I don’t know Patrick Hynes, so I assume he was writing in good faith, but this piece (via Instapundit) made laugh:
Time to Throw Bad Republicans under the Bus
I think it is time for conservative to begin piling on the Abramoff thing for a couple of reasons. First, liberals are right in this instance. The fact that this hideous wretch climbed to the heights of power under GOP leadership in Washington, shoot, with the aid and comfort of the GOP leadership, is a scandal in and of itself.***
Second, the Abramoff story is not over. Not by a damn sight.***
Remember also that if you were a religious conservative, as I am (more or less) Abramoff had no use for you.***
Finally, we need to understand that the Abramoff rise to power and the GOP’s recent obsession with overspending are symptoms of the same disease: love of government.
Many of you are probably wondering why this made me laugh. The reason is simple- the time to throw people under the bus is when you first learn they are dirty, which we learned about many of these guys a while ago. This Abramoff scandal isn’t new. We have known that DeLay is a crook for a while, and yet people to this day continue to defend him. Duke Cunningham was on the take for a long while. The time to throw these folks under the bus was last year, or years before- not a couple days before Abramoff makes a plea agreement and all the ugly comes out.
We own these bastards now, and we are gonna take our lumps. Pretending we had nothing to do with them will not work, nor will feeble attempts at pretending certain groups had nothing to do with Abramoff and others, as Patrick attempts to claim regarding the religious right. Heard of Ralph Reed? Tom DeLay? Bob Ney? That is the religious right, and they are up to their elbows in the Abramoff scandal.
Finally, the real reason this made me laugh was notice the one reason Patrick doesn’t mention as to why these guys should be thrown under the bus.
Because they are crooks.
Although I do agree with him in the overall sense- a lot of these people need to be thrown under the bus, and it would probably do the country good (if the Democrats were not so damned dangerous themselves), if the Republicans were sent into the wilderness to find their soul for a couple of years.
if the Democrats were not so damned dangerous themselves
Uhhh. Why, exactly?
They stand for NOTHING. That is dangerous.
Yeah, why, exactly? I think that they’re dangerous because they’re a sorry excuse for an opposition party, afraid as they usually are of their own shadows and unable to coherently and cohesively confront the Bush thugs on almost any issue you care to name. But why exactly do YOU think they’re so damned dangerous?
In other words, they haven’t agreed on a few simple-minded slogans like “Sanctity of Marriage” and “Mission Accomplished” and “World Better Off Without Saddam.”
You know, John, just because you TEACH about propaganda doesn’t mean you have to talk as if the world is all ABOUT propaganda.
I think the problem is that the Republicans have traditionally been better at rank-and-file communications. The message you hear from one is the message you hear from all, and dissent has traditionaly been heartily discouraged. It’s only recently that we’re seeing cracks in the façade. The Democrats, however, seem to allow more diversity of thought within their ranks, which, unfortunately, does not lend itself to a coherent message, but at least lets people see that they are capable of nuanced thought and respectful disagreement. Should there not be a happy medium to this, and where is it? I don’t want the Dems to be as Borg-like as the Repubs had been, but I agree with you that currently, they’re all over the place.
Oh for goodness sakes- they are and have been, for a good long while, nothing more than a party that opposes Bush. That was the party platform in 02 and 04, and it has not changed. A party that believes in nothing is dangerous.
You know what, that is just complete bullshit, man.
Bush makes a living out of having an agenda to undo the entire liberal agenda of the 20th century. Of course we’re opposed to him, he is the standard bearer and chief of staff for the opposition’s army.
What the fuck? Can you even see an inch beyond the blogdom where you live?
And the Sanctity of Marriage is not an empty slogan- it is just a slogan that does not mean what it purports to mean.
I think that a lot of people see that as well. When I go to vote and look at the different parties, I always ask:
1. What do they want to do/change/implement?
2. From where will the money come?
If the Dems don’t start putting together some good, concise answers to those two questions, then they’re just going to keep thrashing around mindlessly. I wonder — with the Bush administration falling to hell, would there be any really savvy campaign and communications pros who would be willing to switch sides?
Okay, THAT was written by DougJ, right?
Either that or you have been reading righty blogs for so long that you can now convince yourself that up really is down, after all.
Yawn. That worked well with Gore’s “George Bush will appoint radical right-wingers to the courts.’
Like I said, you are lashing out at me for having the temrity to state you stand for nothing but opposing Bush, and then state straight up an exaggerated claim that Bush wants to undue all of 20th century liberalism. In other words, your party platform is ‘oppose Bush.’
Additionally, I find it amusing that I am the one told I have narrow vision, when in a long post discussing Abramoff and the limp Republican response to the crimes, one throway line gives all you ‘deep thinkers’ the vapors- the one line which would dare to note how feckless and unimpressive Democrats are. Bunch of mindless partisans attacking me for partisanship.
You know what, John, you deserve the piece of crap Republican party that you have now. Seriously. If this kind of shit is the best you can do, if I were you, I’d just say hey, can’t beat the GOP, might as well join it.
Seriously. I can’t fathom why you complain about them, they’re just like you.
Unfortunately, that’s what elections are all about right now: spin and propaganda. The Republicans have proven themselves to be damned good at it. It’s not enough to have great ideas, ppGaz. The Dems are going to have to start being better able to sell those ideas, and to be a lot more proactive when it comes to the negative campaigning that the Repubs do so well. It’s sad that they have to play that game, but that’s what they’l have to do if they want to have a hope in hell of getting the country back. There are a lot of people out there like John who are disenchanted with the Republicans, but won’t vote Dem because they just don’t know what they stand for, or where the money’s going to come from. The Dems need to start fighting a lot smarter.
Jesus Christ, PPGAZ, the Sanctity of marriage is not an empty slogan- it means a whole number of different things to many people- it means preserving traditional christian marriage, it means preserving the way things have been ‘done around here,’ it means deference to a christian vision, etc. It means all those things to the people who buy into it. They really do want gay marriage banned forever. They really do want no rights for homosexuals. They really do wnat all those things and more. it ain;t empty to them at all.
Now, you and I see through that crap, and recognize the4ir wishes will never get fulfilled, and you and I both agree that it means nothing but gay-bashing in the short term, but the people who buy into the ‘sanctity of marriage’ don;t think it is meaningless. They are deadly fucking serious.
While I strongly disagree with John Cole that the Democratic party stands for nothing, and agree with those here that say it is extremely fractured (too many single issue voters)…but ppgaz is right.
A minority party that has to spend all it’s time and effort trying to stick a finger in the dike the current GOP is trying to blow up, a whole lot of what the Democratic party stands for, the social safety net, for example, are the very things Bush and the New GOP are trying to destroy. And the Dems get called the party of No because they are trying to preserve those things. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is disingenuous to say they stand for nothing.
Well when you say it, it’s true. But when John says it, it is empty. John represents himself as this hotshot communications guy, and his entire posting history since I have been here as been wrapped around social liberalism disguised as RINO material.
Let me put it this way: If John is so FUCKING SMART, why doesn’t he suggest one or two ways for the Dems to regroup and rebuild? Or is he just one of those people who can criticize but can’t do the thing he fancies himself a critic of? The embodiment of “those who cannot do, teach?”
Either that or this is just more of the same old “troll the lefties for page views” stuff we saw all last year.
I would also like to ask, not in a snarky way..what exactly does the GOP really stand for? These days.
And as far as the actual topic of your post goes, John — yes, it’s absolutely time to get rid of the crooks. Long past time. The problem is that a lot of the real crooks are not publicly accountable — they’re behind the scenes. I think that the best way to get rid of them (for awhile) would be to indict as many as you can, and ALSO get rid of the government that has enabled them. Nobody’s saying you can never vote Repub again, but it might be time to give them the proverbial swift kick in the ass.
In point of fact, neither are the religious right as you claim. In fact, one of DeLay’s staffers got in trouble for calling Christian conservatives ‘whackjobs’ or some similar insult. John, you’re whining why these guys weren’t dumped a year ago, but what proof, what solid evidence existed a year ago that DeLay and Ney were so dirty as to deserve to be thrown out of office? Even today, has it been proven that Ney took bribes? It looks likely he did accept golf trips, but even that is still unproven even now, yet you’re whining they should have been kicked to curb a year ago?
Point is, the right has not defended their scumbags as the left routinely does with theirs. For every right-leaning site which ‘defends’ Ney et al, you can find 10 who condemn them, which contradicts the image you are attempting to assert
Okay, comedy points for your first two words there.
But seriously, yes, it is empty … since when is government in the GODDAMNED SANCTITY BUSINESS???????
Well, but you are making my argument. If those people who think it is serious are to be taken seriously, then we are screwed. If the people who … like the rest of us … see it as nothing but another wedge bumper sticker, do nothing and don’t stand up to it ……then what?
That’s why I get SO PISSED OFF AT YOU. You of all people understand this.
Breathe, guys. :)
Sad, isn’t it? Two of the best damned countries in the world, and in both cases, its citizens are reduced to accepting that most politicians are crooks, and voting for whomever they think will fuck up their lives the least.
(Shrug.) Plus ça change…
I guess we are dealing with the nasty and aggressive PPGAZ today. No, I do not represent myself as some ‘hotshot communcations guy,’ but since you ask, I will tell you what they need to do.
State clearly, and unequivocally what they are for, and then fight for it. It worked for them with social security, and that was a case in which they did merely oppose something.
But the current Democrats don’t do that. They whine. They bitch. They moan. They hem and haw about leaving Iraq immediately, and then when it is put to a vote, whine that that really isn’t what they want and vote against immediate withdrawal.
So there you go, PPGAZ. MY solution- Choose a policy decision. Stick with it. Fight for it. And dont give up the minute you meet opposition, or whine that it is being misrepresented, or that you have no chance because the corporate media won’t get your message out, etc. But here is the trick- while you are fighting for your issue, try to remember that you are trying to convert people to your ideas, rather than just playing the “ALL REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL” schtick you seem to have embraced, or the always popular “YOU VOTED FOR THIS MESS, YOU FIX IT” crap that seems so much fun for you.
Darrell- You can not possibly be serious that Tom DeLay is not a member of the religious right.
Seems fair enough. The Dems try a little too hard to please everybody, and wind up pleasing nobody. They’re going to have to realize that taking a firm stance and sticking with it is going to alienate some people, but it’s a risk they have to take, ’cause their current strategy just isn’t working. It’s like ordering a pizza for the whole damned country — you’re not going to get everybody’s favourites on there, nor should you try.
Who’s got the Darrell-meter?
John, you know better than that. That was a bullshit ploy by Republicans. Even Murtha said basically as soon as possible and his words were twisted. That was a crappy thing and anyone who did not see it, is just lying to themselves.
That the Dems should have walked out and didn’t is another story. Nobody said that the current Dem spine is real strong, but but that was horseshit in Congress.
Well, it’s not that Democrats don’t stand for anything. Everyone and their cat knows what Democrats stand for: equal opportunity, war as a last resort, using government resources to help those left behind, and anti-discrimination in all areas.
Everyone knows that. And, in fact, most people agree with those positions (in the main, of course; it’s when you get into details that some people balk).
And everyone know what the GOP stands for these days, too. The GOP stands for fiscal insanity, plutocracy, suspension of civil liberties, unlimited Executive power, selling war like it’s a new car model, government intrusion into private life, religion-based public policy.
It’s not enough for a political party to ‘stand for something.’ It has to stand for something that isn’t a complete betrayal of American values.
The modern GOP fails that test.
I have never voted anything but Dem in my life (well, except that time I voted for Jesse Ventura as a laugh. Ah, college…), and I recognize that John is absolutely right. Individually, our guys might stand for something, but its pretty tough for the not-already-converted to know what it is.
Nice rant. But that’s exactly the kind of useful, thoughtful stuff that allowed the crazy people to take over your party. I am not interested in having the same thing happen to mine, thanks anyway.
I’d rather have a party that fights with itself and has at least a modicum of integrity as a result, than one that presents a nice managed package of bullshit and is nothing but pure bullshit.
John, is the “can not possibly be serious” part supposed to make it true. DeLay has demonstrated that he will use the religious right when convenient, with the religious conservatives = ‘wackos’ comment making clear to everyone, inlcuding the religious right how he really feels. DeLay’s support of indian tribe gambling further alienates him from the religious right.
Now tell us, how does Bob Ney qualify as the religious right? And what solid evidence existed a year ago which would warrant tossing DeLay and Ney out of office at that time as you suggested?
Wow, you must be very proud of him. Do you wear his mugshot on your lapel?
There’s nothing wrong with a party fighting with itself, ppGaz. They SHOULD fight with themselves. But they should also be able to eventually come to a consensus on major issues, and should all be able to stand behind that consensus and communicate it well. Otherwise, why are they all in the same party?
It’s this kind of extremist blathering from the left which will keep Republicans in power
The entire Democratic platform currently consists of the two words “Bush Sucks.” As we can see, Democrats get really testy when you point this out.
As for the corruption, the Republicans were in the “wilderness” for decades, and oddly, the corruption in Washington was going along just fine.
Corruption and campaign money flow to where the power is. If the Democrats had been running Congress for the past ten years, Abramoff’s list would consist mostly of Democrats (at present I think it’s one Democrat for every two Republicans). It’s that simple, really.
The current political system selects for people who are willling to sell influence. Changing to a tax-financed campaign system would change nothing. The only difference would be that the corruption would then involve the selection of those who would get that cash.
And Darrell, being an expert, can tell us all about extremist blathering.
BTW, John – did you get my email? My wireless connection is pretty unreliable, so sometimes I’ll think something has sent, only to find out otherwise (much) later.
Darrell- Save your sophistry for those who have the time or the interest. Bob Ney’s voting record and publicly stated positions are what make him part of the religious right. And your denial that DeLay is part of the Religious Right is absurf- DeLay’s rise to prominence corresponds with his total willingness to play the part of cultural warrior for the far right. Listen to his speeches. Listen to him at JUSTICE SUNDAY. But don;t think I am going to sit here and provide you with links to stuff you already know.
Second, Ney and DeLay and others have been wrapped up in Abramoff for MONTHS now, as well as the coin scandal. Instead of even acknowledging the possibility they have done something wrong, the GOP has been attacking everyone who even mentions it or has the balls to investigate it. And I am not fan of Ronnie Earle, either, who I think has played fast and loose, but there is ample evidence that things have not been right within the GOP leadership for going on two years now.
Bush does suck..hugely. I’d say that if I was a Republican, too. But it is a flat out lie to say that is what the basic Democratic platform is, as was pointed out above. It’s a handy soundbite for you all though…
I’m curious who the Dems are in your 2 to 1 ratio though. Got any names? I know of 5 D Senators that may have some explainging to do in regards to the Indian casino gambling $$$. And I do want to hear their explanations and see them go, even though it would pain me. But 5 out of 50 is not 2 to 1. Seriously, I’m asking where you get your numbers from.
1) Let’s NOT dismantle Social Security
2) Let’s stand up for the rights and liberties of the powerless and the least well off in our society
3) Let’s represent the best interests of the working man
4) Let’s keep church out of government, and government out of church, which is in the best interests of both church and state
5) Let’s let people choose how to live their lives and not employ the government to preach to them or scold them
6) Let’s protect the right of consumers and patients to seek redress in the courts for corporate and medical malpractice, within reasonable limits
7) Let’s not demagogue against the courts in an effort to puff up more popular branches of government for our own purposes
And so forth. There is consensus among Democrats on these issues, and others. What there is not is agreement as to how to go about fighting a corrupt and demagogic machine that is out to impose the opposite set of views on a country that doesn’t really want that to happen. That doesn’t mean that we don’t STAND for something, it means that somebody else has figured out a way to sell a cheaper product with a phony warranty right now. That product is breaking down by the side of the road. Maybe it’s time to look to another set of products?
ppGaz, yes that is the platform. But you and I know it because we’ve already bought in. The problem is that that message has not gotten out to the swing voters (who we kinda need…) Rightly or wrongly those voters hear “Bush Sucks”, and while the objective truth of that is plain, it’s doesn’t do much to answer the question: “Sure, but what do you got?”
Excellent. So why do people think that there is not consensus? They’re obviously having a huge problem getting their message out. It’s definitely time to look at another set of products, as you put it. However, you still have to sell those products and make sure that everybody knows your features, AND your benefits. (Funny how sales training can apply to so many things in life.) The average citizen in a democracy is not going to do an excessive amount of digging to find out where a candidate stands, sadly enough. So the Dems message is going to have to be very concise, very resistant to misinterpretation, and punchy enough to penetrate into peoples’ consciousness. You can have the best goddamn product in the world, but if nobody knows what it is or what it does, you’re not going to sell it.
That DeLay has sided with the religious right but also gone against them (legalized gambling) while having a top aide call religious conservatives ‘wackos’ does not make him the religious right anymore than it makes pro-life dems automatically categorized in the religious right. Had you used Dobson, Fallwell, etc, you’d have a point.
I think we can agree that the Abramoff scandal stinks, but you jumped all over Hynes for condemning it, “laughing” at him because he didn’t do so a year ago when there was no solid evidence at that time indicating that DeLay or Ney should be thrown out of office
DeLay is the religious right, Darrell. Quit fooling yourself.
And I did not jump all over Hynes- I agreee with him- these guys should be thrown under the bus. Where I am laughing is because he never points out the reason they should be thrown under the bus (they are crooks), and the idea that this is somehow news is absurd. Here is a post I made almost a year ago detailing DeLay’s crimes. And that does not include using DHS to track down peopole and a whole host of other things he has done.
And you know what the most damning prrof that we know how shady DeLay is? The attempts to change the damned ethics rules to protect him- because we knew he couldn;t live up to the weak rules that were in place, they wanted to change them.
So, Darrell, you are admitting the GOP leadership uses the Religious Right in a completely cynical way?
The Democrats do stand for something — it’s just that the Republicans have defined us as standing for something else. We stand for the protection of the rights and liberties of Americans, and particularly of those who lack the power to fight for them themselves, and, as a corollary, we stand for the right to organize to seek the resources needed to enjoy those rights. It’s the same thing we’ve stood for for three quarters of a century.
It’s just the Republican party has argued that, as a result, we stood for opposition to national security, or for libertinism, or for “unmanly” hysteria (cf. your Cindy Sheehan fetish.)
Well, that’s traditional Democratic Party. The party gained and held power by using tried and proven tactics of organization and discipline at the grass roots for many years, while maintaining a people-centric stance on issues at the top.
The GOP has temporarily broken that down by going into Dem strongholds … in the South, for example …. and replacing the old discipline with simplistic appeals, and then its own discipline. It’s the discipline at the grass roots level that has done the most for the GOP’s fortunes.
One of the reasons why you are seeing a struggle in the D party right now is because the old guard (what I call the Lieberman-Byden entrenched power in the party) has lost touch with the old disciplines and become enamored of its own power, which is already waning but not fast enough to take Joe Biden out of the power circles inside Washington. New forces are out there at the grass roots level, vying for the right to organize and be the D party of the future. For lack of a better explanation, that’s DKos. Markos is that new Democrat. The champion of the non-mealy-mouthed and the champion of a striving for intellectual integrity (a struggle which is never perfect, but which is essential anyway).
Me — I’m a fan of Markos. He is the future of our party, and the way you get people to listen is you say the obvious, which is, right now, that Bush Sucks.
First of all, let’s be serious: Bush DOES suck, in the most profound and important ways. The man is a walking disaster of a human being, a nasty little prick of an alcoholic rich kid, black sheep of a shitty oil family. Who in the world would choose somebody like that to represent their future? Yes, he sucks, and he is going to suck worse before it’s over.
If Markos is the future of the dem. party, we are in trouble.
Actually, he says too many in the GOP are cozing up with “sleazy lobbyists” and “violating common decency”, even if they are not found technically guilty.
He further states that he thinks their crimes go far beyond money laundering suggesting the GOP, like the Dems of the 90’s are power drunk. Who’s guilty of sophistry now?
ppG — I dunno.
I’m a fan of Markos, but I think he listens to his anti-war echo chamber too much. The “netroots” he talks about sound like a lot of dilettantes to me. I think that us old-guard types might have something to teach young Zuniga, but, hey, what do I know? I’ve only been active in the party since I started oganizing for my union back in the early eighties.
Nice FOX capsulization, John. The Democratic platform as articulated by Rush Limbaugh. Could you work some of the cute “feminazi” and “Dingy” Harry Reid material in there as well?
I have a million problems with the Democrats, and message articulation is clearly the biggest. The single biggest cause of that problem is lack of party discipline. There are too many messages and too big of a tent. That’s a problem when it comes to battling the Three Words or Less Republican Party in the Lack of Attention Span Theater that is the media, but in practice it really shouldn’t be a flaw.
Lockstep behavior by Republicans has gotten the country into this bullshit. Delay strongarming reluctant and otherwise respectable and reasonable Republicans into following this extreme crap. The entire party being bought and sold on K-Street. Rubber-stamping Senate.
Yeah, your platform and message are concise. It is exactly whatever Rove and the top few decide, and then blind allegience by brute force from everyone else. Sounds great. It’s really been working out well for everyone too.
Why, Pooh? I disagree with him about a lot of issues, but why is he bad for the party?
Nice. Insult me, then agree with me.
I’ve got terrible news for you Pooh, I agree. But too many on your side see DKos, moveon.org as leading the way to the promised land
Problem is, Dems don’t see that their ‘Bush sucks’ platform is wrong. And if they don’t think it’s wrong, they won’t change
The Other Steve
Honestly, John. When you say “Democrats stand for Nothing”, aren’t you just projecting the Republican weakness?
I mean. What do Republicans stand for?
It seems to me that they stand for whatever the polls tell them will be winnable issues.
Plame is doing great!
One of the biggest issues of the day, if not the biggest issue, is that the mullahs of Iran are going nuclear and they’ve vowed to wipe Israel off the map.
Tell me what the Dem plan is to deal with Iran? Has even 1 Dem suggested anyting to deal with this threat?
John, you have the patience of a saint. For some reason, your site has managed to attract a certain type of gutter-dwelling leftist group that refuses, again and again, to read what you post. Frankly, I like your willingness to take on conservatives and liberals alike in an honest and straightforward manner.
I am a conservative who can’t stand DeLay/Cunningham et al, believes that Bush’s admin is arrogant and excessively secretive, that Bush’s lack of speaking and debating abilities is embarrassing for our country, and that the GOP would be better off if it could go off into the woods to reshape itself, hopefully in a way that excludes or marginalizes the fundamentalists.
That said, everything you say about the Democrats is spot-on. They are anti-Bush to a fault, have no ideas other than the unchallenging (though well-intentioned) positions named by ppGaz in a comment today at 3:55, and time and again step on their own dicks while trying to undermine an administration that any capable political opposition party worth its salt should be able to run out of office in short order.
The political cycle will eventually bring the Democrats back to power. But I have to wonder: are they ready? It was obvious in 2004 that they were not, and this still seems to be the case with the following boobs running that show — Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry. These individuals represent the party in the public eye, and they are clearly not ready for prime time.
John’s assertions to the contrary, what the democrats stand for is easy to ascertain. All you need to do is critically examine what the ever-reliable GOP repeatedly says they stand for. That is to say, let Karl Rove be your guide:
1.) GOP : Democrats stand for class warfare.
REALITY : Democrats stand for economic meritocracy. That is to say, Democrats say that if CEO salaries have risen to 431-1 (CEO vs new worker) since 1990, we might want to adjust the minimum wage accordingly (from $5.50 to $23 hr). Don’t blame us–that’s the math.
2.) GOP: Democrats are soft on terrorism
REALITY: Democrats want to be hard on real terrorists, not torture whomever Rummy labels a terrorist.
3.) GOP: The Democrats always “blame America first.”
REALITY: Democrats do not confuse White House policies with “America.”
4.) GOP: The Democrats are “tax & spend” fans of big government.
REALITY: The Democrats would rather see the government spend less on weapons and more on energy independence.
Less on foreign adventures to “spread democracy” and more on border security and health care.
5) GOP: The Democrats are anti-religious and libertine.
REALITY: The Democrats want the state to mind its own business.
6) GOP: The Democrats would “rather fight the terrorists over here than over there.”
REALITY: “Like Rummy said, ‘we know where they are. Around Tikrit, and to the north a bit.'” No, we’d rather fight the terrorists— no matter where they are— rather than Iraqi nationalists and disgruntled Sunnis.
7) GOP: The Democrats are hostage to “special interests” and unions.
REALITY: Yeah, those unions have been overly influential lately– as opposed the wholly benign armaments industry, the pharmaceutical companies and the friends of Casino Jack Abramoff.
8) GOP: Ted Kennedy! Maxine Waters! Barney Frank!
REALITY: None of these people pose a threat to our well-being. Would we could say the same of Tom Delay, Bill Frist and Baby Huey Rove.
9) GOP: Media bias always favors the democrats.
REALITY: The media overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld has been on TV more than Paris Hilton.
10) GOP: Somewhere in the salons of Georgetown, a party has lost its way.
REALITY: Somewhere in the scrub of Texas, a village has lost its idiot.
Weakness?? WEAKNESS?? Which party is in power, again? Who’s projecting here?
He may be ‘good’ for the party, but I think that would be bad for the country. He self-confessedly does not really care about policy, he cares about winning. My biggest problem with the GOP is just that, they regard power as an end unto itself, and I fear what would happen if U.S. politics become a battle between Rove and anti-Rove, with nothing more than different talking points to seperate them.
Further, I think that the Dems lose that battle anyway. The last measure of nastiness doesn’t really sit well with the rank and file, while it has become accepted, even lauded on the other side of the aisle.
To my mind, Kos is part of the problem, not the solution. (YES, I KNOW LGF IS WORSE, I’m not engaging in equivalence…)
Democrats dangerous? As for them not having any new ideas, so what? I switched and became a couple years Democrat because I didn’t like the “new” ideas Republicans were espousing: massive taxcuts coupled with massive expenditures; use of government for outright partisan objectives; an extreme vision of executive authority; and a host of “family” oriented measures that really amount to government oversight of my private concerns. I don’t always like the Democrats, certainly don’t always agree with the Kos crowd; however, I’ll take a stay-the-course somewhat rudderless party any day over the hypocritical, PR laden mess that is the GOP.
Honeslty I don’t see where he is agreeing. Too much information (admittedly not political expedient) is not the same as NOTHING.
Darrell, for a party that spent the entire decade after 1992 saying pretty much Clinton Sux!, I find the echo hilarious.
Well, I can’t disagree in principle. But we’re overlooking a central and critical point here:
In a two-party model, it’s all about building and maintaining coalitions.
The Byden wing of the party must either learn to join and embrace the newcomers …. or else there won’t be a viable Democratic party in the next 4 years.
Markos understands this. Byden does not. Whatever else you think about those two, this point is crucial. Markos gets this. Without coalitions, Dems are nowhere. The GOP rules today because of coalition-building, not because of a uniform set of positions on issues.
Soul? Searching about the 8th Circle of Hell for their souls would be a waste of time. Dante didn’t list a souls Ditch anywhere.
Obviously, all these Republican Values have worked such wonders for us. I’ll take a party that doesn’t believe in anything anytime over a party that that only believes in fear.
Come on, John. You know you are vastly oversimplifying here. Statements such as “stand for NOTHING”, “Whining”, “nothing but Bush sucks”…that’s all bullshit and you know it.
Name the prominent Democrat politician who has literally said or ran on “Bush sucks.” That might very well be the mantra of the lefty blogosphere but you can’t accurately conflate the two.
The Dems practically aren’t even allowed into conference committees anymore. The Republicans change and violate the rules and standards of governing with impunity. They have no recourse BUT to bitch.
I agree with you in part, but take issue with the way you articulate it. You are being deliberately incendiary and you know it. I know you are capable of much more than black/white, good/evil or everything/nothing. Not my fault if calling you on it is “insulting.” That’s a cop out.
Is that what the Dems told you to think? Who do think made welfare reform happen n the 90’s? Republicans, that’s who. They dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to make it happen. Repubs also sucessfully blocked Hillary’s govt healthcare power grab in the 90’s. They gave Clinton needed support required to pass NAFTA. So and so forth
But to deluded ignorant Dems, all the Repubs did in the 90’s was scream “Clinton Sucks”. If that’s what your side ‘believes’ and repeats to others, you’re staring at more electoral ass-kickings
Tell US, Darrell, what is YOUR plan, or better, what is the Republicans? I haven’t seen one. Not one beyond having all of our armed forces bogged down in the neighborhood anyway.
Darrell is engaged, thread is done. Though I would like to have the Kos discussion with ppG…
IMO, democrats are consistantly drowned out in the media space by the screeching of repub bitching and moaning about how they are under attack for being a bunch of crooks and liars. It seems that the cry of those who would be working to bring some balance to the current/continuing power takeover doesn’t get too far past the starting line before it is overwhelmed by a bum Rush or an O’Liely (or various clones and pretenders) who, sitting in their comfortable millionare entertainer chairs, proceed to make something (anything?!?) up to confuse the rubes who voted for BushCo and once again claim that dems and liberals eat babies for breakfast, so to speak. To say that the dems don’t have a perfectly good agenda is a bit off base when the process has been hijacked so effectively and the very basic verbage being used by the repubs are dishonest at the core. There is an old joke about “grape nuts” and “christian scientists” actually being neither, and I am convinced that “compassionate conservatives” fit in perfectly in a totally madeup world with no moral compass and the terms crony, crook, and “my good friend” are often indicative of the same person.
On the bright side, our electoral system is so fashioned that no single group of crooks can seize and hold power for too long, and there seems to be any number of good honest folks who want to pervert their moral standing by getting elected and becoming just like the crooks and liars who went before. I say we work on churning the house and senate seats like never before to limit the powers that the Ted Stevens and Ted Kennedys have accumulated over their long tenures. One would think that it would be in the best interest of our nation to acknowledge that we vote for the sludge of mankind to fill the legislative and executive branches and then decide that sludge needs to be removed with regularity.
You’re right, Darrell. The murder of Vince Foster was a Democrat invention.
Darrell…there you go again with the bullshit (the Dems told me to think that, deluded ignorant Dems)..I was there, with jaw dropped the entire time…Jesus H. Christ, the noise machine was ridiculous (Vince Foster to Travelgate). Please…
But alas once again, the conversation is over. You can’t go one post without the insults.
It’s your party, but one important detail you’re overlooking is that these “newcomers” screaming ‘Bush lied people died’ are going to run off a lot of Dem moderates. And judging by the recent polls showing that 51% of Dems support Bush’s NSA wiretapping order, seems there are quite a number of Dems who disagree with the far left viewpoints spouted on these threads.
Still waiting to hear the Dem plan for dealing with a nuclear armed Iran. Even 1 Dem congresscritter bring up this threat as a top priority?
Ignoring John’s little dig at the end (why is it that even soft Republican bloggers can’t resist making every post about how Democrats are evil?), I agree totally. But it’s funny because it’s true — everything he’s saying is going to be common wisdom before long. Symbolic punishments will be demanded, a few sacrifices so that we can continue supporting the politicians who create the system that Abramoff merely used.
By the way, as long as we’re talking about being dangerous because you don’t believe in anything, I think this defines the current crop of governing Republicans more than anything else. Democrats, at least, believe that the government exists to serve the people, whereas these Abramoff-serving Republicans will say that anything is in the interest of the people if you give them a free golf vacation.
I think the Democratic party’s problem is very well exemplified by how many of the Democrats (or Dem voting block) are responding in this very message.
They let the other side define the argument.
For example, John makes the claim the Dem’s don’t stand for anything, which I would agree with many on here is not true. And yet, instead of turning the discussion back on the false premise back at John, people argue over it as if the original premise has some truth to it.
That’s how conservatives have been winning a lot lately. They force the other side to play too much defense. (Bad sports analogy warning: It’s like a team kicking a field goal for a 3 point win, then finding ways to keep the other’s team defense on the field for a large part of the game. Simple clock management. Yuo win narrowly in the end, but in the end, you still win.)
In other words, John has made the claim that the Dems don’t stand for anything. I’d like to know then, based on this very post made by John and others in the past — given all the scandals, the lack of spending control, the botch management fo the war in Iraq which should have been under control this far after the 2003 victory, the meddling of the government in personal issues like the Schiavo case, etc. — what exactly does the GOP stand for?
And that’s an honest question by the way.
But instead of engaging (and effectively turning the debate back on its head and arguin over the core issues) what we now have in this thread is a lot of defense on the part of left leaning voters for their party.
And in the case of politics, the Dems keep defending themselves instead of simply standing their ground, then returning fire. And in that game, they’ll lose again and again.
Example: The Sancity of Marriage? I don’t believe marriage is under fire or in trouble as to warrant any governmennt interference. Why are you asking for the restriction on people’s rights at the government level for something that is best left between God, an individual and maybe their pastor?
Again and again, the Dems are letting the GOP define the debate. That’s the problem they have, not much else more in my opinion. In the end, I think most people prefer to have a balance of Democratic and Republican ideals working in Congress to determine reasonable compromises. But the Dems keep acting like their positions are questioned by the GOP, and approach the problem as if the original premise has merit.
Which it doesn’t.
Okay, let’s start with not basing our long term strategy on Iran around a partnership with Saddam Hussein.
Okay, Darrell? Why don’t we start there?
Classic case in point.
Kerry made it clear what he thought the right thing to do during the election cycle. that you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it not exist.
And pray tell, what is the GOP plan for this issue if I may ask? I have yet to hear a solid plan on dealing with Iran whatsoever. If you’ve heard specifics, maybe you’d like to share them with the rest of us?
EXACTLY! And John knows it.
His argument today is the equivilent of a bar bully pushing someone in the chest, repeatedly, “Wha’d’ya gonna do about it? Hmm, Pussy? Wha’d’ya gonna do about it?”
No debate, no exchange of ideas, just, “Quick! Articulate the objectives of a vast and diverse political party in ten seconds or less, or we all have to conclude that you have NOTHING. You fucking whining pussies!”
The sad fact is you now CAN win elections with only what fits on a bumper sticker. But it takes more than that to run the fucking country. We are all finding that out the hard way now. It’s just going to take some a little longer than others.
Yes, the mullahs are going to wipe a nuclear power off the map… Right.
Well, I can’t speak for Dems, but the ‘Axis-of-Evil’ and Invasion of Iraq DID NOT quell the mullahs nuclear ambitions. It made nuclear status a matter of political survival to them. What, pray tell, other stupid ideas do you have now? Threaten them some more?
Do you really think that Biden doesn’t get coalitions? Maybe you’re right — he’s never been an object of study for me, so I’ll grant your expertise.
I think that the “netroots” are concerned that they’ll be rooked by the centrist wing of the party in the same way that the socon voters have been by the money-men in the Republican party. (And, John, exhibit one for these money-men is Tom DeLay, BugMan extraordinaire. He’s thrilled to use the language of the Evangelical churches to fund his power grab.) I don’t think that their concern is unfounded, frankly, and I want to find a compromise which protects the policies I want to pursue without blocking the policies that they think are important.
Of course, that’s nuanced, and so people say that I stand for nothing, rather than saying that I stand for believing the no one person has a monopoly on wisdom.
So why should I vote for the Democrats, when you admit your party is so ‘vast’ and so ‘diverse’ that I don’t know what I am getting.
As to this:
Right now, tax cuts, incompetence corruption, and the religious right. Which is why I am pretty dissatisfied.
Who is this Darrell people keep referring to? I’m not seeing any posts under that name.
The GOP is to continue the long-successful strategy they invented under Reagan-Bush and Don Rumsfeld:
1) Partner up with the sociopathic motherfucker, Saddam Hussein
2) Stay the course with that beyond its usefulness until …
3) Hussein goes into Kuwait and pisses off our OPEC oil suppliers whereupon we …
4) Declare our former ally to be the “reincarnation of Hitler” in order to gin up public support for a War of Opec to drive him out of Kuwait and turn Kuwait back over to its vicious oligarchy …. and then
5) Isolate Hussein until he can do nothing much more than sell oil under the table and fill his vaults with hundreds of millions of American dollars and then ….
6) Declare Hussein to be the reincarnation of Osama Bin Laden and invade his country and then sit there surprised when it turns out he really wasn’t much of a threat and now the leaderless Iraq is a haven for terrorists, and then ..
7) Try to sell the idea of Flypaper War on Terror, to fight them “there instead of here” which certainly has to be one of the most idiotic “win hearts and minds” strategies ever invented in the history of the world, convicing Iraquis that we are after all only interested in Iraq for our own selfish purposes and will use them as human shields if necessary ….
Oh,I think the GOP has prove itself spongeworthy as far as a plan is concerned. Whatever the insane fucking bitch Condi Rice thinks we should do is fine with me.
Exactly! Look at the way the Dumbocrats champion felons like Sandy Berger and that alkie, Ted Kennedy, as if they are Holy Saints. I’ll tell you this much, a bridge to nowhere is better than letting that drunken bastard near any bridge. We all know what happened the last time…
You have the thickest head and tinniest ear in history.
They’d be getting YOU, for crying out loud. Run for president as a Dem and I will go out and fundraise for you.
Wake up and smell the coffee, man. Seriously. I am dead serious.
Let me get this straight… You state you believe this is what the GOP stands for and yet you’d still vote for them over the Dems?
Do you make enough money as a professor to warrant the tax cuts? I know I make plenty of money that the tax cuts actually do impact my life, seeing as how I live in the top 5% of income earners in this country. And yet, it’s not enough for me to vote for them.
So given all you have said, I’m still at a loss on whhat the GOP stands for and I’m not convinced you answered my question.
Let us posit, as you say, that the Democratic party stands for nothing, and all it does is oppose Bush. Does Bush, then, also stand for nothing? Or does he have certain policies that some think are worth opposing? Also, if the Democratic party stands and stood for nothing but opposing Bush, then what did they stand for in 2000? In 1999?
I find it instructive to read what was said at the time, and then look at it from a historical perspective (and really I mean that–go now and read as much of it as you can bear). Back in 2000, I didn’t see much of a difference between what Bush or Gore was saying. But looking at it in hindsight, Gore was actually 100% right, and Bush was 110% lying and full of shit about everything he said. I think that’s well worth opposing, I just wish we had seen it then instead of having to wait 8 years while his duplicitous policies erode our economy, our liberties, and our security.
ppGaz, you are missing the point.
When you answer by proxy for the GOP in this manner, it negates the point of debate by treating the discussion cynically while still allowing the original premise (in this case, that the Dems stand for nothing) to go unchecked. And the end of the discussion, the original premise is left in tact, which is also how it works so well for the GOP right now in the public media, and why Howard Dean falls flat except with the converted.
So, do yourself and your party a favor: avoid the urge.
Oh, he gets them intellectually. But look at how long he has been in DC, and being the Power Guy.
He has totally lost touch with the grass roots. Grass roots politics has to know how to change with the times, be in touch with what the commong man is thinking about. Byden is the consummate insider. He is an insider on the losing side, and he is very happy with that.
Trust me, Iran will not get the power of nuclear arms. It will not happen, and the U.S., along with most of the rest of the world, will see to it. It’s not bad to have a base of operations right next door to them, to be developing positive relations with Turkey, and to have our intel doing its job, even if it means monitoring conversations. I’d say we’re in a rpetty good position.
I remember that Kerry “had a plan” to deal with this. I believe that it had to do with providing them with nuclear fuel instead of them doing it themselves…..an offer that THEY TURNED DOWN. Kerry had a lot of “plans”, didn’t he?
And, of course we have other Dem’s with their own “plans”. For instance, Murtha would have us dealing with Iran from the U.S. homeland (or was it Okinawa) and thru the U.N. and its remarkable Security Council?
The Dem’s are not in power because they cannot be trusted with that power.
Are you KIDDING, dude? The public is way ahead of the politicians and the media on this. The majority view is that the war was a mistake but that a preemptive pullout would also be a mistake. Exactly what we were saying in here on this blog months and months ago!
They also think that Bush misled them into the war. Again, out ahead of the politicians and the media.
The people are a lot smarter than the “experts” give them credit for.
I know this was meant for John, but I’d like to chime in here.
I have a close friend who is as pinko lefty as you can find. I told him last year, as I will tell you, that I was willing to switch parties if the Dem’s could provide a platform worth voting for. I waited, and waited, and waited for something to come from Kerry’s side that would attract me to switch. It never came, so I reluctantly kept Bush where he is. I will not put Kossacks in power over this country’s assets, and it looked like that’s what I was getting, along with a candidate (Kerry) who was not leadership material prepared to make hard choices about security and the military.
I think I’m like John in the respect that we might switch if we were presented with a better candidate with a more confident message about leadership.
You claim that we’re mere Bush sycophants, but we are most definitely not.
Another classic example. This line of thinking is pure bullshit and rquires no refutation except to call it as such. It has no place in real discussion and is willfully ignorant of American history, both long term and recent, with the 1990s being reasonable time of peace and prosperity even with all the threats we had to this nation while a Democrat was in the Executive branch.
To state this negates nearly anything of value you might have to contribute to the dicussion, if at all.
Andrei- Right now I would not vote for the Republicans. I am looking for reasons to vote for the Democrats. Really, I am.
The “point” notwithstanding, you blew past my best line of the day, or most days. My “spongeworthy” snark is gold, pure gold.
On so many levels. It’s fucking gold. To say nothing of the fact that my quick history of US-Iraq relations is accurate and devastating to anyone who wants to claim that the Gaybashing Old Party has any credibility on the subject whatever. They don’t. Nobody in their right mind would pay any attention to them. Both Bushes ought to be in jail, for crissakes, on account of Iraq.
So you seem to agree then that the Democrats did stand for something, but it just wasn’t what you felt was what you wanted to vote for to make the switch.
I’d say that’s a far cry from the accusation that the Dems don’t stand for anything.
And yet that premise has little if nothing to do with the notion the Democrats don’t stand for anything. Are you now saying it only takes a personality for you to make the switch. IOW, if John Kennedy came back and ran for president, you’d vote for him even if the Democratic party’s platform remained the same?
Seems like you are trying to make the claim it’s the party, then change the subject to being about the cult of personality. If I’m wrong, please feel free to clear up the confusion.
John, how about this? Vote your values. You tested as a libertarian. Start acting like one.
Even though I don’t believe that, I am going to treat it as a valid pleading.
Vote Dem because the GOP government you have now is ruining your country.
Vote Dem because it’s the party that most closely represents your views and concerns, even if it doesn’t have the perfect telegenic candidate ready for you at the national level. Help it get ready for the day when it does.
Vote Dem because in a two party model, when one party is totally in control and corrupt and morally bankrupt, good citizenship requires that you do so. And stop whining about it.
Don’t just vote Dem. Join the damned party and work to change it from within. Use your huge talents and help build the party the way you want it to be.
Hi, I’m jumping into this a little late, so I’m missing about 93 plus argument points that I might be rehashing. Anyway…
The entire GOP leadership and most of the major religious conservative forces in the Republican party are tied in this crook Abramoff: DeLay anyone? Ralph Reed? Examine every GOP fundraiser between 1994 and 2004 and you’ll find Abramoff or one of his henchmen showing off deep pockets. And that’s just the stuff that gets reported. You can’t look at that and NOT expect any kind of Quid Pro Quo.
If we want to send the politicans a message that we voters are SICK of this greed-driven corruption cloaked in ‘righteousness’, just do what we did at Palm Harbor Middle School in my 8th grade elections: do write-in votes for Gumby, dammit! (or None of the Above, just to piss em off, but Gumby’s funnier…)
Ummmm, I think I have a better grasp of history than you do. The Democrats of today bear little or no resemblance to Democrats up through Kennedy. Today’s Democratic Party is a creature unto its own.
Also, think about this. Carter came in after Vietnem, and Clinton after the fall of Communism and the Cold War. So, you benefit only in times of relative prosperity, thanks to the heavy lifting of the Republicans. But when the shit hits the fan, and we need to get serious about our military and our security, you cannot be counted on. The threats we had to this country while Clinton was in office I am familiar with: WTC 1993, USS Cole, U.S. Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, bin Laden’s fatwa against us (a.k.a. war declaration). Shall I go on? Clinton was notoriously tough in those circumstances, yes?
So exactly how is my comment “bullshit” again? You sound remarkably flippant and vulgar like your friend ppJazzhands. Hence, your comments will be ignored.
Indeed. I think by far the issue in the ’04 election was national security. The public trusts the Republican party with their safety, but they do not trust the Democrats with their safety. And who can blame them?–What did the last Democrat in the oval office get us? That’s right, two World Trade Center attacks and an attack on the USS Cole. If Clinton would have just put National Security over his sex life, the Democrats would probably still be trusted by the average voter. Though the fact that Howard Dean has publicly said he wants the US to lose the war in Iraq is scary to me. The Dems have slowly but surely been taken over by the far-left.
They cannot be trusted.
They stand for NOTHING. That is dangerous.
Well put. The democrats define themselves as anti-Bush, they have no convictions of their own. No matter what you think of Bush, that nihilism should strike you as a threat.
I believe you. And trust me when I say I share your frustration with them as a party. But I think a small part of the onus is on you. (And I mean that plurally, as in all American citizens.)
First, I’d suggest to not approach the problem as if the Dems don’t stand for anything. They do, and while you may not agree with them, to even think they do not means that for them to even become a possibiity for you as a viable party requires that they have to cow tow to your way of thinking.
IOW, they’d have to do what I feel the current GOP has done: Sell you a bill of goods that in the end is meaningless with regard to the real problems we face or what they really stand for at the core of the party. They’d just start saying things you want to hear to get your vote then do whatever want once they get into power.
Second, I think it’s entirelly reasonable to vote for other candidates that are not Dems or GOP as a protest vote. That’s basically what I do. I’ve voted Libertarian for everything except the Presidential vote. It’s not that I believe in all the Libertarian uptopian and sometimes bizarre ideas about free markets saving the world and such, because I don’t. It’s because I value my vote that I feel I need to make one, and make one that also sends a message I’m unhappy with the current state of affairs. Find a different party out of the mainstream and vote for them until either the GOP or the Dems find their backbones to lead again.
If more people protest voted in this manner, instead of holding their noses and voting for one of the two major superpowers in politics, it might change the landscape, even if only a little. IMHO. As we all know, a 3% shift is like a earthquake in the current political game.
My interest in the Democratic Party would be serious if it could find itself like the Dem’s of old: Kennedy, Truman, FDR. I would like the GOP if we could reshape ourselves more like Teddy R. and Eisenhower. Hopefully, you can see in my vision here some hybrid of confidence, American pride, seriousness, sensitivity (to people and the environment), balls, and humor that I’d like to see FROM ANYONE.
The GOP is captive to its own interests, but I think the Left is captivated by many more political interests, hence its inability to find a new voice that will surely have to challenge some of its current assumptions and allegiances. Until I see that in a candidate, I think the Dem’s will be held hostage by its fringe elements and its ever-increasing interest groups.
This defines perfectly where you are at. You are a Republican who believes none that really bad stuff used to win elections will “really” happen so you keep voting for the fuckers who have these ideas as part of their election platform.
I reject and dispise the Republican party precisely because of these issues and I am perfectly fine with the Demcrats saying, uh no.
Brian: that is right on. I love JFK. Howard Dean? Not so much. Back then, Democrats were realistic about the threats the country faced. And that threat is not so great as the one we now face. Yet they are unable to get past certain of their ideas to fight the threats we face now in a way that is commensurate with the danger. And that makes me mad. And unable so do anything but laugh at them.
Being against Bush, the nasty little prick alcoholic rich kid who failed at business and got himself picked to be president …. is nihilism?
NIHILISM? “The denial of any basis for the existence of knowledge or truth?” THAT nihilism?
Where oh where do these assholian righties keep coming from? Or is that DougJ with a new moniker?
A much better title would be Throw all Republicans under the bus. Metaphorically speaking of course.
You are the party of anti-gay bigotry and inept war-fighting. That means you are getting my countrymen killed and discriminating against family members.
What other reason do I need to vote against anyone wearing the ‘R’ label?
I’ll be back later to check in. This is a good discussion for both sides to have.
Right now, my son wants to install his Xmas gift softwares, Roller Coaster Tycoon and a surfing game.
More bullshit. Reagan was in power during a time when the Democrats controlled congress. Clinton in power when Republicans controlled congress.
You seem to think that only a small percetnage of people in this country are responsbile for the prosperity or success in a system of government that splits the power distribution in such a way as to require compromises on so many levels, even in times when one party holds the majority of power like today.
You answered your own question. You stated a list of threats (and left out the Oklahoma City bombing which up until WTC was far worse than any of the other threats you listed) where a Democrat was charge of the exectuve after claiming a Democrat couldn’t be trusted in power during those types of threats.
If you are going to be argumentative, please at least be consistent.
>You claim that we’re mere Bush sycophants, but we are most >definitely not.
If you helped put this clown in office or back in again, yes you are responsible for theinept war-fighting scenarios, the unprepared homeland defense, and the huge deficits. You.
I certainly didn’t vote for these assholes.
That would be the heavy lifting the republicans did during WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Funny, I thought it was dems who started all those.
And where was the democratic Congress during the cold war?
And where was the republican Congress in the 90’s? They were no doubt demanding the dems invade Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? No? If Clinton/dems stood for nothing then, what were you standing for?
Here’s where I have a problem with what you are saying. I could replace a few words like so:
So what exactly are the differences again? What you wrote says pretty much nothing except if you already beleive there’s something inherently better about “Left” or “Right.”
I thought I won that award.
Higher Taxes (i.e. 50% of income)
Bigger Government/More Government regulation.
Campaign Finance Reform. (i.e. Incumbent Protection Act)
Hoo Who sign me up.
Here I’ll fix this for you.
Whatever the insane fucking bitch
Condi RiceCindy Sheehan thinks we should do is fine with me.
Higher Taxes (i.e. 50% of income)
It was even higher than that. The max was as high as 85% in the 1970s.
You’re right about Cindy Sheehan though. That woman is bat shit crazy. If the Democrats think she should be their spokeswomam, go right ahead. Crazy is as crazy does.
Right, that’s why she’s the goddamned Secretary of State.
The lying alcoholic frat boy names his office wife as secretary of state, but by all means, let’s talk about Cindy Sheehan. I mean, that’s the BJ trademark.
Source for this?
Paul L…again with the Cindy Sheehan bs. Condi Rice is the frickin’ Secretary of State, Cindy Sheehan is a private citizen with some followers. Seriously, you all bring her up more than the Dems. A whole lot more.
James and Sarah Brady, well known Democrats for gun control…(my family has a gajillion guns..okay only eight counting the pistol).
Republicans would rather borrow on their grandkids future to finance their spendfest than actually pay as you go…
See above..I don’t see anything in the last 5 years that makes the government ANY smaller. And if there has been, which special interest had a hand in THAT?
You DON’T want campaign finance reform? You LIKE the system we have now? Or are you just one of those folks who say NO without offering any alternative?
Okay John, the big troll worked, you still have the touch.
You have a government that is essentially dirt from top to bottom, but you can still get a rise out of the crowd with a shrug and a “Why should I vote Democratic?”
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Bottom line, and thread ender: You should’t vote Democratic. The status quo is working fine for you.
All that other stuff I said, just kidding.
PPGAZ- You trolled yourself. I had no idea that the following words “if the Democrats were not so damned dangerous themselves,” in a long post attacking the Republican establishment, would send you into outer orbit.
Have a glass of wine. There is lots of good football on.
That’s right. I believe that a communications professor had “no idea” what his words would be taken to mean … just like all the other times that has happened.
I believe that, John. Honest, I really do. Seriously. I really believe that you are just a misunderstood guy with a few cat pictures and a computer. Yep. I’m sold.
He likes sports too.
Hey, if anyone wanted to have a substantive discussion around here (besides me, of course :)) I’m sure we could have had one. But why rock the boat?
The Disenfranchised Voter
His source will be the Rasmussen Poll which indicated that 51% of Dems are ok with the NSA wiretapping people in country.
The Rasmussen poll is irrelevant though, as it does not address the central issue. The Rasmussen poll specifically leaves out the “warrantless” part, which is, after all, the central issue.
That’s a nice caricature you’ve created there. Remind me again which president has presided over the largest federal entitlement program since the Great Society? Which president created the greatest expansion of the federal government spending in decades? Which president federalized the nation’s educational system?
Oh, yeah, Democrat George Bush.
The disease is not “love of government”, of course. The disease is love of money, and of excessive inequalities in wealth and the power that such inequality produces. Get rid of the former but not the latter and all you end up with is a society run by private robber barons, gangsters and local economic feudal lords.
If we ever all manage to get together, drinks are on Andrei. :)
Here’s the new slogan —
Dems in ’08: You could do worse. Really.
So John, you gonna take ppGaz’s bait and run for office? At least you’d have a whole panel of advisors (i.e. us) to make sure you don’t get too corrupted.
Too late. Maci is here. I’m voting for her.
ppGaz – she’s what: 4 months old? She’s already exceeded the maturity level of most of Congress.
You probably should vote for someone in the meantime, though. I think we should now devote all of our energies into convincing John to run for Governor (you’re in WV, right John?). And from there, the presidency!
John Cole said:
This is the most intelligent thing I’ve heard from a democrat in six years (I’m assuming John is a democrat, or at least, a leaner) Excuse me for butting in. Long time reader, first time poster.
As a libertarian leaning partisan republican, I’d love to debate real issues. high/low taxes, small/big government, capitalism/socialism, security/liberty, pro-life/pro-choice, strong-defense/nuanced diplomacy.
I don’t get any of those things from democrats. They debate issues on the baseline that they’re right, and if you disagree with them you are an idiot for even thinking their opinion isn’t gospel.
There are plenty of things to not like about Bush, but the issues you guys bring up smack of hypocrisy and hatred rather than real substantive disagreement.
I would be happy to talk about congressional corruption and agree on how power corrupts absolutely, if I would get even a tacit amen about how 60 years of nearly uninterrupted democrat dominance in the house and senate laid the foundation and provided a strong example for how this sort of thing is done.
It would please me to no end to argue the three card monte game played by politicians with campaign finance funding with someone who would agree that grand jury shopping and charging political enemies with breaking a law that wasn’t even enacted at the time of the alleged infraction is just maybe overstepping procecutorial authority just a tad.
I would love to talk about civil liberties or feminism with someone who didn’t look the other way when a democrat was punishing his enemies with IRS audits, dumpster diving into congressional republicans raw FBI files or illegally obtaining a black republican senate candidate’s confidential credit reports or getting state troopers to line up trailer park babes, exposing himself to dead contributor’s wives and encouraging interns to sweeten his cigars.
I would be ecstatic if I could talk foreign policy with someone who was viscerally opposed to our invasion of Iraq on principle, but who doesn’t openly and viscerally root for us to lose.
I’d debate all night about the loss of freedoms inherent in domestic spying if it weren’t with someone who would certainly be arguing the other side of the issue if it were a democrat snooping on a right wing militia or anti-abortion group.
I would like nothing better than to talk about punishing those who would expose covert agents and programs if they would only apply the same standards to all such leaks regardless of who the leak damages.
I can’t find any of those people.
Are there any here?
Seven months and one week old.
She’ll be state legislature material in about two years, I figure.
George W. Bush started the Department of Education?
I thought he started the Department of Homeland Security.
moflicky, John Cole is certainly not a Democrat. He is just hounded by them. Or welcomes them. Or enjoys the arguing. Or..well, whatver, he is not a leftist or a Democrat. A very disappointed Republican, yes.
Thanks for the correction. he certainly attracts a lot of democrats though, doesn’t he?
I’ll happily chat with you–however…
That, for one, is an obvious caricature. Do you actually know many people like that? I think that just about all Americans would be thrilled if we don’t “lose” in Iraq–the difference here is that some of us knew it was a horrible idea in the first place, and so far, we haven’t seen anything substantive that would convince us otherwise.
It’s sort of like saying that because I don’t think I’ll win the lottery, then I must hate money, or capitalism, or the American dream. I’d love to win the lottery tomorrow, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. Similarly, I think that Bush’s venture into Iraq was a bad idea from the beginning, and in addition, it has been horribly executed, costing at the least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars; in addition it has helped our enemies, and greviously damaged our reputation in the world–that is to say, at the least, I don’t think we’ll be chalking it up in the “win” column anytime soon, as much as I wish we could have…
I think he attracts mostly people trying to find some sanity in politics. I am a registered Democrat (that’s a capital D, you know). There are some who just want to unfairly attack John for the failures of the GOP. I don’t blame JC, but come here to find some sane Republicans. I need the reassurance that the party I used to give some votes to still has some people who have not completely lost their minds. But mostly come here because it is not an echo chamber, and because Cole is damn funny.
Thing is, I think you’ll find that the same can be said of many GOP’ers. I do tend to go to more centrist (which in my DINO heart I am) and to the right sites. I hope to have the conversation you speak of, but generally am acussed of all sorts of “sins” if I truly say what I think in even the most polite tones (I’m not the troll type).
All this is of course my opinion only. :)
Plame for President 2008!
Kerry and her are pals and everything!!
Oh ya, invade North Korea and bomb Iran?
Plame already started the Iraq war to get out of CIA WMD school.
No, he took credit for the DHS after opposing it at every turn in Congress.
The Department of Education, meanwhile, used to be a federal oversight program. Now we have every school in America bowing to Washington’s ideas of standards.
Nice small government party you’ve got there. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were illegally spying on Americans, too.
This is kind of misleading.. while it is a true number, compared to other major/semi major wars, the war in Iraq has been very cheap.. roughly $700 per person.. Whereas when you adjust for inflation and populations, WWII cost $17,000 per person..
I’m glad cost didn’t keep us out of that one..
Long time reader and you think John is a Dem. Right. DougJ has a new personality.
Go figure. You’re a libertarian-leaning ‘partisan Republican’ who abhors the hypocrisy. I suppose you’re a ‘conservative’ also.
Most of the people here would test a libertarian, but march to Dean or Bush. So they’re really no more confused than you are.
It is what it is, spin it however you wish. I, personally, don’t see how the actual dollar amount is at all misleading, unless perhaps you assume that people don’t know what or how much a dollar is.
Yes, by any reasonable measure, World War II was more expensive (and more destructive). Then again, this conflict in Iraq is no World War II, Saddam is no Hitler, and Bush is no Roosevelt. Therefore, I find your comparison to be both inappropriate and misleading. :)
In other words we stand for the truth. Sure would be nice if more Republicans stood for it too.
I’m going to bookmark this one. Let’s see. Remember oil prices before 2003? How much do you think all those new bases in the ME are going to cost for the next twenty years? Or replacing all the equipment we’re ragging out? Or the benefits for 1M new veterans and 25K wounded?
The final bill for destabilizing the ME is not in the mail yet.
Yes, destabilizing the Middle East added at least a $10 premium to oil prices. Although, long term, the sane thing would have been to sink more money into energy alternatives, like, 25 years ago, instead of funding future terrorists–nothing we can do about that now. Also, we don’t even know where our money went in the previous twenty-plus years–really, the defense department has done a horrible job of bookkeeping, let alone purchasing. But don’t worry about the veteran’s benefits, Bush has been vigilantly making sure we won’t spend too much on those…
srv and dwntmpo,
If you’ll forgive one last World War II mention, it looks like Iraq won’t have its own analog to the Marshall Plan either–as we will be cutting funds for reconstruction.
Thanks for telling us now–that’s not to say that you had a plan then or anything.
He attracts ne’er-do-wells of all persuasions. Many of us aren’t even in the U.S.
This is an interesting comment, considering the Republicans in ’61 claimed JFK made up a bunch of bullshit about a so-called missile gap.
Apparently T Mag just wants to feel afraid all the time.
Now, granted… I’m more of a fan of Roosevelt and Truman than I am of Carter. But that’s because I don’t think Americans should be walking around in fear all the time.
But I never liked JFK, because he was a panderer to fear.
And what do you call Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter?
Please… let’s leave the rash generalizations at the door. We’re not buying.
“people to this day continue to defend him.”
Only because the case against him clearly has no merit with a partisan prosecutor going after him, that’s all.
Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all a thousand times more open-minded than Howard Dean, who is truly the most partisan person I have ever seen in my life. But I wasn’t around for Joseph Stalin.
Ah…. a new DougJ spoof in the works. Not quite as funny, insightful or sublime as the master though.
You know, I almost would rather have the corrupt wing of the GOP than the religious one. I just finished reading some stuff at one site where a young man asked about atheism and while most of the comments were positive or nuetral, there was the guy….folks are going to “burn in hell”, I kid you not, in another thread. But the kid would still make a good “worker bee”.
You’re missing the big picture aren’t ya?
Feel free to let me know if I’m wrong, John, but I think Democratic initiatives are dead in the water due to the composition of the Congress right now. They’re not being heard because they’re not calling the shots. If you want to know if Democrats stand for anything, why not just go here and see if you agree?
This from an ex-republican who thinks he’s been had too. That horsehockey about “they have no ideas” is an undistilled talking point, and one that has sunk in hard.
That reminds me, that’s another part of the equation-the preponderance of bigmouths reinforcing said talking points for the Republicans.
I thought the oil revenues were going to pay for reconstruction. Chalabi’s Oil Minister now, I’m sure he’ll do a heck of a job.
maybe, but yes actually, I do know people like that. I also know people who think bush planned and executed 9/11 and/or knew it was going to happen. and I live in a red state.
I get all that, and can even respect that point of view, but please explain how withdrawing troops immediatly is going to make things better there or here.
I didn’t capitalize republican either. In fact my name isn’t capitialized. so, i’m a lazy, libertarian leaning partisan republican.
that’s as good a reason as any. in fact, that’s why I jumped in.
I’ll give you that some may think that way, but due to the ‘baseline’ on tv (save for fox, who are just too annoying to watch) and 9 out of every 10 newspapers being liberal, conservatives don’t have the luxury of starting an argument with the baseline.
I call them entertainers. what do you call the newyorktimes, the washington post, boston globe, latimes, chris matthews, jack mccafferty, keith olberman, dan rather, george stephanopolis, et al?
save me the “Rush Limbaugh” rules the VRWC media rant.
They have every opportunity to take their message directly to people via the sunday talk shows, cable news talkers and just about every paper in the country, yet all that comes out is “we hate bush and everything he stands for”.
that’s not a idea, it’s an obsession.
Oh please… if you want an intellectually honest disucssion, start with your own premises.
Look, I agree with as much as anyone when they say the Dems aren’t doing a good job of getting their message out, but to say prominent Democrats and the Dem leadership are going into the MSM outlets and say they they hate Bush is simply fantasy.
Again, if you want honest intellectual discussion, start with correcting your extremely exaggerated premises.
Considering the list you gave out; Jack McCafferty is a liberal???? Chris Matthews…the one the leftie blogs call Tweety? Honestly I think you really pay as much attention to what is going on in the media as you have here, as a “long time reader” and still not know that JC is a conservative. Can’t figure out how you missed that salient point.
God has to wonder what you think of William F Buckley. He came on the NRO several weeks ago and gave the smackdown to the ponces that inhabit it now when he said that outing Plame was bad, bad, bad…does that make HIM a liberal? Does Pat Buchanan saying “The only reason they are over here is because we are over there” make him a liberal? McCafferty is in the same vein, he is not a liberal, just a conservative disgusted by what he has seen and is vocal about it. Wow.
So if all you hear is “Bush sucks” then it is obviously the only thing you want to hear.
There’s just too much we don’t know about 9/11 for me to come close to making that leap. However, Bush’s stonewalling of the 9/11 commission certainly didn’t make him look any better in that respect. Based on what I do know about what they knew, I think they at least should have seen it coming. I’m sure that in 40 years or so, we’ll know more of the gory details if there are any to know, but it won’t help us any then.
I don’t see why I should–I didn’t say anything about withdrawing troops immediately, you did. Why don’t you explain it?
However, I do think that we should, at the least, start withdrawing troops. And before that, of course, we should have a real discussion about it. Like the one we should have had three years ago.
Now, why do I think we should start withdrawing troops? Because we don’t need them to help inflame a burgeoning civil war. Given our track record so far, I don’t think that the current “plan” (“stay the course” isn’t really a plan per se) has been working so well here. And really, any alleged Iraqi democracy worth its salt is going to ask us to start packing anyhow. If they don’t, I doubt the Iraqi people at large are going to buy it.
Actually, we’d be nearly as well served if we just kept a low profile and stopped sending out Americans to raze entire Iraqi cities to the ground–and I don’t think we’ve done anything like that in a few months at least, so that’s something. For some reason, people don’t like it when you destroy their homes and kill their relatives, no matter how good you might claim your intentions were. Similarly, there’s no need to keep rebuilding that which will simply get blown up again next month–whether by us or by the insurgents. Obviously reconstruction can’t really start until we have stability, and we haven’t had that in Iraq since we started this war.
It was. I’ve said from the beginning if a crime was committed, let’s see the perp walk. Buckley is God. ;)
no, it makes him intellectually honest. I’m certain you immediately called for the perp walk when you heard about the recent NSA leaks. And the leak about the rendition prisons, right? Oh, and the charter airline story too. Right?
no, as much as I dislike Buchanan, he’s right, saddam would have never let this continue this long. he’d have killed 300,000 civilians in less than a year to squash this kind of terrorist activity.
I’ve only even noticed him in the last few months, and all I hear about is him bitching about bush for one thing or another. so I could be wrong. won’t be the last time.
As far as Matthews goes, on just about any issue you can name, he comes down on the liberal side. Just because he’s an idiot, doesn’t mean he’s not a liberal, but I don’t blame you guys for not wanting to claim him.
What does it say about him when he spouts nonsense like this:
and what does it say about media bias when McCafferty says this:
Or when newsweek’s Evan Thomas says this:
or when nytimes public editor Daniel Okrent says:
does that make them conservative or honest?
oh god. this thing inserts smiley graphics.
I’ll never do that again.
This is the most recent democrat talking point, at least till the polls started to turn around on it.
I though you didn’t want to discuss it? I think it’s time to draw down a bit too, but leave “as soon as is practicable” would be a disaster.
This is an even worse idea. Give them free riegn, let them take over whole cities. Don’t keep them on the run, let them consolidate their strength, regroup and cause even more trouble. sure. good idea.
90% of the terrorist attacks are against Iraqis, not our troops. If they see us as an occupying force as you say, if we’re seen as one that hides, it would be worse than one that’s trying to track down and kill the terrorists.
Hmmm..interesting points…though I would then name folks like Judith Miller, formerly of the NYT and the lady with the delightful name I just learned…”Steno Sue” of the Wapo I believe.
Again you make the big leap…IF you had been a long time reader here you would have read my post where I did say I was tryin to figure out if the NSA leaks are illegal. I have at this point taken a wait and see because I would like an open hearing on the legalities. To be honest it would not suprise if what Bush did was illegal simply because it’s what he does, but I don’t know. So, there ya go. You assume a whole lot upon finding out I am a Democrat. I do confess to having my fingers crossed on Delay though, as far as perp walks go.
As for you continuing to use the word leak..well think about it. It has become the word du jour…because…wait for it…folks in the very non-liberal Bush Administration have been doing the leaking…
Chris Matthews does not always come down on the liberal side, though at one point he did work for a Democratic President. He did vote for Bush since then so I don’t know what to tell you. Unless your idea of liberal is anything this side of Dick Cheney.
I do also have to point out that by quoting McCafferty you undermined your own arguement that he is a liberal.
Paying attention is the cheapest way to get high…:)
What part of dismantling handily what was the world’s 4th largest Army in three weeks and putting some $500 billion every year into defense spending don’t you understand? The sick irony of it all here is that we won Gulf War II in record time, and yet people still think we are at war.
Saddam Hussein is gone. That war is over. That war was won! Now however, we are not at war there anymore. We are occupying Iraq in a way that has people still dying because our government forgot that’s there’s more to do once you win a fight. (Not because we are keeping the fight over there, which has to be one of the most obscene talking points / excuses any government has ever put into the public discourse I have ever heard. Let us give you freedom, and then make sure we have people die in your backyard because Lord knows we don’t that fight in our backyard. Pathetic.) And for those cynics amoungst us, the administration seems to be fine with that condition because people like you continue to think we are at war, giving those in power a convenient excuse to abuse power for who knows what reason.
The problem we have with terrorism isn’t exclusively or necessarily a military problem. The fact we won the war against Saddam Hussein in record time and yet terrorism remains a massiive issue in Iraq should have been enough to inform you of that reality.
But not until you — or many others in the GOP — get that to even a possibility in your brain can a real discussion take place.
I’m not holding my breath. Too many people in what is the current GOP party (and I won’t call them conservative because they are not by any stretch of the imagination) refuse to engage in intellectually honest discourse, seeming to prefer to live in a world where the bad guys are Democrats and Clinton and some 48% of the American population who didn’t vote the way you did.
Other than the sorry fact that the elite media editorial process of checks and balances allowed her stories to be published, she sold papers. When she quit doing that, she wasn’t of any use to them anymore, and they dropped her right wing ass like a hot potato.
Now, name a reporter still working for the paper of record who speaks kindly of any republican or any conservative issue.
If Matthews voted for Bush, it could only have been because Gore was such a loser. I’m certain he regrets it now.
Did you adopt a wait and see attitude when Plame was outed? Other than perjury after the fact, Fitz hasn’t yet found evidence that a law was broken in that case.
There’s no whistleblower exemption to leaking classified information, and i’ve heard no one who believes this wasn’t classified. Irrespective of the legality of the wiretaps, leaking the info is most certainly illegal, unless the leaker followed the rule of law. It doesn’t appear this was the case.
Whistleblower statutes have a defined process for blowing said whistle – register the complaint with the OIG, which would start the investigation process and protect the blower from legal and retalitory actions. The press is definitely not a part of that process. This is how it’s done, as defined by Congress.
Absent these actions, this leak was purposefully designed to embarrass a public official. Does that sound familiar?
Uh, yeah. Bush appointed republicans in the CIA, DIA and/or NSA are leaking embarassing things about Bush. Tell me another one.
If you’d been paying attention, you would have seen my mea culpa on McCafferty.
I read your post twice, and try as I might, i can’t see anything except carping about what bush did wrong, and not a stick of thoughtful analysis of where we go from here. Just like the last two years, the democrats have had no solutions except, depending on the state of current polling numbers, we need to withdraw troops/increase troops/bring in the UN (like any of the member states that aren’t already there would go?), or boiled down to it’s essence, whatever we’re doing now is wrong.
which goes directly to the point of my original comment.
I’ll give them one thing, at least most of them recognize that leaving Iraq to the terrorists would be worse than leaving saddam in charge.
Don’t you mean, until we agree to wage this argument on your terms, using your vocabulary and with your conclusions, we’ll never be able to have a real discussion?
Once again, back to my original comment, that the democrats will only discuss issues if the baseline of what they think is first observed.
Fixing your next paragraph to demonstrate that you really didn’t say anything except to confirm my last sentence:
I tell you what, I’ll meet you halfway. I’ll conceed that today’s GOP ain’t the party of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan, if you’ll conceed today’s Dems aren’t the party of FDR, Truman and JFK. Hell, they aren’t even the party of Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynahan and Tip O’Neill.
Just a short one, but… I think the fundamental difference here is that I don’t trust the Bush administration to do this correctly based on what I’ve seen, and for some reason, you do trust them to do this correctly. And let me tell you, if I was related to someone in–say–a wedding party that got bombed, I think I know where my sympathies would lie. Not every dead Iraqi man, woman, or child was a terrorist, or even an insurgent. FYI.
I’m not sure I do either. There is much to criticize, but criticism is easy from your monday morning quarterback armchair.
All I do know is that I damn sure wouldn’t trust Kerry or Clinton or Gore to do it better.
Gore’s too much of an idiot and a puss, and Kerry and Clinton are biologically incapable of acting without first wetting their finger in the wind with focused polling. Or in Kerry’s case, asking the French first.
The Bush admin aside, I believe that the conservative movement, with all of its faults, has had the upper hand since 1994, and will keep it until the Dem’s can get leadership that I can place my confidence in. As I stated earlier, I had my chekbook open in 2004, ready to go over to the Blue side if I saw the leadership. I didn’t, so I stayed put. As you can accept a person for certain positive attributes, despite having many negative ones, I can accept the GOP for its positive values/attributes even with the presence of its numerable negative ones.
The Dem’s lack confidence. Clinton at least has confidence, and is a masterful politician. He has no equal in the current party, except for possibly his wife. We’ll see. But with the GOP, even if it has an equal amount of allegiances to serve compared to the Left, we can still unify around certain principles and/or behind our leadership. The Dem’s can’t do that currently. And if they try to, as with Kerry, its when its getting behind an untalented, uninspiring dullard who claims to “have a plan” but cannot articulate it in a way that can get votes, including mine.
“Or in Kerry’s case, asking the French first.”
As I recall JFK asked De Gaulle first before the blockade of Cuba.
And I am pretty sure George Washington asked the French first before he set out for Yorktown.
If you resent Kerry speaking French so much I suggest you seek analytical help. That (French) lady liberty in New York Harbor isn’t going anywhere.
That’s obviously because I gave none. That wasn’t the point of my post.
No. I meant what I said.
What we have today is a GOP in power to a degree that provides them with leadership and ability to move the country in whatever direction they deem appropriate. We know how that is working. We can measure it, take it in, and see what is working and not working.
What we don’t know is what could happen if the ideas of the other side were implemented because, well, they are not being implemented obviously. So in order to even consider them, you have to be willing to have honest thought experiments about them. Which you negated when you said, “This is an even worse idea. Give them free riegn, let them take over whole cities. Don’t keep them on the run, let them consolidate their strength, regroup and cause even more trouble. sure. good idea.”
You have already shown your hand by responding to an idea in a flip manner. In that sort of approach, it’s basically impossible to have a honest discussion on the matter because you have already made up your mind.
Case in point: Iraq. We know how the current policy is working. And we know what it has cost in both money and human life, 2,000 American soliders and some 30,000 Iraqis by Bush’s own admittance. We also know that on the ground, the issue of insurgents has not subsided but increased over a two year period. We also know that we destroyed Saddam’s army in 3 or 4 weeks.
In my world, that means something is not working. What does it mean in your world?
The threat of terrorists getting nukes is indeed a disaster scenario, but statistically speaking, I’m more likely to die getting into my car this morning and driving to work. I’m more impacted by the fact that so many of us are obese and the health care costs of my business has to deal with it. I’m more concerned that we are giving away our gains in both intellectual capital and real money to India and China than I am to dying from a terrorist attack.
That’s easy for me to do since I’m not a Democrat and I never cared in the first place.
“your site has managed to attract a certain type of gutter-dwelling leftist group that refuses, again and again, to read what you post. ”
This is demonstably false. I myself am illustrative of the fact that, in fact, John’s blog attracts a certain type of ivory tower-dwelling leftis group that refuses, again and again, to read what John posts.
I was considering your alternatives and gave you reasons why I thought they were bad ideas. Rather than refute my reasons, you returned the lob with a vicious overhead non sequitur of “we won the war already”.
I know you are but what am I?
You considered that flip? Sorry, I thought I was being deadly serious. Let me know the baseline, vocabulary and conclusions you want me to adopt before I show how foolish I am again.
Seriously Andrei, I really want to know what you think the result of us pulling our troops out, or hiding them, and give reasons why you think so. It would be nice if you could address my reasons and concerns for thinking otherwise.
That’s what my understanding of civil discourse is. Or we can have a “you’re not listening to me” pissing contest. Your choice.
You may not think this administration has a plan, you may not notice changes in tactics. But really, right now, Bush has the best this country can offer in our military leaders to advise him. I trust them, much more than I do you or Murtha or Kerry.
see, this is where we get a disconnect. First of all, we didn’t destroy saddam’s army – they melted into the population. Yes, this was not predicted, but it was also probably not preventable. it was a good plan by saddam or his advisors, or just happy circumstance for them that they fled and hid under the withering force of our troops.
You see this as an abject failure, yet looking at the imperical evidence, by ANY measurable historical standards of war, it is an unqualified success.
Look at the casualty rates of any other troop commitment of this size in any other US war for this long a period of time. You will find that very few even come close to as a number as small as 2400 dead.
Hell, Saddam killed 30k civilians a year on average when he was in power, and more than half of that 30k have been killed by the insurgents/jihadists – targeted by the them I might add – not by our troops. And, of those we killed, most of them were the bad guys.
As far as the money we’ve spent? You will also find that on the basis of soldier/day and GDP%, this is one of the least expensive wars we’ve ever fought as well.
I just want to know. If you are simply against all war for any reason, say so. If you’re only for wars that last 2 months and done, say so. If you’re not against war on principle, only this one, say so. I can respect any of these positions.
But if you’re going to criticize this war based on how much of a failure it is, define the terms failure and success, so I’ll know what baseline to start at.
well, maybe I should have said “ask permission first”.
really though, have a sense of humor. I was serious about the opinion polling part, but the french bit was just a throwaway for comic relief value. obviously not as funny as i thought it was.
The interesting part of Kennedy asking DeGaulle before blockading Cuba is this: When Kennedy said he could supply proof of the presence of the missiles, De Gaulle waved him off–saying the “word of the President of the United States is proof enough.”
Imagine what the reaction to Bush would be these days! Imagine what the reaction to Bush IS these days when he cites dangers in Iran. This administration has compromised whatever credibility the US once had in such matters. God, we have much to thank Leo Strauss for.
“Time to Throw Bad Republicans under the Bus”
Better make that a train— a very LONG train.
IHBT. Congratulations, DougJ and friends.
Our credibility compromised? Given that al Qaeda and rogue states in the Middle East have repeatedly pointed to the lack of political and military will, first under Carter, in the Iran-hostage fiasco, then under Clinton, in our withdrawal from Somalia and our lobbing cruise missiles at tents and pharmaceutical companies; given that Middle East states were certain we would never have the courage or mettle to commit ground forces in Afghanistan, but would run fleeing, just as the Soviets had; given that al Qaeda and the terrorist insurgents in Iraq have been repeatedly found to be clinging to the hope that the U.S. will be cowed by its gutless antiwar crowd into withdrawing as it wistfully points to Vietnam; given that U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was confirmed by the French, Russian and Israeli intelligence, and reaffirmed by ex-pat Iraqi scientists; given that we have found overwhelming evidence of WMD artifice, delivery mechanisms and cleanup suits, even though the “smoking gun” materiel has not yet been produced; given that the French have been nullified to their well-deserved status as yet another harpie without any real military or political will to contribute to anything they believe in, and that the only world body capable of imposing force on rogue states other than the U.S. is the U.N., which allowed Saddam to break some 17 resolutions over the course of a decade without matching these transgressions with fitting penalty or punishment; given that the U.N. has no greater success to point to than its imposition of economic sanctions, which it did by administering an Oil-for-Food program that has resulted in the largest corruption scheme of kickbacks in history and has disgraced the institution; given all these things, you are saying to me that Bush 43, having faced enormous resistance and scorn both domestically and abroad, not only promised he was going to liberate Afghanistan, but did so, not only promised he was going to liberate Iraq, but did so, and has backed up his promises with ferocious tenacity to finish the job of liberating those countries by committing our ground troops and having to face not only the sadness and guilt of every soldier’s death, but the vicious and relentless personal attacks of the well-funded socialist and communist stooges of the self-loathing U.S. hard-left — and you are asking reasonable people to believe that this somehow gives us LESS credibility?
Please put your pot pipe away.
John the Libertarian says ” we have found overwhelming evidence of WMD artifice.” And indeed we have, all in the WHIG. And the artifice extends to balloon trucks, aluminum tubes, niger contracts, and reconstituted nuclear weapons.
John is right about one thing: there need be no concern about about Bush’s credibility on using force. If anything he is more than credible in this area, as any trip to Europe will convince you. They think he would go to war on a dime.
The problem is with the artfully selected REASONS Bush finds for war. For you see, simply saying “U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was confirmed by the French, Russian and Israeli intelligence, and reaffirmed by ex-pat Iraqi scientists” sidesteps the question of whether any of these accounts “confirmed” WMDs were there is such quantity as to pose an immediate threat. Then too, the “ex-pat scientists” were Chalabi stooges and the Israelis had their own agenda (cf. Demi for the official AIPAC version).
Nor is this a simple matter of you having your opinion and me having mine. Exploring your option has cost us nearly all our allies, half a trillion dollars and 2100 American lives.
PS: The reference to AIPAC was just to wake up Demi’s Eshelon monitor :-)
Somebody needs to sit down and write a definition of the political term “conservative.” I have absolutely no idea what it means these days, and I doubt that anyone else does either. Growing up in the Midwest in the 50’s and 60’s, here is what I thought conservatism was-
* prudent fiscal management
* keeping big government out of our personal lives
* cautious and sensible foreign policy
* wise stewardship of our natural resource base
Does anyone else think those are central principles of conservatism? GW Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney sure as hell don’t. Why does our media continue to refer to these people as ‘conservatives?’
We are fighting a war on terror, so I’m told. Not a war in and of itself.
Reread what I wrote keeping that in mind. Especially the part with regard to the increase in terrorist activity over there that has occured since we won the war.
Yes, agreed, but again we are Monday-morning quarterbacking. Saddam played a very dangerous cat-and-mouse or pea-and-shell game, whichever you prefer. How were we to confirm beyond all shadow of a doubt until we deposed him and found out ourselves? How are we to confirm if materiel was buried in the desert along with more mass graves, or carted off to Syria? What defines a sufficient threat?
The existence of WMDs in Iraq has not been exhaustively ascertained. In the meantime, I am highly critical of Bush pinning a medal on Tenet’s lapel. I am also critical of an intelligence policy in the U.S. that emphasized satellite surveillance rather than spies on the ground. However, one could argue that by Bush reasserting the will of the U.S. to confirm these threats, with military force if necessary, serves as an example to other rogue states that would otherwise thumb their noses at the U.N. The U.S. will not thump its chest and lob cruise missiles. It will invade and depose the rogue regime.
In any event, it is irritating to see the justifications for liberating Iraq sidetracked by discussions of WMDs as a means of “gotcha” politics. There are two credible perspectives that minimize the WMD argument. One, we never stopped waging war on Iraq over the 90s, it just took us a decade to send the ground troops in again. Two, preemptive military action against a perceived threat will never win over everyone, for there are many who feel they must be victimized before any action is taken, which is why Afghanistan has fared better politically in terms of it was a direct response to the Taliban-backed al Qaeda and 9/11. However, the Bush Doctrine was very clear on the point that the U.S. will make no distinction between terrorists and those states that harbor them. Saddam was a terrorist, funded terrorism and harbored terrorists. He had open ambitions of unifying and leading a greater Middle East, even after his defeat in invading Kuwait. And though the costs associated with deposing him would seem exorbitant, the U.S. responses in WWI and WWII were exceedingly costly, as was its response to the spread of Cold War Communism. Exorbitant. The U.S. has defined its new threat as Islamo-fascism, and views the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East as its primary architect. Whether a few of its historical allies disagree (or several) seems to belie much deeper fears and orchestrations, particularly in those areas of Europe that have already a significant Muslim influx, those countries who were selling arms to Saddam illegally, and those who were profiteering from the status quo of the Oil-for-Food sanctions.
Yes, I agree. I would welcome a return to classic conservatism, or the classic liberalism of JFK, in ’08.