become the newpaper of record. Chuck Norris will be appointed Minister of Mass Destruction. Joe Arpaio will assume the Office of Grand Executioner. Herman Cain will become the Minister of Foreign and Domestic Affairs. The entertainment industry will submit all plans to John Haage for pre-approval. And finally, you will be incarcerated at Guantanamo for life or until you promise never to write another letter to the editor. In the meantime, try to be more accurate with your facts.

  16. sandblower says:

    Notice everyone that fberg did not “refudiate” “…..our favorite righties who exhibit no regard for humankind.”
    Or anything else for that matter.

  17. What we have here is more proof of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who believed in a NO-Party system.

  18. stumpy567 says:

    The tea party is a mindset. Far right and conservative in nature. Now is the time for conservative measures because we have tried to spend our way out of this economic funk and it didn’t work.
    Today’s Government is not for the people it is against the people.
    The mounting bureauocratic web of regulations is choking free enterprise and, at the same time perpetuating it’s own existence.
    I say it’s time for a new party. The Common Sense Party.
    It’s not about right or left. It’s about our economic survival.
    This economy cannot thrive with the constraints imposed by current government mandates.

  19. stumpy567 says:

    Sandblower,
    I have a hard time folllowing your thoughts.

    “reactionary defense of elite privileges against challenges from below. It is always, at its core, about subjugating society’s lower orders. Its populist appeal speaks to and for people who have lost something, marrying this sense of loss to authoritarian models of restoration through variously, the state, the work place, gender roles or race. It is power over, rather than power to, that links conservative practice. It has a serious contradictory allure to non-elites.”
    It sounds like you want to make everyone think you are educated.
    Where did the quotation come from? Karl Marx

  20. fbergford says:

    sandblower I have no regard for you! You annoy me! And way use that hottie Sarah Palin’s word!

  21. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Stumpy beat me to it.

    BTDT, your so-called “accurate definition of conservatism” lacking a citation (read “link”) as it is, while quoted, could just as easily have been your own creation. Could it be that your source, if any (including you), is so far left as to be laughed out of the square were you to at least name a source?

    The communist manifest has more credibility.

  22. I would love to see the Tea Party take over the GOP and push the party to the Right.

    The further right the better because fewer and fewer moderate R’s and Independents will vote Rpot.

    Fbergford = flip flopper. First he accuses me of being kardnos, now he accuses sandblower.

  23. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    x, according to the writer – and msnbc/ Democrat Party/ typical leftist drum-beat talking points – your take-over fairy tale has come true. Now close your eyes and click your heals three times…

    And fear not, no one who has seen your posts over the last year or so, would ever mistake you for Kardy. (Too bad for Kardy.)

  24. Sandblower, like most leftists, spend their time insulting their political adversaries as opposed to trying to advance their agenda civilly. He (and they) know that the leftist political philosophy is repugnant to most people, and so they try to advance it through civil disorder and election fraud rather than through the ballot box. The occupiers are an example of this; we all knew from the start where it was going, and contrast this with the tea party people, which simply validated to clear thinking Americans that they’re not alone, and wound up as a powerful grass roots lobby, as the elections of 2010 show.

  25. NickDixon says:

    I wonder, after last night’s “debate” if the Republicans will choose Rick Perry or Herman Cain? Both really brought something to the plate. Cain entertained a highly partisan audience with predictable denial and Perry fell flat on his face.

    The GOP will be stuck with Romney even though they’ve tried everything including Bachmann.

  26. NickDixon says:

    “Sandblower, like most leftists, spend their time insulting their political adversaries as opposed to trying to advance their agenda civilly.”

    “Anyway, your laundry list of lies”

    Yep, same commenter on both statements. Ironic, no?

  27. No, it’s not ironic. I have no problem calling a liar a liar. Sandblower, on the other hand, simply put forward a bunch of hateful hyperbole in an obvious play at destroying the integrity of conservatives to passers-by, although I can’t imagine anyone actually thinking, “well, I guess I hate conservatives now, based on what this anonymous guy said in an Internet forum”. :)

  28. NickDixon says:

    “Sandblower, like most leftists, spend their time insulting their political adversaries as opposed to trying to advance their agenda civilly.”

    “I have no problem calling a liar a liar. Sandblower, on the other hand, simply put forward a bunch of hateful hyperbole in an obvious play at destroying the integrity of conservatives to passers-by, although I can’t imagine anyone actually thinking, “well, I guess I hate conservatives now, based on what this anonymous guy said in an Internet forum”

    The beat goes on.

  29. BLINLITCHMAN says:

    I rarely read the comments at the Trib to letters to the editor as the cries of “Socialist” in response to letters by Democrats are generally shrill and anonymous. However, my spouse alerted me to several derogatory comments posted today in response to my father’s recent letter, and I felt compelled to reply.

    My father (Mark Litchman) served 18 years in the Washington State House of Representatives as a Democrat from King County’s 45th district in Seattle. He was Majority Leader of the House of Representatives and knows first hand about the two party system, and the success that can occur when both parties actually work together on behalf of the public good. During his political career, he was a fiscally conservative Democrat with an effective record of working with both sides of the aisle.

    In response to one reader – my father (Mark) and I, are not the same person, although I am flattered at the comparison as my dad is a terrific guy. We do share similar political beliefs. I am an attorney and he is a retired attorney as well as a former state legislator. We are not now, nor have we ever been Socialists- simply liberal Democrats.

  30. RE: sandblower’s definition of conservatism
    Right wing respose:
    Attack sandblower: Yes.
    Attack the definition: No.
    Offer new nefinition: No way.
    Over all grade: typical right wing lip jerk.

  31. Yes, it does. In addition, I explained the lies of the letter writer, while you and SB add nothing but smarmy remarks. This is another example of my earlier observation of the left not being able to sell their product on its merits. Sorry junior, you failed.

  32. NickDixon says:

    blin – the catcalls and such are just a lack of cohesive argument.

  33. old_benjamin says:

    “Tea party proponents…seek to abolish Social Security and other safety nets set in place to protect the average American.”

    I would have just as soon not known who made that ignorant and foolish statement, but now I can consider the source.

  34. NickDixon says:

    I don’t know about anyone else, but the only smarmy remarks I submitted were copy and pastes of your comments.

  35. old_benjamin says:

    The Platforem of the TEA Party

    http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

  36. aislander says:

    Bambi writes: “We are not now, nor have we ever been Socialists- simply liberal Democrats.”

    The difference being a matter of (perhaps!) degree rather than of kind…

  37. NickDixon says:

    Is a “matter of degree” of a conservative philosophy conducive to labeling “fascist”?

  38. NickDixon says:

    “1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes – Excessively high taxes are a burden for those exercising their personal liberty to work hard and prosper as afforded by the Constitution. A fiscally responsible government protects the freedom of its citizens to enjoy the fruits of their own labor without interference from a government that has exceeded its necessary size, scope and reach into the lives of its citizens.”

    Since the Tea Party (at least its favorite candidates) try to equate
    Social Security and Medicare as taxes, the only thing left is to add the word “excessive” at will and you have the Tea Party against both insurances.

  39. aislander says:

    Of course not: fascism is a left-wing ideology…

  40. aislander says:

    Er…when we point out that 47% of wage earners pay no income tax, it is the left that screams that they do, in fact, pay taxes: payroll taxes. So, WHO calls SS and MC paycheck deductions “taxes?”

  41. aislander says:

    Sorry for the serial posts, but I just spotted this howler from xring:

    “What we have here is more proof of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who believed in a NO-Party system.”

    So…why did the Founders ALSO found political parties?

  42. bigredone says:

    I am offering my OPINION. I will not be quoting any sources. This is what I believe.

    We are a country of centrists. Some center left and some center right. I do not think the majority of either side is extreme, left or right. We need politicians who will work together for the good of the people and not just run for re-election. I don’t know if the founding fathers favored a no party system but I am beginning to think I do. It seems to me when a person runs for office they tell us what they stand for, how they will vote, what they will do and when they get elected, the party tells them how things will work cuz “if you don’t play ball with us we won’t give you any money to get re-elected.” This does not sound like it is in our best interest. Something has to change. I say it is the players.

    Again, just my opinion.

  43. Asilander,
    Fascism is a ultra right-wing ideology.

    It is the right wing that howls about the 47% paying no taxes, and we lefties that point out the 47% pays no income tax but does pay other taxes.

    ‘Why did Founders also create political parties?” A very good question.
    IMO because some wanted more power.

    Bigedone: IMO your opinion is spot on.

  44. aislander says:

    I believe, bigredone, it is easier to make changes within a smaller entity than to a larger one. Parties are imperfect, but they are less immutable than the nation at large.

    So if you want to change the direction of the nation, you begin by changing the direction of a party. The Dems are much different since McGovern, and the Republicans since Reagan.

    You’ve got to do the grunt work, though if you wish to change to politics and the people of a party.

    Before you throw your hands up in defeat, just look at how much impact a bunch of ordinary citizens had on the last midterm elections…

  45. aislander says:

    xring: Mussolini, the founder of fascism, was a socialist, edited the socialist newspaper Avanti, always referred to himself as a socialist even after the advent of fascism, referred to fascism as a socialist movement, and differed from other Italian socialists only on the question of nationalism and entry into WWI…

    Did you forget all that already? We HAVE gone over this before…

  46. bigredone says:

    aislander
    I appreciate your comments and do not disagree with you 100%. I did not intend to sound like I want to “throw my hands up in defeat” but merely to state my opinion that the system, as we know have it, is not working. I am not politically savvy enough to know what the answers are to our problems. I am only asking some questions to promote discussion on how to best resolve them. Thanks for your input.
    xring
    thank you.

  47. bigredone says:

    should have read “as we now have it”

  48. old_benjamin says:

    “Since the Tea Party (at least its favorite candidates) try to equate
    Social Security and Medicare as taxes, the only thing left is to add the word “excessive” at will and you have the Tea Party against both insurances”

    Since the Tea Party opposes excessive taxation, all you have to do is ASS_ume that it opposes all taxation whatsoever. Oops, sorry, Nosblower already did that.

  49. BlaineCGarver says:

    LMAO….Fascism, IE Hitler and Mussolini, were Socialists, not Conservatives….Do words just fall out of Liberal Mouths like used oats from a horse?

  50. Asilander,
    Our Founding Fathers were liberals; they wrote and enacted a liberal Constitution.

    That still does not stop the conservacons from claiming to be the political decedents of the Founding Fathers and claiming the Constitution is a conservative document.

    Fascism was originally a socialist movement but once in power quickly became a right wing institution and today is considered one of the most ultra right political philosophies.

    I’m sure the American Nazi Party and the Aryan Nation will be overjoyed to learn they are socialists.

  51. In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

    “..Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism”

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

    While it is true that fascism, like Marxian socialism, was seen as a solution to the failings of capitalism, it does not follow that fascism derives from socialism. Fascism, unlike either capitalism or socialism, is a strictly nationalist pseudo-religious believe in the connections between race and locality.

    As such it is really inaccurate to declare fascism as “of the right” (unfettered capitalism) or “of the left” (Marxist Communism) as it is neither.

    If there is any governing system that resembles fascism it would be the Knesset whose members are recalling the Nazis’ connection between race and homeland by currently attempting to legally declare all of Palestine the sacred heritage of the Jews, based upon a racially defined version of European Jews that originated with an antisemitic attempt to exclude them from Germany.

  52. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Now I’m really confused; Mark lichtman is a “fiscally conservative, liberal Democrat”? How does that work?

    Sorry to have ruffled your feath… er, fur, Bambi, but your dad is a big boy now – he can defend his own letters. There will be plenty of other opportunities for you though, I am quite sure.

  53. xring wrote “Our Founding Fathers were liberals; they wrote and enacted a liberal Constitution.”

    Well then heck, you should be really happy, estatic even with the Bill of Rights as written and will do all in your power to leave them as is…

    Thanks…

  54. old_benjamin says:

    “Our Founding Fathers were liberals; they wrote and enacted a liberal Constitution.”

    What we have here is a sneaky example of equivocation. What the word meant then is not what it means today.

    “Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    Liberalism today means big government, a Constitution that says whatever the liberal courts say it does, special favors for preferred groups, and a bias against free markets. The change in meaning has come about as progressives have cloaked themselves in the guise of classical liberalism. The classical liberals, our Founders, would be spinning in their graves if they knew how progressives have gutted the word “liberal” and stuffed it with all sorts of loathsome associations. Fortunately for them, they knew better times.

  55. XX,
    Why yes I (like the majority of lefties) am very happy with the Bill of Rights as it is written.
    A pity the same cannot be said about the tidy righties.

    Old_ben,
    You got my point with ‘What the word meant then is not what it means today.”

    Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
    And the link for your version of modern liberalism is?

  56. NickDixon says:

    “Liberalism today means big government”

    This is why the government grew to its largest size under a conservative administration and Congress from 2001 to 2007?

  57. NickDixon says:

    “Now I’m really confused; Mark lichtman is a “fiscally conservative, liberal Democrat”? How does that work?”

    We all created our own mind paradigms. By that I do not mean 20 cents.

  58. NickDixon says:

    From Andrew Sullivan (not a known liberal)

    “What American ‘conservatism’ has become fits closely within the definition of fascism: an intensely nationalist movement intent on defining membership in the ‘nation’ on linguistic, religious, and (increasingly) ethnic/racial criteria, accompanied by an unquestioning loyalty to (male) authority, enshrined in family leaders, business leaders, religious leaders, and especially, the leader of the nation, who is seen as embodying the Nation. Loyalty to the Party or Movement and its ideology is of great importance. Violence is the preferred means of accomplishing goals. Diplomacy, compromise, negotiation, are all identified with (feminine) weakness. The rule of law is also despised, because it lacks the immediacy of (violent) action, and its emphasis on balance and its concern with proper procedure is also seen as a sign of (feminine) weakness.”

    Read that paragraph and you’ll see it applies to comments made by self proclaimed conservatives on this website.

  59. aislander says:

    I see the tornado hit the panty drawer, judging by all the bunched underwear on display. I have a LOT of housekeeping to do.

    First, we have to separate actual conservative positions from all the straw men set up under my comment. Fascist/Nazis: rampant government or limited government? I’ll give you a head start: Modern conservatives (as did the Founders) desperately seek Constitutionally-limited government.

    The left has been running away from its fascist relative ever since WWII, so there is LOTS of revisionism to unwind in order to have an honest discussion of this subject…

  60. aislander says:

    You mean Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of The New Republic, the well-known conservative organ?

  61. Why yes I (like the majority of lefties) am very happy with the Bill of Rights as it is written.

    Thanks… remember your words moving forward, I sure will…

  62. old_benjamin says:

    “Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists.”

    Indeed, that’s why Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HHS, HUD, the Education and Energy Departments, and innumerable other guvment bureaucracies were created by the first Congress. There is no difference in George Washington and Barock Obama. They are both liberals cut from the same cloth. Oh, except for one little detail. Washington was a slave holder.

  63. NickDixon says:

    “Indeed, that’s why Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HHS, HUD, the Education and Energy Departments, and innumerable other guvment bureaucracies were created by the first Congress.”

    HUH??????????

  64. NickDixon says:

    “From Andrew Sullivan (not a known liberal)”

    “You mean Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of The New Republic, the well-known conservative organ?

    Uh, yeah. That Andrew Sullivan. Are we playing Masters of the Obvious?

  65. NickDixon says:

    I like the 2nd Amendment as it is written. Sadly, it is misinterpreted for political purposes.

  66. I was talking about all ten of them… not sure why we are focusing on one…

  67. NickDixon says:

    I’ll pick and choose as I wish and you can do the same.

    I also like the First Amendment, which allows me to choose what I want to say.

  68. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    We all created our own mind paradigms. By that I do not mean 20 cents.

    LOL, good one, Kardy.

  69. NickDixon says:

    I notice that several people call each other or others “Kard” or “Kardy”. Is that vogue? Is it like calling someone “dude”?

  70. I like the 9th Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  71. old_benjamin says:

    Dixon, I forget your inability to recognize sarcasm. No, the first congress didn’t really create SS, Medicare, etc. Surprised? Actually SS annd Medicare didn’t come along until about 50 years ago. That’s the difference in classical liberalism and the social liberalism of today. Hope that helps.

  72. NickDixon says:

    old_benjamin – let me be the first to congratulate you. I even went back a few posts to try to determine if your comment might be sarcasm, as opposed to the byproduct of an early happy hour and couldn’t find an opposing comment, so I had to question it.

    You have to understand, I’ve heard people claim that Jesus and his disciples studied the King James Bible – and they were serious.

  73. NickDixon says:

    I like the first part of the Constitution, before it was amended, where it talks about a “common welfare”. I think that is opposed to a welfare to the highest bidder.

  74. aislander says:

    The New Republic, founded by socialist cum fascist Herbert Croly is NOT a “conservative organ.” That was another bit of sarcasm that apparently escaped sum-one…

  75. aislander says:

    The phrase “common welfare” is not in the Constitution…

  76. aislander says:

    Mistaking xring for KARD would be like taking the sheep for the sheep dog. They’re both on the same side of the fence, but very different critters. Each annoying in his own way, though…

  77. true that, the constant baaa’ ing and barking do get annoying at times…

  78. NickDixon says:

    News from the Conservative Front:

    A conservative publication is no longer conservative and the Preamble to the Constitution is no longer a part of the Constitution.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html

    I’m embarassed for the Conservative movement.

  79. NickDixon says:

    “Sullivan describes himself as a conservative and is the author of The Conservative Soul. He supports a broad range of traditional conservative positions. He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and opposes welfare state programs and interventionism.”

    Regardless of the politics of a publication founder that died in 1930, Sullivan is a self professed conservative and if the denial can stop long enough to digest the above, one can see that Sullivan is a proponent of much of what is the Conservative agenda.

    Call the “New Republic” what you wish. The original issue was Sullivan.

    This is about like the statement that the “mainstream media is liberal” when it’s all owned by conservative businesses and people.

  80. NickDixon says:

    oh, and then there is this:

    “In 1991, Andrew Sullivan, a 28-year-old gay Catholic from Britain, became editor and took the magazine in a somewhat more conservative direction”

  81. NickDixon says:

    Let’s not let facts get in the way of denial.

  82. hey dixie – he said “common welfare”… he is still correct. What are you doing man, you even went to the archives and still got it wrong….

    “News from the Conservative Front:”

    here you are getting dangerously close to copyright infringement. I got my attorneys taking a look at a possible cease and desist order. Thats’ cold man, dang cold.

    I gotta go there again… you took issue with a word, took the time to go look for said word in the context of the Constitution, that Constitution is a 200+ year old document not editable nor amendable like wikipedia or something like that, you find it, you read the word… in context, it is indeed different than what you wrote, it is indeed different than the word used by aislander making him still correct in his statement, he made his comment within 5 mins of your comment suggesting that he put his chips in without even looking at his cards, you took over 12 hours to decide to double down and put your chips into what is now the humble pie pot, you steal, you ramble and post your comment for the world to see… My apologies… fail.

    I believe this rancid humble pie is for you sir…

    Just an observation, back to the peanut gallery for me…

  83. Pacman33 says:

    BLINLITCHMAN(Bambi) squawks –
    “In response to one reader – my father (Mark) and I, are not the same person, ….”

    That’s a shocker, thanks for the tip Bambi. I think what the reader meant and what others also presume, is that this letter doesn’t appear to be the words of a man in his mid-80’s. It more resembles letters that have been submitted with your name. I’m not saying it is a fact that you wrote this letter, I’m just saying.

    BLINLITCHMAN(Bambi) suspiciously shrieks –
    “We are not now, nor have we ever been Socialists”

    Never say never, unless you are ashamed of your family history? Did your grandfather(Mark M. Litchman) not tell your father(Mark L. Litchman) about the good old days? I assume that you propose the notion that Gramps, being a radical activst lawyer with deep philosophical views and a devout member of the Socialist Party, never put a single thought in the head of your father. I suppose it is a coincidence that Grampa was a lawyer who aspired to be elected to office and that you are a lawyer who unsuccessfully aspired to be elected to office and your father is a retired lawyer that was elected to the office of State House of Reps? Kooky?

    Mark M. Litchman(Gramps) a very proud and active member of the Socialist party, helped establish and was the first president of the Seattle Labor College. The institution was quickly labeled “The Communist College” soon after operations began. In addition, Mr. Litchman passionately fought to advancing, advocating and defending Socialist Party candidates and other leftist political groups , numerous unions including the dominant union federation, the American Federation of Labor, and the “Wobblies” or the radical Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Mr. Litchman even acted as a chairmen and speaker meeting for the benefit of The Communist Party members.

    Even more notable than his other numerous radical contributions in the introduction and advancement of anti-American vagrancy in the Pacific Northwest was Mark M. Litchman’s pioneering of the consortium between socialist/communist radicals and anti-constitutional, activist attorneys. A disease that is still festering today. Mark M. Litchman coped with brooding distrust and suspicion that radicals felt towards lawyers, as they were outside the working class. Litchman, who spoke of himself as being a “day and night soldier in the revolution”, was mindful to how paramount this lewd affair with radical unions and groups would be to the Leftist Agenda.

    As his father was the “Babe Ruth” for the radical leftist attorneys that pollute the White House and Congress, Mark L. Litchman, was the Vince Lombardi of union political corrtuption making sure not to spite the bridge erected by his father. Mark L. Litchman made the U.S. sovereignty compromising of Unionist cronyism cool before the first union goon assault of an opponent at a Democrat held event.

    https://depts.washington.edu/depress/mark_litchman.shtml

    Mark M. Litchman:
    A Courageous Lawyer in a Time of Civil Unrest and Depression
    “Litchman’s fight for the underrepresented spoke to his membership in the Socialist Party in Seattle. He believed that Socialism aimed for the empowerment of the less fortunate and especially for the workers of the world,[15] which is something he strived every day to accomplish in his legal and intellectual affairs”

    http://columbia.washingtonhistory.org/magazine/articles/2004/0304/0304-a1.aspx

    http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/pioneerlife&CISOPTR=9407&REC=4

  84. NickDixon says:

    Oh, Nick got his words twisted.

    I notice no one is talking about Andrew Sullivan and his move to make New Republic conservative.

    I wonder what the dictionary would say about “common welfare” versus general welfare. I guess there is enough difference for someone who would also like to claim that a conservative man isn’t conservative because he once edited a magazine that was started by a liberal who died in 1930.

  85. NickDixon says:

    common welfare – “something that aids or promotes well-being; “for the common good”

    yeah..nothing at all like general welfare

    What’s that part in the Second Amendment about a militia?

  86. NickDixon says:

    Pacman – when did you first become a fascist?

  87. aislander says:

    LarryFine: Less radical does not mean “conservative…”

  88. aislander says:

    LarryFine: When sum-one surrounds a phrase with quotation marks, that means it is quoting that exact phrase, does it not?

    Great research, Pacman33! You earned the coveted “F” appellation as a result, too!

  89. NickDixon says:

    BLINLITCHMAN(Bambi) suspiciously shrieks –
    “We are not now, nor have we ever been Socialists”

    Mark L. Litchman is not Mark M. Litchman, no matter how hard you try to make it so with an over abundance of text and namecalling, Pacman

    I think the suspicious shrieking is coming from your side of the block.

  90. aislander says:

    BTW: The Red Diaper Babies are not ONLY on the OWS (LRV) threads…

  91. NickDixon says:

    “From Andrew Sullivan (not a known liberal)” – comment #1

    From Sullivan’s wiki – “Sullivan describes himself as a conservative and is the author of The Conservative Soul. He supports a broad range of traditional conservative positions. He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and opposes welfare state programs and interventionism.”

    I get the feeling this is a case of the old “not conservative enough”, in which case, I’ll agree. I doubt that Aislander’s left hand is conservative enough for the rest of his body.

  92. aislander says:

    LarryFine: The proliferation of alts makes it slightly more difficult to program the “ignore” function, but it’s nothing that can’t be overcome…

  93. MStephen says:

    To “Pacman 33″ re. Mark L Litchman

    Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands to do your “research.” It’s laughable how your guilt by association motives obscure reality. I have known Mark L Litchman for nearly thirty years, and he has indeed talked to me about the “good ol’days” and about how his father accused him repeatedly of being TOO conservative for wanting to work together with Republicans. Your comment makes the false assumption that all sons follow in the ideological footsteps of their fathers. Furthermore, you tend to take Mark Sr.’s bio completely out of context. America in the 1920s and 30s was a far different world; Mark Sr. was a part of a much larger movement in America that stood up for the rights of the oppressed. The success or failure of that movement is a subject for historians to decide. In the here and now, Mark L Litchman is now 86, in good health, and did write the letter to the Tribune. Your insinuation that his daughter wrote the letter is really rather strange. I would suggest that you do something better with your time than bad mouth those, both past and present, who have tried to be good public servants and actually do something to make the world a better place. Both Mark and I stand by a commitment that Republicans and Democrats can and should work together to solve our nation’s problems, and we believe that the tea party movement, by splintering the Republican party, has created an environment in which a bipartisan attempt to do so is virtually impossible.

  94. aislander says:

    The progressive era was a disaster for America from which we have not yet recovered. It did grave injury to the essence of the country.

    As for someone’s having mistaken Bambi for Mark L. due to stylistic similarities, it shows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, if I may employ a cliche’. So I’m guessing the Mark L. doesn’t disagree that much from his Wobbly-defending father…

  95. aislander says:

    I meant to write: “…doesn’t DIVERGE that much from his Wobbly-defending father…

  96. aislander says:

    That is especially true because the pattern usually is that children become MORE (rather than less) like their parents as they mature…

  97. BLINLITCHMAN says:

    Now I remember why I stopped reading the comments to the letters to the editor.

    As a legislator who worked diligently on behalf of his constituency in Seattle for 18 years, my father, Mark, strongly believed (and still believes) in a two party system, and actual compromise between both sides of the aisle in order to help the actual people represented. He is concerned that the Tea Party seems to think “compromise” is a dirty word.

    As a legislator he was a champion for the police, firefighters, teachers, social services, young people, etc. and was also -a shock to many of you -pro-business. In addition to being an attorney and legislator, he has been a successful real estate developer and investor, and was one of the founders of a bank in Ballard.

    The trend of the discussion is quite virulent, and misses the point of the actual letter. My guess, from many, many conversations with my father regarding the current state of politics, is that he wanted to convey a sincere warning that the Tea Party may end up doing for the Republicans what Ralph Nader did for the Democrats. If you disagree – fine.

  98. Just to re-state what I said earlier and which was conveniently deleted by the leftist censor, I see where the Litchman’s are competing to see who can write the stupidist latter. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree does it? Color it any way you like a leftist is a socialist is a liberal is a commie. BTW, did Mr. Litchman ever serve in the military? Let me guess…..

  99. MStephen, and so? Your endorsement of Litchman only serves to show that you are just another liberal. You guys are too concerned about what the Tea Party “might’ do to the Republican Party. Why should you care if the Republicans are split? Doesn’t that benefit your side? Your concern for the two-party system is noble but painfully dishonest.

  100. BLINLITCHMAN says:

    Frosty – yes my father is a WWII vet – a retired Navy officer. My grandfather was the youngest veteran of the Spanish American War. My mother served as a nurse cadet in WWII. Thanks for asking.

    Aislander, etc. – Perhaps you did not catch the irony when I referred to my father and myself by saying, “We are not now, nor have we ever been Socialists, “ although neither my father nor I are socialists. The fact is that the accusation of “socialist” has replaced the McCarthy era witch-hunts of communists, or alleged communists. Democrats seem to constantly be assaulted with the accusation.

    Others have noted the change in tone of communication. Time magazine recently printed a rather astute observation which read:

    Verbatim
    “Look at this beautiful kitten.” “F—you, that kitten’s a socialist.” “You’re a f—.”
    Basically that’s the crux of all internet discussion.’
    (Jeff Tweedy,lead singer of Wilco, giving Magnet magazine his take on web discourse)

    Re insults re my grandfather – I will not engage in further discussion of my grandfather, of whom I am extraordinarily proud, and whose papers are preserved at the UW archives. He was a legal advocate for the oppressed and the downtrodden, served in the Washington State Senate, and argued before the United States Supreme Court. If you dislike my grandfather’s work, I assume you would prefer to dissolve the unions, get rid of child labor laws, bring back the sweatshops, see loggers massacred in the streets, and get rid of compensation for workers injured on the job.

    Again, the original topic of the letter to the editor that was designated to be the topic of this discussion, is the Tea Party and the GOP, and whether or not the Tea Party is dangerously close to derailing the GOP’s chances in the next presidential election. It could be a fascinating area of discussion since the outcome of the next presidential election concerns all of us……

  101. aislander says:

    I caught the McCarthy allusion, Bambi, but, since McCarthy was a Wisconsin progressive Republican, I thought the usage merely to be part of the lexicon…

  102. Pacman33 says:

    “Litchman encourages his correspondents to read the latest issue of The Nation, particularly a letter written by Lenin. He agrees with Lenin’s premise that the unity of the labor movement cannot last if communists and centrists are attempting to compromise. The only solution, he feels, is that the insurgents drive the others out of the movement, so that the capitalists cannot continue to dominate the activities of labor organizations. Litchman prizes “unity of purpose, of quickness” and the idea that a “militant minority” runs every nation at present, so a militant minority must seize the reins of the labor movement.”

    http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/pioneerlife&CISOPTR=9420&REC=8

  103. aislander says:

    Lots to be proud of there, Pac.

    IF Lenin was right (and he was wrong about so much), I know the minority that must be the most militant, and it is by no means the smallest one. I believe that, if we polled the electorate in an honest way, issue by issue, it would be a majority…

  104. Pacman33 says:

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree ….. not far at all.
    Above is Mark Sr. being an advocate anyone could be proud of.

    Below is Mark Jr. from another Letter to the Editor. Seems to be “displaying commitment that Republicans and Democrats can and should work together”.

    Mark Jr.
    “All were opposed by the GOP in the 1920s and 1930s and, sadly, this is being repeated today. It is time for the majority of middle-class Americans to stand up against the blatant lack of compassion evidenced by the GOP.”

  105. aislander says:

    And yet, Pac, Mark L. is so solicitous in his letter for the well-being of that same GOP…

  106. Amazing that the TNT allows this level of ad hominem “discussion” to continue unabated and the “conservatives” here still maintain that the moderators have an anti-conservative bias…..

  107. aislander says:

    You mean the “blatant lack of compassion” part, beerBoy..?

  108. BLINLITCHMAN, Regarding your “kitten’ analogy, it would be just as accurate to say that if that kitten is the pet of a Wall Street banker, the left would say that it is a shame that the cat is living so well while people are starving in America, “kill the cat” would be the chant being heard at the OWS orgies. Can’t have it both ways. And BTW, thanks for the response on your father’s service. Now all I have to do is to figure out is what happened to him after that time to make him into a liberal. As for dissolving unions, absolutely!! Dissolve all PUBLIC unions now! “Bring back the sweatshops”? do you mean like those in third world countries that we get most of our stuff from? I can’t speak to the “logger massacres” since logging has pretty much been banned by the environmentalists for quite some time. Have you noticed the signs that protestors are carrying regarding “eating the rich” and killing bankers? Again, I applaud your father’s efforts to save the Republican Party from the Tea Party, but for some strange reason, I don’t believe that he genuinely gives a damn about the Republican Party.

  109. Beerboy, sure there’s an anti-conservative bias. That’s why some of my posts keep getting deleted. Although, I kind of get the feeling that “xring” is the culprit who keeps flagging them. Since he can’t come up with anything that makes sense, he just flags comments that he doesn’t like.

  110. LarryFine says:

    Frosty, 12:35 post is spot on.
    .
    Kooky how calling Litchman on his b.s. concern about the welfare of the GOP is considered “ad hominem attack” by kettleBoy.

  111. Pacman33 says:

    Amazing that bB and other leftists routinely call for censorship and resort to erroneous dismissals and preposterous claims of ad hominem tactics. Frantic from the humiliation of their pants around their ankles, their fraudulence dangling in the wind. They’re unable to recognize the desperation in their feeble responses to the exposure of the left’s revisionist and perpetual canard of their ideology’s origin.

    The left furiously flails and slings derisive attacks at anyone who dusts off old mementos that reveals the unamerican foundation of the leftists of today. Thus evolving into the organisms camping in disgusting sespools that are being passed off as grassroots faux-tests.

  112. LarryFine says:

    Very well stated Pac.

  113. That’s about all that needs to be said Pacman and Larry, great comments!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0