Regardless what you think about Kyoto and global warming (or Clinton, for that matter), this is unbelievably petty:
Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal, according to a source involved with the negotiations who spoke to New York Magazine on condition of anonymity.
Bush officials informed organizers of their intention to pull out of the new Kyoto deal late Thursday afternoon, soon after news leaked that Clinton was scheduled to speak, the source said.
The threat set in motion a flurry of frantic back-channel negotiations between conference organizers and aides to Bush and Clinton that lasted into the night on Thursday, and at one point Clinton flatly told his advisers that he was going to pull out and not deliver the speech, the source said.
“It’s just astounding,” the source told New York Magazine. “It came through loud and clear from the Bush people—they wouldn’t sign the deal if Clinton were allowed to speak.” Clinton spokesman Jay Carson confirmed the behind the dustup took place and that the former president had decided not to go out of fear of harming the negotiations, but Carson declined to comment further.
I don’t know if this is true, but I have every reason to believe it (*** Update *** The Carpetbagger reports the timeline). This administration has been insular, resentful and disrespectful of those who disagree with them, and arrogant since the get-go. In many regards, they remind me of the typical mob family, where fealty to the capo and loyalty are cherished over everything else.
Mr.Ortiz
As if he would ever sign anything meaningful anyway…
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey, he has signed every single spending bill so far–you gotta give him that!
capelza
Wow…is it that they simply don’t care what people think, or that despite everything else that comes out in the press, they think they can get away with this and noone will find out? Astounding, simply astounding.
Anderson
Wow…is it that they simply don’t care what people think, or that despite everything else that comes out in the press, they think they can get away with this and noone will find out?
The former. They figure their base would applaud if they excluded Clinton from the hospital emergency room, much less a conference. And the rest of us don’t matter.
Darrell
Yes John, definitely evidence of a “chill wind” blowing, let me tell you.. objecting to letting blowhard Clinton be a key speaker at a UN conferrence, a speaker who would no doubt use the opp to lecture Bush on the environment and other issues which was why he was invited to begin with. Yes, such mafia-like behavior. BushRove will soon be looking to have Clinton ‘whacked’
John Cole
Darrell- it is petty and immature, especially considering the extent Clinton has gone to help this administration with a number of things (think katrina and the tsunami).
I didn’t say it was a chill wind- your words- but it was stupid and obnoxious, and if they think they are right about global warming, they shouldn’t have to resort to silencing opposing arguments. When you are right, you are right. When you are wrong, you tell everyone else to shut up and you stick your fingers in your ears.
Joey
It is an environmental conference. Bush’s stance on the envirnoment sucks hard, so yeah, it’s logical to assume that Clinton would tell him that it sucks, though in a nicer way. Bush doesn’t want to hear this, so he prevents him from speaking. That is pretty mafia like. And what’s with the blowhard remark? I will never for the life of me understand while some people have an incessant hatred of Clinton. His wife, I understand, but not him. I’d give my right arm to have him in office right now, and I bet most of the country would too.
Joey
Good point. Hell, they were acting all buddy-buddy when Clinton opened up his library. And as much as he has been hanging out with Bush, Sr, you’d think Dubbya wouldn’t be acting like such a prick about this.
Ancient Purple
Sometimes, Darrell, I see slight glimmers of intellect in what you write. Then you say something like this and it reaffirms my gut instinct that you are a complete idiot.
For the love of God, please read a book about allegory.
Darrell
You’re right, you said it was “typical mob family” behavior.. Such an important distinction
You got to be kidding me. At the UN? Where Bush bashing and Israel bashing are officially sanctioned sports? Bush didn’t want to give his detractors at the UN legitimacy by letting Clinton speak. That’s hardly the same as “silencing opposing arguments” and you know it
Darrell
Ok, ok, I’ve watched too many Sopranos episodes
rilkefan
Joey:
You must be totally unaware of the Oedipal dynamics there. The only one in Bush Sr.’s camp on Jr.’s side is Barbara.
Sojourner
George W Bush is a pathetic little man. He is a rich kid accustomed to getting his own way. Add in his “Christian” faith and you have someone who can tolerate no dissent.
He has been disastrous for this country. Three more years and the little man can go home and bury himself in brush.
Paul L.
Sounds like the Clinton Administration.
Remember.
“Politics of personnal destruction”.
“Contract on America”
Al Gore’s “digital brownshirts” statement.
Clinton’s tax audits
Wow People are nasty to their opponents. What a surprise.
Darrell
I really hope those on the ever-so-tolerant left keep showing their true religious bigotry. Keep telling Christians that by virtue of their religious beliefs, they are closed minded, stupid, ignorant, etc. Louder now, so everyone can hear
DougJ
But, hey, John, Howard Dean made fool himself when he screamed, so you’re sticking with the Republicans. It’s a no-brainer, right?
DougJ
Right on, Paul. For me, the digital brownshirt comment was the coup de grace. Somebody ought to lock Al Gore up before he hurts someone.
And whatever someone might say about Bush, at least his wife didn’t have her lawyer killed…
Ancient Purple
/sigh
Darrell, Darrell, Darrell.
Let’s talk about the use of quotation marks around a word (in this case “Christian”) as a way to question whether or not the adjective even applies to the subject it is modifying. Here is an example: I love the “intellectual” side of Darrell. See? I question whether the word “intellectual” really applies to the person named Darrell.
So, your homework for the week, Darrell, is to:
A) Read a book on allegory
B) Study the nuances of punctuation
Best wishes.
Justin Slotman
Oh golly–you’re so right, rilkefan. And don’t forget that Clinton is Bush I’s new best friend.
This is the most Freudian presidency ever.
Richard Bottoms
And yet you vote for them. Hmmm?
mark
But the democrats would be worse, right john? tool
Otto Man
Christ, I’m so glad the grown-ups are in charge.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out that Dubya builds forts out of the Oval Office couch cushions and then puts a “No Clintonz” sign on the door.
John Cole
I love the few bitter denizens of the left who, rather than trying to make their party more palatable to a MAJORITY of the public have decided that the key to electoral victory is to come by here and call me a tool.
You see, everyone knows the way to win future elections is to insult those who have not voted the way you like them in the past.
And DougJ, you started the crap with this:
First, I am a registered Republican in WV, and have never had a chance to vote for Dean.
Second, even if I were a Democrat, by the time of the of the primary, Dean was not even a factor and was NOT goingto be the candidate.
Third, I think it is pretty clear that there are some actual substantive reasons why I would not vote for Dean, and they do not include his “I Have a Scream” speech.
DougJ
Better that than stealing all the W’s off the computer keyboards before Bush moved into the White House. That caused literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages that the White House IT budget had to pay for, money that could have been spent beefing up satellite surveillance of Osama bin Laden.
Next to that, building forts out of cushions doesn’t seem to bad, does it?
Sojourner
Darrell, you’re so funny! How many Christians believe that Bush was chosen by God to be president? How many Christians believe that God made Bush omniscient and free of error?
I love your one-size-fits-all definition of Christianity. Bush’s form of Christianity is the true one. Right, Darrell?
Sojourner
Funny, a year or two ago, I heard the same comments that the American public would reject anyone who argued that Bush lied us into this war. Check the polls now, John.
A year or two from now, do you really think there’s absolutely no chance that American public won’t be demanding that troops be brought home? That’s not a bet I would take.
T. Miller
If we allow international pressure to stop our industries from emitting as much pollution as they want, then the terrorists have won.
ppGaz
Just when I think you are impossible ….. you go and say something like this, which is so precisely spot-on, I can’t frigging believe it.
So, we could use a little help over here in the D party, man. Picking a 2008 candidate. If you’d switch parties, I’d vote for you.
So?
rilkefan
John Cole for Congress, whatever the hell district, 2006. I’m in for a few bucks and the official campaign poem.
Otto Man
Come on, Doug. You’re better than that.
ppGaz
We want John!
We want John!
We want John!
We want John!
cd6
haha
form a party called “Disgusted with everybody else”
You’d put up Perot like numbers on that name alone
DougJ
Come on, the Pajama Media Veterans For Truth would do him in. They’d claim he secretly met with Daily Kos in Hanoi and that he says he spends the holidays in Wheeling but he really spends them in Morgantown. And let’s not even think about the pictures of John windsurfing.
Richard Bottoms
When faced with a $450,000,000,000 war, McJobs, environmental destruction, thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, and the largest debt in human history the choice at the polls last November was obvious.
Bush of course.
Richard Bottoms
>I love the few bitter denizens of the left who, rather than >trying to make their party more palatable to a MAJORITY of >the public have decided that the key to electoral victory is >to come by here and call me a tool.
In all seriousness then, what should we call people who support a party that is full of rampantly homophobic, incompetent warfighting, environmentally destructive, fiscally irresponsible people?
Conflicted??
Mason
Without having read any of the comments yet (and mostly agreeing with the final paragraph of the post in general), I really can’t blame the Bush administration on this one. Clinton is NOT the President nor a current representative of this or any other government. Clinton himself was insular and disrespectful in making the choice to speak at a UN conference… ESPECIALLY something related to Kyoto, to which he gave lip service, knowing there was no chance in hell of it ever getting through the U.S. Senate.
Sojourner
Frankly, I’m glad that somebody IS finally representing me.
Chaos
How terrible. It’s not like any other political factions in the United States have been perceived by those who fundamentally disagree with them on numerous issues as insular, resentful and disrespectful of those who disagree with them, and arrogant since the get-go.
Nothing like that at all.
I must admit I have never actually seen a real example of the Bush Administration being “resentful, disrespectful” and “arrogant” save if you believe the definitions of “resentful, disrespectful,” and “arrogant” are “not doing what people who disagree with them want.” It’s dreadfully arrogant to do something in direct contradiction to what someone else wants. Apparently. Especially when they have an opposing political ideology.
What a world this is, where politicians don’t do what the rival party wants them to do. Damned neocon arrogance! Almost as arrogant as saying “We’re taking our country back” as if the people currently running it are not Americans and/or have no right to run it.
Or claiming that the other side is questioning your patriotism while repeatedly accusing that side of deliberately doing terrible damage to the nation.
Or any of the other left-wing talking points that are infinitely more arrogant and disrespectful than anything the Bush Administration has said. Selective vision is fun!
Insular though, yeah the Administration is insular. How odd that politicians don’t listen to politicians from the other side on key issues! How odd indeed. Maybe Republican presidents should do whatever the Democrats want and Democratic presidents should do whatever the Republicans want from now on, to avoid the devastating charge of being “insular.”
Krista
Oh Bush is just being petty about everything: (from the Ottawa Sun…I’ll provide the link if anybody wants.)
Anderson
DougJ, Dean was the 1st candidate I supported, but his DNC stint has not made me regret his defeat so much as I might have otherwise.
Zifnab
If he wants to run down in Sugar Land, I know a former House Majority Leader who’s about to leave a vacancy as well as a district that would vote Republican unless an Apostle was running in the Democratic slot.
That said, Dean is a mouthpiece and a firebrand. The beauty of being chairman is that you CAN shot your mouth off like this. Dean is a lightning rod. All the Democrats need to do is cover his back and I don’t seem them doing it. Dean’s saying what needs to be said. He’s calling a horse a horse and a quagmire a quagmire. It’s disgusting when his fellow Dems turn around and start waffling about what type of war we’re fighting.
Bruce Moomaw
“This administration has been insular, resentful and disrespectful of those who disagree with them, and arrogant since the get-go.”
Well, of course they are, John. It’s WORKED so far, hasn’t it? Let me violate Godwin’s Law by quoting Hitler in this connection: “I have restored to force its original dignity as the source of all greatness and the creator of all order.”
Richard Bottoms
>“This administration has been insular, resentful and >disrespectful of those who disagree with them, and arrogant >since the get-go.”
Well you helped show them their strategy worked by putting them back into office. So don’t blame me.
Basically you say in example after example the REpublican party lies to me, betrays my trust, botches it’s responsibilities but lord the Democrats would be worse.
So we have your gay friends and relatives demonized, a war with thousands dead, billions wasted, and somehow Bushco got to continue their idiocy by… magic???
I’m sorry if harsh rhetoric from Democrats amkes it hard for you to give in and support them… not. However open minded you seem, I believe folks like you are a lost cause. The Republicans will continue you piss in your face and you’ll keep voting for them because Democratic sound bytes don’t sound as coherent as the fools in charge.
Meanwhile the swing voters have started waking up to bullshit like Terri Shiavo, the true cost of this botched invasion, and the utter lack of preparedness for the next disaster. Man made or otherwise.
As a Democrat I neither need nor want your vote. I just want you to realize how fucked up the people you put charge are so you stay home next year.
Zifnab
I only hope you’re right.
donald
John Cole, republican hack.
Mike S
I guess if you’ve followed politics for only the last five years that comment would make sense. But if you were to look at the history of the US and thought about how the “founding fathers” designed this country you would know just how dumb it was.
Chaos
I suppose for one who obviously knows his history you wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone mention the Federalist / anti-Federalist debate, or the battles over the Bank of the United States, or the New Englander opposition to the War of 1812, or even that Civil War thing we had… battling sound bites on the Sunday morning talk shows is just a little better than Gettysburg or Burr shooting Hamilton, I’d guess.
But of course you’re well versed in American history and I’m not. Because you disagree with me.
Is that really the best you can do?
ppGaz
There’s “ruling”, and then there’s “governing.”
In this country, it better be about governing, because Americans are not inclined to be ruled.
My periodic re-post of W. F. Buckley:
“Democracy depends upon the submission of the minority.”
The potatoheads don’t want to listen to outside voices? Fine, then I decline to be governed by them. Fuck them.
Mike S
Regurgitating the headlines of your last three years of high school text books is hardly impressive, though it is mildly amusing.
DougJ
But we’re engaged in a much more serious war, right now: the War On Christmas.
BIRDZILLA
Bill Clinton is so full of HOT AIR that if he did,nt wear lead boots he would float away the same for AL GORE
ppGaz
Hear, hear. Put the “X” back in “Xmas.”
Steve S
The Republicans fear Clinton. It’s just unfortunate that Democrats don’t pay attention to that more and understand why.
Clinton’s counterpoint to the Republican claim that clean air would hurt the economy has always been… technology. Any move to reduce pollution would result in a demand for better technology, which would fuel a whole new wave of advances and allow us to do stuff that we couldn’t in the past.
Further, since the technology would be US derived, we would have a market, at least for say 10-20 years, to sell that technology to other countries. That’s the key to building our economy, is to keep pressing forward and doing stuff nobody else is doing. To stay ahead of the curve.
In a way, he’s right. Consider the 1970s pollution control measures to cars. Today we have cars which have much tighter tolerances to keep down pollution, resulting in more fuel efficiency, greater reliability and also more power.
It’s kind of like the first Govt mandate… when they said all trains had to install air brakes. The railways fought it, claiming it would cost too much.
But as braking systems improved, they came to realize they could run the trains faster, thus making it more efficient to transport goods and people, as well as being much safer.
Chaos
Would you listen to them? I don’t think so and as such I don’t understand how your position is valid at all. Let’s take Iraq. They say invade, the other side says don’t invade. There isn’t much middle ground here is there? You either invade or you don’t invade.
Or taxes. They say cut, the other side says don’t cut or even raise. Where is the middle ground here? Maybe you can get a compromise on how large the cuts are and such, but taxes are still going to be cut or aren’t going to be cut.
And how unfortunate that you can’t decline to be governed by them. How unfortunate indeed. The Republicans didn’t try to take their ball and go home when Clinton won. Instead they – imagine this – developed an alternative political vision for America and presented it to the people. And then something happened, I don’t really remember what, I think it had something to do with the GOP taking both houses of Congress…
Instead of doing what the GOP did you seem more interested in personal emotional gratification by calling Republicans names and letting us all know how much you hold them in contempt. A wonderful plan for winning elections if 2002 and 2004 are any indication.
To the ramparts. Or not. Who cares?
I wasn’t aware that textbooks had “headlines,” but whatever. It’s really telling that your riposte is “You’re dumb and I find it funny.” Did I mention how intellectually impressive your argument is? Very. In the sense that Bob Shrum’s ability to win Presidential campaigns was “impressive.”
Since apparently you won’t respond to anything I said, I guess that means you admit you’re wrong but aren’t happy about it? Four year-olds throw tantrums and call people they disagree with names.
Sojourner
Nice try but the Dems didn’t complete exclude the minority party from influencing legislation. The same certainly cannot be said for this crew.
John S.
So do people aged 18-75 who post on blogs (particularly political ones), or is this your first foray into the blogosphere?
Chaos
I suppose that No Child Left Behind was a completely Republican initiative. Ted Kennedy must have switched party registrations for a single day or something when that vote and photo-op with Bush went down.
Or the Patriot Act, another example of Democrats apparently switching parties.
Or the vote to authorize the President to pursue anyone behind September 11th…
Or the vote to authorize use of force against Saddam…
Or Medicare reform…
Or McCain-Feingold…
Or the vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq, that seemed to denote bipartisan consensus, 403-3 is about as conclusive as you can get.
It’s kind of odd how your argument doesn’t seem to hold up well with Democratic demands that Bush “consult Congress” in 2002 regarding Iraq and then whining when Bush forced the issue before the 2002 elections.
This is what happens when you argue with emotion against facts Sojourner, sorry you didn’t know that. I’m afraid your personal opinion and emotions don’t overrule the fact that the two parties work together every day on every conceivable issue even if there are fundamental ideological differences.
What you mean Sojourner is that the Republicans disagree with you on many issues and have used their majorities in Congress to enact legislation creating policies and standards reflecting their opinions instead of yours. Maybe if you don’t like it you should work to create a Democratic majority? Instead of whining that the people in charge aren’t doing what you want as if this was some monumental crime? They don’t share your beliefs on how the job should be done, are we supposed to be surprised that they aren’t doing what you want?
You’re living in some simplistic fantasy world that bears little to no resemblance to modern politics, especially in DC.
The frequency of something occurring doesn’t excuse or legitimatize it. :)
ppGaz
Of course. Nobody has been elected king.
The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid having to have a king.
Mike S
You’re right, they ran investigation after investigation on him.
Chaos
Sort of like how JFK went after US Steel and Clinton sent the IRS after people without much cause other than they embarassed or opposed him politically?
It happens. Shouldn’t but it does.
They ran investigations on him after taking control of Congress. Your point would be better if it conformed to some kind of chronological reality :(
Chaos
It is always nice to read an editorial posing as news though. Thanks for the link.
Sojourner
Wow. I didn’t realize you were that ignorant. Apparently you remain unaware of how much legislation is created by the Repubs in consort with the lobbyists while excluding the minority party.
And apparently you remain unaware of the failure of the Repubs to follow the rules of the Senate, for example, the rules that guide the judiciary committee.
I have no doubt that die-hard Repubs like you don’t care about those things. But it is contrary to what the founding fathers intended – which goes to show yet again the hypocrisy of the Repubs.
Middle America
I think what needs to be pointed out here is that like 99% of the scientists Mr. Clinton got to sign off on Al Gores Global warming piece while he was in office, he holds no degree in Climatology and therefore has no business speaking on the subject. Not only that, he isn’t a government representative. He has no authority to speak on behalf of the Bush administration at the U.N. His motivations (as usual) are purely personal. He is positioning himself for Kofi Annon’s soon to be vacant job. The more he keeps himself in the news, the better his chances. The way the U.N. works, if he can undermine President Bush and paint the United States in a poor light while he’s at it, he might just win a Nobel prize to boot. It worked for Jimmy Carter.
Now while you on the left rip apart my grammar and ignore the intention of my comments I’ll try to forget how I got here in the first place so I don’t take up any more of your time.
tbrosz
Has this information come out of any place other than New York magazine’s anonymous source?
Steve S
I don’t think whining and blaming Clinton for all the world’s problems should be considered an alternative political vision.
But then that’s where you and I disagree.
As to compromise on Iraq… you’re right. There should be no compromise. Those of us who said don’t go and have now been proven right should stand up and shout ever more loudly, to make sure the republicans pay the price for putting party politics over the nations good.
Shygetz
Wow, and Clinton killed Vince Foster too! I have seen the light! May God(TM) send the Clenis straight to Hell(TM)! It’s always nice to read crass speculation posing as informed commentary.
And this “Democrats have no vision” talking point is tired. Democrats have put forth many different ideas. Don’t believe me? Go the the Democratic Party webpage and look at their agenda. Oddly enough, they can’t get the Republicans to even vote on most of them. Wonder why that is?
And of course the Republicans waited until they had control of the House to launch their investigations. Maybe that’s because they had to. But once they had that power, they showed no hesitation in using it early, often, and for highly questionable reasons. Until they did get control of the House, they did take their ball and go home (at least, when it came to judicial nominations).
If Murtha’s idea was so bad, why didn’t they vote on Murtha’s idea itself, rather than rewriting it into a farce of his idea and then voting on that? No one has been able to explain that one to me yet.
You come up with six issues where Democrats have voted with Republicans (not that there aren’t more, but those are the only ones you list). And yet, there are many, many others where the Democrats are essentially ignored. Not only that, but the Republicans are more than happy to break the rules of the Senate and the House in order to ram through their agenda (the unConstituional/Nuclear option, holding floor votes open indefinitely, issuing decrees from the chair on matters that should be voted on in committee, etc.) What the current breed of Republicans have going for them is an unprecedented ruthlessness and willingness to do whatever is necessary to gain and hold power. You can see it in their campaigns and in how they govern. And sometimes, you can see it in their supporters and apologists.
BIRDZILLA
How much HOT AIR come from the envirometalist wackos in GREENPEACE and WORLD WILFLIFE FUND? and how many birds will get killed by their wind turbine the eco-freaks want?
TM Lutas
There is a US reality that most people are forgetting, we have an awful lot of ex-leaders hanging around. This is somewhat unusual across the world where long runs in power are more common than are even legal here. There is a real risk of foreign mischief in listening to/even backing a former president over the current one. That sort of meddling does not serve the USA well.
There is a protocol that presidents of both parties have adhered to for an awful long time in order to protect the national interests of the United States and that is that former presidents submit their speeches to the current administration. They’re very quiet about what their successors are doing in office and never criticize, never allow themselves to be made the focus of opposition. In exchange, they get continued influence in administrations by being asked for advice and they continue to get briefed on important matters so what they do say is knowledgeable.
Carter was the first to start violating that suite of protocols and Clinton has taken it to an entirely new level. The Bush administration has tried the carrot in the past. With this conference, they’re applying the stick. It is appropriate.
Anybody who feels otherwise, please tell me why shouldn’t ex-president Bush speak out against a Hillary Clinton foreign policy? Was it just laziness that ex-president Bush (the father) never spoke out about Bill Clinton’s actions?
It’s Democrats being petty and immature from Howard Dean and President Clinton all the way down to the people on this forum.
Sad.
Cyrus
That’s true, it’s common for partisans to see their rivals as insular and lots of other stuff. It’s relatively rare for partisans to see their own guys that way. If it were just Democrats complaining about how Bush “governs”, like how a big chunk of complaints about Clinton only came from hardcore Republicans, then the criticisms might be irrelevant. But since it’s coming from John Cole and many other former Bush voters who have soured on him, their relevance becomes a tad more likely.
If you’ve never seen examples, then you haven’t been paying attention. I realize it’s a terrible electoral strategy to insult your intelligence like that, practically shooting myself in the foot – but, oh wait, you weren’t going to vote (D) anyway, so why should I worry?
To give you just two out of many examples, why didn’t they vote on Murtha’s actual proposal instead of a parody of it? (Not Bush, I know, but still Republican leadership.) And why, both during the 2004 campaign and elsewhere, were liberal demonstrators corralled into “free speech zones” so far removed that Bush was never even exposed to contrary opinions? Come to think of it, that’s worth ten examples.
I’m sorry, I’m going to call you stupid again. Politicians and activists say “we’re taking our country back” all the time – so what? It’s just possible that the pronoun “we” is being used to refer to their faction, party or group, or just “the good guys” in general. No belief in the opponent’s illegitimacy necessary.
Do you think the truth matters? At all? It is terribly, horribly offensive to say that Randy Cunningham held on to his office by making crude and bigoted appeals to the worst side of his voters and only got kicked out after he betrayed the military he served in by taking bribes to influence his decisions on military matters. But it is true, so saying it is considered OK. It is also true that the administration is doing damage to the nation. (The “deliberately” part is open to debate and probably could never be proved, and of course you also have to ask if the harm is worse than the alternative, but the point is, in most cases it’s at the very least an honest mistake.)
But on the other hand, it is often a complete lie to accuse someone of being unpatriotic, and sometimes it is “merely” a malicious and unnecessary insinuation to “question their patriotism”, as you put it. It’s less harmful then what Cunningham or Bush are accused of, duh, but it’s also less true. Do you see a difference there?
I’m out of sarcasm. As others on this thread have pointed out, bipartisan cooperation used to be, if not the rule, then at least not unusual either. Today it’s a farce.
Zifnab
It was under Clinton that we had the big push for bipartisanship, wasn’t it? I remember campaign slogans and buttons all touting Candidate A’s ability to reach across the aisle. Most of the progress Clinton made in pushing his Medicare agenda, prosecuting the war in Kosovo, and balancing the budget came from his ability to diplomacize with the Republican Congressional majority that formed up after ’94. Ironically, it was the same majority that went to such great lenghts to persecute him.
But I think all the bipartisanship softened up the Democrats. When Bush and Gore ran against each other, the popular comment was “I can’t see the difference between the two”. Bush/Cheney ran as a Compassionate Conservative and Gore/Liberman ran as Republican Lite. When Bush hit the high notes of his administration (remember that 90% approval rating?), the Democrats were all too quick to kowtow in the name of bipartisanship. And that’s what killed us.
Cunningham and DeLay and Frist and Rumsfield can get away with most of their shit because the Democrats are, at their core, just as bad on an individual basis. And if the Democrats go after Republican big guns, they’re afraid they’ll lose the freedoms of office – the bribe taking and kickbacks and lieing and cheating – that has always come with the mantel of office.
So now that liberal is a dirty word and Democrats are the pussy party, they can’t fix the broken system they’ve been running out of for the past 40 years. And if they had the power to fix it, they wouldn’t want to because they’d be getting handouts and free lunches again. That’s where this “bipartisanship” is coming from. Democrats don’t want to spoil the sweet deal politicans have always had in this country by putting through honest reform. Hence the failure of the Schwarsenegger redistricting plan to redistrict by commisson. Hence the lukewarm support for fiance reform on both sides of the aisle. Hence the general reluctance to discipline any House member, even DeLay, for campaign funding discrepencies.
Mike S
Maybe if you read the srticle I linked things would be more clear. But your theory seems to be “Clinton bad, GOP good” so I can’t imagine that any of it would matter. As a member of the New Republican Party it is your duty to defend anything it does. Blind loyalty is the watchword for people like yu.
Chaos
Orly?
Evil special-interest legislation! Protecting nasty gun manufacturers from lawsuits, trying to put caps on punitive damages, special interests everywhere!
Sort of like the National Education Association, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the American BAR Association?
Disobeying the rules of the Judiciary committee! Oddly, I couldn’t find any examples of this, except for Senators of both sides on numerous committees and subcommittees using “question time” more for making long-winded diatribes against the other party or the person being questioned instead of asking questions. But is that a violation of the rules? Don’t know.
So in the end Sojourner we see once again that your argument is all emotion and no facts. :(
Examples please.
I have no problem with rejecting access to people who intend not to protest but to deny others their own First Amendment rights. Or maybe all those accounts of liberal protestors disrupting events were just made up by Rupert in his secret floating lair high above the streets of Manhattan.
Maybe we have different ideas of what protest means, mine doesn’t include denying others their own right to speak.
And poor Jack Murtha. Nothing stopped him from introducing a bill that conformed to what he said. Yet he didn’t. He makes comments he knows will start a political firestorm and you whine because they started a political firestorm. The only disrespectful thing said was uttered by Representative Schmidt and she rightly apologized for it. Except of course for all the disrespectful things Democrats said about Republicans stemming from that whole issue and haven’t apologized for. Meanwhile every other Republican on the planet was bending over backwards to say what a wonderful human being Jack Murtha is. Maybe you forgot that part.
This is an interesting bit of ignorance. You might almost have a point if it wasn’t for the obvious fact that the “illegitimacy” of the other side is a key belief amongst most of those opposed to Bush. Democratic party leadership may not think Bush is some evil usurper but they’re more than willing to take advantage of that sentiment. Which of course they should do.
No it isn’t true, it’s a matter of debate and essentially worthless anyway as any Administration will do “harm” to some part of the nation. It’s an inevitability that some people will be worse off as a result of an Administration’s policies. Nice use of meaningless generalities though. Too bad you don’t recognize that. You’re still able to call people stupid though, your arguments are really quite impressive. For all the unsupported assertions in them, rampant assumptions and reliance on ignorance and all.
I see your personal opinion masquerading as fact again, but that’s okay. Just what accusations regarding Bush are “more true” than questioning the patriotism of, say, Ward Churchill or Michael Moore, or Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Accusing most politicians of being less than patriotic is usually just a silly miscalculation, but for activists such as they it is completely appropriate given their remarks.
And the most scurrilous accusations that didn’t come from Ann Coulter and Zell Miller have come from the pens of Senator Byrd and President Carter. Betraying America’s values, blah blah blah where do they come up with this stuff?
Not particularly. If we’re talking about spending yes, Harriet Miers yes, Iraq, no. It’s unfortunate for some that Bush is sticking to principle instead of bowing to conventional wisdom and trying to score some political points by jumping on the timetable bandwagon, but it is his decision.
Bush takes stands and doesn’t compromise (except when he does). Such an attitude used to be admired but now it’s a sign of arrogance and being insular. Consensus means presenting the truth that’s acceptable to everyone. Maybe that’s preferable to presenting the truth that’s acceptable to the side that wins with the side that doesn’t win loudly challenging that truth at every turn and making the winners (hopefully) defend their positions with the truth and maybe just a bit of logic. I don’t think it is though.
But silly me, I’m stupid and you’re not. Or maybe it’s the other way around, judging from how you make your arguments. :(
Chaos
How sad that I did read the article and your entire polemic falls apart.
Lying is the watchword for people like you. Not to mention using strawmen. Come on is that the best you can do Mikey? How sad.
Cyrus
If that was why people were kept out of public events, fine. But do you have any evidence it happened even once? Let alone that it was anywhere close to the majority of the incidents I was talking about? What does it have to do with what I linked or what I was referring to in general? I’m not seeing it.
What are you talking about here? I’m honestly bewildered. Murtha did propose a resolution that conformed to what he said, but it didn’t get voted on because Republicans, currently having a majority of the house, set the agenda and wouldn’t put it on.
As for my talk about the insults flying back and forth, you’re correct that I made my point badly if at all. I was too lazy to go look for too many links, and I probably read more into your post than existed. I apologize. However, I do believe that despite what you implied in your original post, right-wing mudslinging is more accepted, more extreme and more dishonest than its equivalent coming from the left. I don’t want to excuse dishonesty from progressives, but I’m not going to get more worked up over hatred or stupidity from a Ward Churchill than the same coming from a Trent Lott. David Neiwert makes the case better than I could even if I tried.
BIRDZILLA
The senate have refused to vote on the KYOTO TREATY its too damn based on junk science and unreliable data
TallDave
Ex-presidents are not supposed to go out and campaign against sitting presidents on policy. When either party does it, it’s wrong.