Conservatives and the government does not and will never get it. That is why alterations within the system will never work, a whole new system must be in place.

Sullivan was pretty pathetic, and it was pretty shameful that he claimed that Chomsky was putting the U.S. and the Nazis on a par with his Nuremburg comment. Chomsky was clearly stating that we should apply the standards set forth in the Nuremburg trial to our own conduct, which is obviously a far cry from claiming that we are the morally equivalent of the Nazis.

I do have a lot of criticisms of Chomsky, especially when he starts talking about American public opinion (he has this idea that the American public is much more left than the establishment on foreign affairs) and certain events in international relations. It is also quite dubious his claim that the Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam without the sanctions. Chomsky has also written so many books, and many of them contain irresponsible statements.

But Sullivan is getting nutty when he says people like Chomsky are the ones who lost the election and deserve to lose the election. He doesn't apply the same standard to himself--he gives himself the luxury of standing with a party which he calls homophobic and bigoted, for the reaseon that the "real" GOP is moderate and tolerant. But the "real" Democratic party believes that the U.S. and the Nazis are equivalent.

When Chomsky endorsed Kerry he referred to him as "Bush-lite," but a "fraction" better than his rival. For instance, Kerry backed the use of force in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Afghanistan and of course Iraq. Did I mention he voted for the Patriot Act? Was this the great savior of America? Chomsky did add that "small differences can mean a lot in such a powerful country," but you don't win elections against an incumbent president with an uncharismatic watered down version on small differences. Democrats need to spend more time rebuilding their party and less time whining about why they lost.

Chomsky is an intellectual, but he is completely intellectually dishonest.

He states we went to Iraq for the oil, and so we could have leverage over Euro/Asia. But, we tried to get the UN to go in with us. If we did, how would his argument hold water? He would have to change his view to match a new scenario.

It's ok. The American people only needed one day to reject him and like minded people, and we did it resoundly.

The Simpson interview was pretty good too. He lost it big time over nothing.

"He states we went to Iraq for the oil, and so we could have leverage over Euro/Asia. But, we tried to get the UN to go in with us. If we did, how would his argument hold water?" We would simply point to our greater sacrifice and though we would toss others a bone. Operational control would have remained with us and we would have stacked the deck for American companies.

Better yet Norm - it was pretty obvious that the UN was NOT going to go along in any sort of time frame and under conditions the US would approve of. The UN was played by the US perfectly to ensure they wouldn't go along. always with the plan in trhe back pocket to leap ahead of the UN if it looked like they might play ball or if it looked like Saddam was caving. Going to the UN was a managed PR stunt nothing more.

Good lord watching this you really do have to ask the question, "why do so many people think Andrew Sullivan is smart?"

I have read Sullivan's blog and thought he had some rational thougts until I saw him on Maher. HIs tirade of love your country and might is right is pathetic. It is absolutely correct that the only rational reason to go into Iraq was not to bring the liberty bell or relieve the poor people from the tyrant. If that were our goal..we certainly would have invaded Cuba decades ago. Being the largest consumer of oil in the world and with dwindling fuel...well, it does not take a rocket scientist or lighting from the almighty to conclude what the rational is for sacrificing our soldiers and the Iraqi population.

Who the fuck is Andrew Sullivan and why could we give a fuck what he thinks?

He's so typical of the post 9/11 superpatriots; all talk and no action at a personal level. So long as it is someone else's ass on the line and not their own, these blowhard jackasses can babble endlessly about patriotism and point fingers at others.

That's just what we need is another lecture on how to conduct the war by a sissy armchair quarterback like Sullivan who has only served his massive ego throughout his life and not his adopted country. Whoopie fucking do. We should take this egomaniac and silly prick seriously? What proof of his conduct in his civic life has he set any kind of axample that we should listen to what he has to say and take him seriously?

Fuck him and those of his ilk in the "blogoshere." What a bunch of hypocritical dipshits.

Conservatives and the government does not and will never get it. That is why alterations within the system will never work, a whole new system must be in place.

One thing I can say: you may not agree with Chomsky, he may speak the wrong things, his world view may be different from realities; but he is never a hypocrite, and he always applies the same set of rules to all people: good or bad, big or small, us or them.

We may not agree with someone, but we need to give credit where it is due.

---"going into Iraq was not to bring the liberty bell or relieve the poor people from the tyrant. If that were our goal..we certainly would have invaded Cuba decades ago."---

I haven't seen any terrorists come out of Cuba recently. When Cuba was a threat, we reacted.

America is going to change the poltical culture of the Middle East. Long term goal, but it will happen.

If you want to know why Bush won, it is for that reason. Read Victor Hanson's...

"American Exceptionalism - The message of Tuesdays victory" http://www.victorhanson.com

I really hope Democrats will start understanding the realities of the world - specifically, Post 9-11 with Cold War weapons available to the highest bidder, and the smell of American blood by terrorists... and you feel safe with billionaire Saddam in power? That is nuts!

58 million of us took a stand on Tuesday - and I could not be happier.

Here's the scoop!

Sullivan - Who? I would love to see Chomsky and whoever this guy is debate about anything. ANYTHING!

Simpson - Obviously gay and loves the nose candy.

Andy Sullivan is gay and a British citizen who lives in the US and writes for right wing rags. As the space for overt imperialists shrinks in Europe they are moving to the next haven. He was pissed at Bush for the gay marriage ammendment and ended up endorsing Kerry but is now reverting back to his true colors. Probably needs to keep his writting gig going. If he is so enamoured with the US electorate he should go to Alabama and explain to them how gays can be good patriotic, god lovin' murkins. They are more likely to shove a flag (along the poll) up his ass. He can't hold a candle to Chomsky and he knows it, that is why he was so pissed.

Max

"Simpson - Obviously gay and loves the nose candy."

Does "ad hominem" mean ANYTHING to ANYONE anymore? This is what so many people are talking about when they lament the lack of CIVILIZED DISCOURSE in this country.

"I haven't seen any terrorists come out of Cuba recently. When Cuba was a threat, we reacted."

The ignorance of this statement shows why people voted for dubya. YOU actually still believe that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11? There can be no discussion with anyone who continues to mistate the obvious. I guess one can believe anything, with a bit of "faith">

I congratualate you on your ignorance and your victory. You Have won the right for you, your sons and daughters to die in never ending wars and you have won the right for generations to come to pay for the legacy of Dubya,

Sullivan's reaction to Chomsky is typical of the right wing. Take a comment out of context and then scream bloody murder about it. It's what Bush did with the "global test" comment. He knew very well what Kerry meant by it, but it suited his purposes to take it out of context. Chomsky did not say US= Nazi Germany. But there are similarities and they should be addressed. Instead, yell and scream to avoid really addressing the question. That's what Sullivan did and, incidently, that's what Allan Simpson did too.

I watched Real Time and i was amazed by the reactions of Simpson and Sullivan. It shows that this no longer a debate of ideas but one of emotions. I know Bill Maher can be provocative, but these guys didn't give him a chance. When Sullivan said that Chomsky did not have the right to his opinions i could have fell out my chair.

Alan Simpson and Andrew Sullivan deliberately manipulated Bill Maher on Friday night. They change the course of the conversation and put the person asking the question on the defensive...then the don't have to answer the question. It is a manipulative topic to control the conversation and avoid addressing the question.They knew it was Mahers last show for a while and wanted Maher to be able to voice as little opinion as possible.

I actually think this is exactly what we have to look forward to for the next 4 years.

Andrew Sullivan is a blowhard, I dismiss him almost instantly. He's goofy and obviously looking for a real day job.

The Simpson discussion was much more troubling. It is very much consistent with the Cheney/Bush doctrine of "Shut your mouth children and go to the back of the bus." "Let us higher thinkers deal with the big-boy problems and you just sit there and shut your mouth."

Bill Maher is a court jester. He's a damn good comedian. Senator Simpson was treating the guy like a journalist that just insulted his patriotism.

Senator Simpson exhibited exactly what I fear most about this new administration - the complete re-write of our history and American ethics and freedoms. He stated that this country was founded due to religious intolerance. That's absolutely true, however the next part of the history is more important than the "why". Our founding fathers strictly seperated church and state because it was the only way to avoid a repeat of the persecution they felt under the Anglican System in England.

Just because God is on our currency and in our charter as a country doesn't make it the far left's God, the Catholic God, it doesn't make it the Jewish God, the Jehovah's Witness God or any other relegions God.

Here's the point; Bill Maher asked a couple of straightforward and simple questions. I heard no disrespect to the Senator at all. What I did hear is the ring-tone of the current and future political right. It's time to get rid of the old men running our country. They obviously don't have our best interests at heart. Let's fiture out a way to get to the folks in the middle of America that were decieved as well as the folks that don't understand how important it is to elect decent people (Republican, Democrat or Independent).

One more thing: history can and will repeat itself. Look at the last century - delivery by gun is never a good way to convey a message.

Let’s get something straight once and for all. Bush won because his propagandists did a better job than those employed by Kerry. They took one of Kerry’s strongest points--his heroic service in Viet Nam—and shamelessly smeared it. They lead Americans to believe that our fulltime job as citizens should be to fear gay marriage and terrorists, not building a better country. I don’t care why Alan Simpson thinks we lost the election and I certainly don’t care what a chicken hawk like A. Sullivan thinks about ANYTHING!. While I do admire Chomsky, he hardly speaks for the left in this country. He is a college professor, how much power does he wield? He sells a few books, does a few lectures but he isn’t like Rush Limbaugh, able to disseminate his opinions daily to millions over the public airwaves.

What I would have loved to have seen is Sullivan try to debate with Chomsky one on one. If you think Maher made an ass of him, Chomsky would have him running home crying to his mommy. I don't agree with Chomsky on a lot of things, but I've listened to him in REAL debates and speeches not just sound bite TV. He is very intelligent and knows how rip a person a new one. Sullivan in about 15 minutes would be a blathering idiot in a REAL debate, now I am repeating myself. I can't help it when it comes to a imbecile like Sullivan.

i think maher, sullivan and simpson ALL let their pride get in the way of constructive discussion. they were defensive. they interupted each other. they misinterpreted each others' comments. i liked that maher asked simpson what us blue state people don't get; it is something we truly need to take the time to find out....by LISTENING with an open mind.

what's not to get about Simpson? He answered the simple question of "where did we go wrong" with a very helpful and straightforward message. Elections are about trying to make people LIKE you and vote FOR you. Simpson pointed out that maybe acting like a hateful arrogant ass, mocking people, and invoking pejorative in ripping them, might not be the best way to win them over.

It amazes me that a guy like Maher, who clearly fancies himself a bright guy, could be so bloody stoooooopid. Stop labeling everyone who doesn't agree with you as an idiot. Maher made be proud (or secretly defensive of) his atheism, but when atheists and agnostics make up 14% of the American voting public, picking a fight with everyone who's not is just plain moronic. Frankly, he strikes me as someone defensive who tries to compensate by bullying people to agree with him.

Memo to Bill: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking both believe in God, and my friend, neither of them is "irrational" or dumb. Not that it's particularly relevant, but there are literally millions of people out there who believe in God who sport far higher IQs than Maher. Maybe, just maybe, it would be worth dropping the contemptuousness and hostility and act like there's room in the world for both.

The bitter, ugly, caustic, hateful, arrogant, jackass approach of the Bill Mahers and Michael Moores of the world are the greatest thing the Republicans could ever hope for.

Alan Simpson tried to do all of us a favor and explain what we could change that would help us win next time, and Maher drove him away. Just like I'm sure he drove away plenty of moderates who held a negative opinion of Bush, but an even more negative one of the self-appointed spokespeople like Michael Moore and Bill Maher.

You want to do something good for the Democratic Party? Tell these guys there's plenty of laughs to be gotten, plenty of humor to be made, without resorting to being assholes and driving all but the most rabid 10% of the liberals away.

As Simpson said: "just keep it up buddy, and you'll lose every time". In that one sentence lies the future of the Democratic Party and all the ideals it purports to represent.

Wat the..how many 'Anon's are there? Kinda comflicting comments there. Who's the real slim shady? Some pseudokiddos , man, grow some balls n admit.

Btw, who the fuk is Alan Simspons? If i didn't know, i would have thought he was some guy right off the street with the kind of talk he is making. And simply arrogant n ignorant about facts (well, we don't know for sure , don't we?). How can he be a open-minded person when he says he says chomsky is straight out lying? yadda yadda fuck all these crap, before I visited this site with it's videos of amercian cable news, i never knew American media was so dramatic. It's all entertainment. Why get so fed up over all these stuff? it's entertainment.

And lastly, it's truth that Bush won because he was a better campaigner, that's all. Better marketing. Kerry could have won if he lean more to Bush's stand DURING HIS CAMPAIGNING. he doesn't have to forgoe his real agenda/values. Once the marketing works n the wholee coutry is sold, it's yours for the taking. Hell, with good marketing, u can sell almost eveything.

Lest there be any more confusion... check this out. This tells you exactly why Bush won. Marketing + ignorance = success.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/PresElection04/html/new1021_04.html

"Memo to Bill: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking both believe in God"

That is true but Albert Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, but a pantheistic god yes god, not GOD.

Pantheism defined in the dictionary as "1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe 2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)"

Which is a far cry from the God Andrew believes in. If your interested in how Einstein and Hawkins view god go here

Einstein and Hawkings both believe in God. Neither has or had much use for religion. Bill Maher attacks religion. Seems to be OK with God. Let's try and keep the record straight on this, for God's sake.

To Don H.

---"going into Iraq was not to bring the liberty bell or relieve the poor people from the tyrant. If that were our goal..we certainly would have invaded Cuba decades ago."---

---"I haven't seen any terrorists come out of Cuba recently. When Cuba was a threat, we reacted."

I would direct you to read this article from the LA Times: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091304L.shtml

"...When queried as to why his views were appropriate for television and Chomsky’s were not, Sullivan eventually, after repeating the no-longer acceptable post-911 tropes about “not being OK to besmirch our troops” red-baited Chomsky, specifically saying he was, during the cold war, a supporter of the Soviet Union.

He picked the wrong person. As anyone who has any familiarity with Chomsky’s writings is concerned—starting with his classic essay “Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship” [1969] -- Chomsky is as harshly Anti-Leninist as he is opposed to American Imperialism. Some on the left to this day criticize Chomsky for his early comparison between the “new mandarins” during the Vietnam War—McNamara, etc.—with a Leninist vanguard party. Long before the current “neocons-are-Trotskyites,” genuine antiwar thinkers and radicals have always noticed correlations between Soviet and Imperial American power.

Now there were some leftists who did support the Soviet Union’s existence, if not policies, some who were Trotskyites—like Sullivan’s friend Hitch—but Chomsky was not one of them. He was and is to the left of Bolshevism, and his political roots are in anarcho-syndicalism, Rocker, as well as more recent libertarian socialists like Bertrand Russell.

Rest of article at: http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings11102004/