I mean, naturally Bush is now going to select an arch conservative for the bench. And I personally don’t believe for a second that he nominated Miers in order to make his subsequent pick more palatable. More palatable to whom? The conservative base? They were going to love him anyway. The liberal base? That wasn’t going to happen no matter what. Miers or no Miers, the Democrats were still going to object.
Not that it will make any difference.
You know what the main problem the Democrats have right now is? No sense of blood lust. If a Democratic president were hemorrhaging support and mired in as many failures as Bush currently is, the GOP would be massing like sharks around a wounded dolphin, and then they would be tearing in from all directions. The Democrats still sound and feel like exactly what they are: The party out of power. The GOP is already making noises about eliminating the judicial filibuster. The Democrats should be right in their face, shouting, “Do it! C’mon, do it, you sum’bìŧçhëš. Get rid of the filibuster, I double dog dare you. Because if you do, then sooner or later–probably sooner–the balance of power will be reversed, we’ll be in charge, and we’re going to make you eat whatever changes you make now to benefit yourselves, you hypocritical, smug, power-hungry jáçkáššëš.”
‘Cause if the situation were reversed, that’s what the GOP would be doing.
Because the GOP fights fire with fire, while the Democrats fight fire with popcorn, and they’d be well-advised to get with the program and make the most of the opportunities that the sanctimonious smugness of Bush and company are handing them before it all slips away again.
PAD
• 
Knuckles:
Finally, when asked one more time, Reid sighed exasperatedly and said, forcefully, “CONSULT with him? CONSULT with him so he could SHUT IT DOWN before it got to the point? WHY would I do that??? You guys need to learn a little bit about Senate procedure. We wouldn’t be standing here talking about it if I had CONSULTED him.”
Ðámņ. Reid said THAT?
Hëll, maybe there’s hope for these guys after all.
(I did hear Frist’s statement before that bemoaning the fact that he hadn’t been consulted. Frickin’ crybaby — sure, you want to accuse someone of not playing fair when they *use* the rules, but you’ve got no problem unilaterally changing them. Twit.)
Me, then Bill:
I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a “shadow government” detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush’s. Get the debate out there.
I think that’s actually a great idea, though fraught with peril. Why shouldn’t a candidate tell us who their cabinet would be? Especially if they are getting some good talent.
Agreed … not surprisingly, I guess, given that you were responding to my idea in the first place. Opposition parties in England have been doing similar things from time to time, and I think it makes tons of sense. (I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I’ll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)
After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act.
Why assume that the folks who voted for the Act actually wanted to vote against it?
I don’t assume that all of them did. I assume that some of them did — some of them have said as much, so it seems a safe enough assumption. Given the climate of the time, though, voting against the bill would undoubtedly have been likened to getting up and delivering an impassioned defense of the Rosenbergs.
Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?
Bush is weak. The Republican spin machine is not, and given the name of the act it would be incredibly simple to tar people as unpatriotic. Kerry tried to talk about the fact that parts of the act were insane, and was tarred as everything from coward to traitor for it. Gee, no wonder nobody else is stepping up.
How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media?
Well, it begs the question, what are “genuinely liberal ideas”? I don’t think you have to be espousing Noam Chomsky to be a genuine liberal.
Nor do I.
You want genuinely liberal ideas?
Single-payer health care. I don’t think anybody’s ever breathed a word about it since Paul Wellstone passed on.
Ending corporate tax shelters, particularly those aimed at well-off CEO’s. The Constitution was not designed to be of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.
Continuing to expand and entrench civil rights and civil liberties — and yes, that’ll ábšødámņlûŧëlÿ include gay marriage. (You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don’t see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)
Public financing of elections and the end to fund-raising as a political tool.
There’s the beginning of a list.
It’s always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD’s;
He did.
Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument. The rationale for war was that Saddam Can Kill Us All Next Month If We Don’t Stop Him Now, and it was 110% horseshit. No media outlet even considered questioning the claims until well after the fact, and conservative shills like Judith Miller beat the war drums by passing on lies from Ahmad Chalabi.
In your words, “that’s just a fact.”
that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis;
Part of the reason for this was that some liberals have portrayed every dollar spent in non-social security expenditures as somehow being one more dollar that wasn’t going to “save” social security.
So what’s your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I’ve no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush’s cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.
that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy;
I don’t know if it’s been proven that this wasn’t the case,
There was a time when the media actually contained people called … oh, what was it … ah, yes — investigative journalists. People who’d actually check these things out for themselves rather than relying on the latest White House press release or a sermon on “stuff happens” from Father Donald. Yet they’re inexplicably unable, unwilling, or incompetent when it comes to investigating what frankly are flat-out war crimes. I’d like to know why.
The Good Morning America bit was clumsy but I think it’s a major major overstatement to say that the media portrayed Europe’s hostility to Bush as a reaction against freedom.
I’m not saying they did so deliberately, but the way they framed presentation made it very easy to think so. It’s rather like the way Bush/Cheney/etc. always brought up Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath, but never actually said the one was behind the other. (Except, of course, that Bush/Cheney most assuredly did do so deliberately.)
people can usually tell when you think that they are stupid. It doesn’t make them want to vote for you.
Doesn’t seem to have hurt Bush any, and so far as I can tell he thinks every single one of us is as dopey and intellectually incurious as he is. I can’t think of a single instance where he’s made it clear that he thinks the American people are intelligent.
(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who’ve heard Dean speak in person, and they’ve all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)
Jason, that’s the post of the day. Right on.
Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.
TWL
Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?
There is none. The House not only renewed all parts, but added more death penalty to it as well
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/13020444.htm
(You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don’t see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)
Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage. Since I support gay rights this doesn’t bother me much but I’m amazed that New Jersey would be less sympathetic.
As far as TV shows…all I’ve seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?
Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument.
Granted, I totally misread what you said.
So what’s your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I’ve no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush’s cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.
Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn’t pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?
There was a time when the media actually contained people called … oh, what was it … ah, yes — investigative journalists.
Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters…we still don’t know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn’t aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).
I would happily advise someone to go into journalism now. The bar has been set so low one could really become a major force just by emulating the giants of the past.
(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who’ve heard Dean speak in person, and they’ve all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)
that didn’t come across well but it wouldn’t be the first time a person’s TV persona did not match their real one. People tell me that one on one Al Gore is a funny guy, while on TV, well, dámņ.
Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage.
Oh, portraying gay couples in a positive light isn’t all that unusual — but if there’s really a paper in Raleigh that seems to be beating the drum for gay marriage, I’d love to see an example of how they’re doing so. Accusations of such don’t surprise me — for some people, particularly those on the far religious right, portraying gays as anything other than demon-spawn is probably seen as trying to recruit children.
As far as TV shows…all I’ve seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?
Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?
So what’s your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I’ve no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush’s cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.
Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn’t pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?
Fair enough, at least to a point. I’d argue that liberals never used the claim in nearly as major a way, but I suppose that gives conservatives credit for playing a dámņ good switcheroo.
There was a time when the media actually contained people called … oh, what was it … ah, yes — investigative journalists.
Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters…we still don’t know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn’t aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).
More importantly as regards that issue … forget the papers. I haven’t seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush’s service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.
TWL
(I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I’ll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)
I think it would be a brilliant idea, and so would the shadow government idea. Bush tried the latter, announcing several of his cabinet nominations before the 2000 election (largely to counteract his own lack of foreign policy experience).
I would take issue with the snarky addition, largely because the Republican House majority actually did pass nearly everything in the contract, and even overrode President Clinton’s veto on one portion. It’s one thing if you think they’re right-wing nutjobs, but honestly you should give them credit for being sincere right-wing nutjobs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America
Re: Jason’s post
Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.
Agreed. I think that’s why I’m so addicted to The West Wing this season– the fake election is between two articulate, intelligent, and patriotic contenders, and wouldn’t it be nice if the two parties really put some effort into giving us that choice in real life?
For what it’s worth, today’s Washington Post — no bastion of conservative activism — has a big feature profile on Alito that quotes a long roster of his liberal friends who suggest he’s a good judge, a good man, and an honest strict constructionist, not an ideologue like Scalia.
Here’s another interesting tidbit. This is Alito’s dissent on the Planned Parenthood case that keeps getting so much attention:
I don’t know how typical this is of him, but that seems very much like someone who wants the courts and the legislatures to do their own separate jobs. If the people want a law, they need to go to the legislature or the people, not the courts.
If this is the worst the Democrats can find on him, then I don’t see how they will be able to filibuster him.
I haven’t seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush’s service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.
My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn’t find anything that would have made any kind of impact–until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn’t anything worth investigating.
Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?
Well, gays in entertainment are always always positive and anyone who tries to do otherwise will probably get more grief than it’s worth. I’m talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment–usually it’s the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.
Here’s an example of the News And Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1999150p-8384940c.html
And you’re correct, it hardly qualifies as “beating the drums” for gay marriage. It’s quite fair to both sides.
I don’t know if it’s been proven that this wasn’t the case, though I certainly think that the loose policies encouraged the misfits (and why were such people even in that position? These prisoners may well have had useful information and they were being guarded by refugees from Plato’s Retreat?)
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve seen enough to convince me that Abu Gharib was not isolated. There’s be at least 24 deaths connected to interrogation in several different locations. Capt. Ian Fishback has testified as to the general indifference as to treatment of prisoner (some of those who died were considered innocent of any wrong doing by their interrogators). and this was traced directly back to the Administration’s directives about prisoner interrogation.
What disgusts me about this Administration is they are so INCOMPETENT at execution….and so it’s totally fine for them to slip into brutality as long as it’s for God and country.
In a lot of ways, the terrorists HAVE won. And they’re too stupid to know it.
My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn’t find anything that would have made any kind of impact–until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn’t anything worth investigating.
I don’t think there’s really much evidence one way or the other about what they’d have come up with had the papers not surfaced. The papers pretty much overrode anything else they might have had.
Could it be that they simply didn’t find anything else? Sure — but I don’t think enough cards on the table for me to bet on that.
I’m talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment–usually it’s the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.
I’ll admit I don’t get a chance to see such programs very often, but I’m not sure I can even remember one where a featured debater was actually pro-gay marriage. Civil unions, sure. (I’m not saying I don’t believe you — in fact, I’d really like to — but I haven’t seen it yet.)
Here’s an example of the News And Observer: […] And you’re correct, it hardly qualifies as “beating the drums” for gay marriage. It’s quite fair to both sides.
I’d tend to agree — it’s certainly not pro-gay marriage, but it’s more evenhanded than most articles I’ve seen. I could quibbble with a few wording choices here and there, but on the whole I think this was a very fair treatment. Thanks for it.
TWL
Regarding the Strip Search Ruling:
What I’ve got from other sources is that in the Affidavits that police submitted in applying for their warrant they specified, multiple times, that the wanted permission to search the occupants of the property to be searched. It was said that there was not enough room in the relavant section/box of the warrant to put that, so they attached the Affidavit to warrant (also signed by the magistrate) and gave a served a copy of warrant (with attached affidavit) when conducting the search. The wife a daughter were searched by a female officer in the bathroom.
It seems to me that the relavant points of dispute are:
1) whether attaching the affidavit is the same as having it in the warrant. Does not specifying occupants on the formal warrant invalidate the search or does attaching the affidavit which explicitly mentions the search of the occupants make it “good enough.” My personal opinion and understanding of the constitutional issues involved is that warrants are to be narrowly interpreted and that they should have written “continued on back” or see attached sheet which would have also been signed or at least initialed by the judge. Judge Alito saw it differently.
2) There is also the question of, even is the police were allowed to conduct a search, whether the scope of the warrant allowed the police to conduct a strip-search. I have no idea about the state of law on this question, but I’d guess that it could or the question of whether the search was actually in the warrant wouldn’t have come up.
Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?
I haven’t seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush’s service or lack thereof.
Boston Globe did in 2000, but it was completly ignored until 2004, when the mainstream media did a half-assed job covering it.
Holding our elected officials responsible for their actions, especially if they are proven to have lied to the American people – I definitely agree with that. I agreed with it when President Clinton was called to the carpet about the Lewinsky stuff (I don’t care about whether or not something happened, just that he lied about it). Same thing with the Iraq War; if it turns out the intelligence was manipulated to purposely use it to lie to build a case for war, then we need to hold those involved responsible. But my issue is that Harry Reid and all are acting all excited, like this was a true act of leadership. You guys are making fun of Frist; well, he’s likely out of the running for 2008 because of his recent scandals, so who better to be the figurehead victim of the Republican party? Congratulations: Reid got the ball rolling on a classified investigation that will take a year or two to complete, likely not be (officially) disclosed for a couple of years after that (and if it’s unofficially disclosed? well, golly, I guess we’ll be firing and trying any Democrats who’d dare leak classified materials, like old Scooter), the Republicans can add one more act of legislative obstruction to the list they’re keeping on the Democrats for next year’s election theme of making government more efficient in the wake of FEMA’s example of bureaucracy inaction, and I’m still waiting to hear how voting Democrat at any point in the near future is going to markedly change course for this country.
BTW, I’m coming off like a somewhat angry cuss today, but I’m not pìššëd at anyone on here. My frustration is squarely placed on the apparent dearth of competence that’s infecting our government at nearly all levels right now.
I mean, dámņ, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT! I’d be so happy if one good thing happened in government by the end of the year. Maybe that should be the citzenry’s campaign slogan for the 2006 election – Just One Freaking Thing Right.
My 4 year old child uses the “they did it first” arguement all the time. My 7 year old is now too mature to use that excuse (I taught him better than that). Evidently see some people never outgrow 1st graders.
It’s not about who did it first, Jerry. It’s the fact that the right has been making “attack the messenger” their standard reply to any criticism of their policies, to the point that it was a major theme of Bush I’s unsuccessful reelection campaign. For them to now cry foul because the left has finally figured out that they can make the same argument is nothing but hypocrisy.
(From the folks at the Blame Bush Blog…because, after all, Bush is to blame for everything bad that happens)
The Perfect Supreme Court for Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves:
Gender: 4 Womyn, 4 Men and one transgendered.
Sexuality: 2 Heterosexuals, 2 Homosexuals, 2 bisexuals, one pedophile, one eunuch and one foot-fetishist.
Race: 1 (genuine) African American, 1 cracker, 1 Latino-American, 1 Inuit American, 1 Arab-American, 1 Native American, 1 Asian American, 2 French people.
Religion: 0 KKKristians, 2 Atheists, 2 Religion of Peace adherents, 1 Jedi, 3 Pagans, and 1 satanist.
Height: 1 Giant, two tall, two medium, two short, two midgets.
Weight: 3 Clinically obese, 2 Anoerexics and 4 yo-yo dieters.
Politics: 9 democrats.
Educational Achievements: 4 illiterates, 4 ivy league professors and 1 in between.
Chemical Dependencies: 2 ‘clean’, 3 dope smokers, 1 crackhead, one LSD hallucinator, one wino and one glue sniffer.
And if the Chimperor fails to give us a court like this then it shows that he is just like Hitler, only less articulate.
http://blamebush.typepad.com/
>>They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality.
>That’s not what politicians do.
That’s precisely what won the Ontario provincial Tories (Canada’s answer to the Republicans) a large majority almost ten years ago. They didn’t attack the party in power, they simply offered what sounded like a reasonable alternative, the ‘Common Sense Revolution’ they called it. And people bought into it in droves, which was unfortunate, because they then realized they should have asked to see the fine print. Oh, once in power the Tories did exactly what they’d said they do … the same way an exterminator can be said to have fulfilled his contract by torching your home and then claiming to have rid you of that pesky termite problem.
>If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind
A politician with a spine? Ain’t gonna happen, because this would require them to ignore what the people want and give them instead what they really need. And that doesn’t fly in election campaigns.
>Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?
The people.
>I don’t care about whether or not something happened, just that [Clinton] lied about it
I do care. He showed callous disrespect for the institution of marriage – one of the long-acknowledged cornerstones of our society – and, worse, disrespect for the office (literally as well as figuratively) of the Presidency. Not to mention apparently using his power (a well-known aphrodisiac) to take sexual advantage from at least one underling. Teachers and doctors wind up in jail for it. Why should he be exempt?
“Actually, that’s exactly what Bill Frist said he was going to do, until he realized that the Harry Reid just kicked his ášš.”
Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: “Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?”
“and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom.”
Sure, we hate freedom in our little banana republics here in Europe.
Or maybe some were opposed because the US changed into a unpredictable nation which really seems to believe that the end justifies the means and which claim the right to bomb each and everyone back into the stone-age they declare a threat. And proof be dámņëd. Oh, and of course because it is God´s will.
No doubt Saddam was a dictator. But the world is full of equally nasty countries and nobody gave a dámņ either. This whole “we bring freedom”-thing is a hypocricy at best and a lie at worst.
Before 9/11 the crazy Taliban could happily turn their country into a slaugtherhouse and nobody gave a dámņ. They could stone a woman to death because she flashed her ankle or read a book, and aside a few whiners – maybe your pesky liberals – no american gave a šhìŧ.
This whole “war on terror” nonsense didn´t reduce the threat one bit, the Saddam fiasko only turned the country into a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists and did destabilize the whole region. As the lunatics in Iran aptly demonstrated these days.
If your media really spouts nonsense like “Europe hates freedom” it is no wonder that relations are strained. And rightly so.
I mean, dámņ, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT!
Well, maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration’s plan for a potential bird flu pandemic will be something on the path to doing the right thing.
The only glitch here is that it’s a plan of necessity, not of voluntary willingness to do something useful.
And then we’ll still have to make sure that, if it is a sound plan, it’s actually carried out – although states are already throwing a fit over Bush’s desire to see each state spend its own money to stockpile flu vaccinations.
I spent 11 years of my military career in the MidEast and got to work with a great many NATO & UN Troops from Europe. They were some of the toughest people on the planet. It was an honor and, in a couple of cases, a lifesaver, to be with them. And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.
“Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, “about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.” The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn’t work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,6326316.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.
And your posts make you look like a moron, I mean… well, yeah, a moron.
Craig: Please welcome back X-Ray.
Jason: I agree with your point about the Democrats not giving you a reason to vote for them. To be quite frank, it’s the Republicans that have given me reasons to NOT vote for them, and I’m quite shocked that most people don’t view it the same way. That said, I think if the Dems could come up with a very cogent argument (and for fûçk’s sake, there are so goddam many of them floating around out there) and coherent theme, I think they could truly clean the floor. The problem is that Democrats don’t tend to march in lockstep with each other. I’ll give the GOP this: they are very good at agreeing to a message, and staying on that message. Party loyalty above all else. The Dems simply are not.
Both Jason and Knuckles are right: The GOP has been going out of their way to make me want to vote AGAINST them, while the dems have failed to give us a compelling reason to FOR them.
As for the GOP marching in lockstep, that appears to be unravelling. I’ve been predicting an eventual schism between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives and its finally coming to pass. The iron is hot and if Reid’s actions are any indication, the dems are ready to strike.
Oh, and welcome back, X-ray.
Like most Dems, I think I’ve been hoping that guys like Reid and Dean would give the party an infusion of spine. It appears to be working. I know a lot of people like Nancy Pelosi, but I haven’t been impressed by her minority leadership in the House as of yet. Hëll, I’m still pìššëd øff about her weak-ášš response to the SOU address two years ago. Me, I’d like Rahm Emmanuel in charge, but he’s not senior enough to do that. The guy is an absolute pitbull. I’m very pleased with what I’ve been seeing out of Reid since he took over from Daschle (who I found to be completely spineless and utterly useless), and I’m moderately pleased with Dean. What I would prefer out of the good doctor if for his position as head of the DNC to not get in the way of his mouth.
At least SOME Democrats are willing to go for the jugular with a little bit of blood lust– http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm
They’ve been pelting a black Republican with–hold your sides!– Oreo Cookies! Along with obtaining his credit card records (which is illegal but you can’t make an omlet without breaking a few eggs). And this is being defended by legit Democratic leaders, not just the fringies.
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
“Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community,” she said. “His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people.”
Maybe if they burned a cross on his yard he’s stop being different. (he’s also the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland so one might wonder if being different doesn’t have its up side).
I’ve said it in other threads, and I still think it holds true that one of the major uniting/dividing factors for each party is their particular special interests. Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party’s special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions. Now, these are my own perceptions, and even if I’m right, I don’t think it’s an overwhelming factor on either side, but I think the scales are definitely tipped in the Republican’s favor regarding this. I think a good “Come to Jesus” summit of all the Democrats’ special interests’ leadership to get everyone on the same page and platform might go a long way towards fixing this and make things much more competitive.
As for Knuckles and Den, I agree that the reasons for not voting Republican are growing. But as you both point out, I’ve been given no corresponding reason to vote for Democrats, especially since they can’t seem to make themselves look like anything other than the Republicans’ little brother, who may have some different ideas than his big bro but still follows most of his big bro says, because when he doesn’t, he gets a wedgie.
I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won’t mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job? If the information was proven to be flat-out wrong – after we were already at war – were people wrong for using the best information available at the time to examine the issue? We might, might, wind up getting Rumsfield to resign over negligence for not presenting the whole case both for and against war, but I doubt we’ll ever be able to prove, regardless of whether they ever did or not, that the policymakers knowingly lied about the intelligence data. Did they spin it to get a desired result? You betcha. Is it a crime to present what you think is factual information in the best light possible to support your case? I don’t think so.
Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren’t simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent.
I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won’t mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?
This argument, of course, is a straw man.
You AREN’T doing your job if you present only the worst case; you ignore the possibility that your intelligence for the worst case sprang from a very untrustworthy source. This lack of vetting has been emblematic of the Bush administration, as it has continuously relied on wishful thinking instead of hard headed analysis of the facts.
“…Not that you’ll hear that inconvenient fact from the right-wing insta-pundits”
please do not lump a vast majority of the republican party as being right-wing, that is an insult to the right-wing. Because as the republican party moves more and more to the moral conservative, it isolates “true” conservatives who are now being found without a party to support their views.
Forget Roe v. Wade
what about the supreme court ruling over eminent domain, that is more important to me than the touchy abortion topic. forget wether it is murder or not murder, how about making sure that private property remains private property (unless being taken for public use and fair market value is paid) and that this private property is not taken and sold to a corporation, otherwise you might not have a house to sit around and contemplate wether abortion is murder or not.
perhaps the problem with our congressman and our media, is that we are so focused on religious affiliation instead of wether someone is really conservative or not.
Do you want a true conservative viewpoint on abortion, here it is. pick a point inwhich we call it a life. If it is conseption, fine, if it is birth, fine, if it is at 3 months, fine. but pick a point. before that is abortion, after that is murder. End of discussion. Now lets get over the abortion issue and perhaps the republicans can become conservative once again (first of all by learning what the words “fiscal conservative” mean)
this is a conservative view of this because the right opinion should be that government regulation is fine, but government controll is not.
Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?
Yes.
I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won’t mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?
I have to agree with roger, this is not a good argument.
so lets discuss the cause for war in iraq and the “lies” used to build the case
Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90’s, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.
Fact: While some biochemical agents have been found in Iraq, nothing in the quantities that we knew existed
Fact: From the report of the UN inpectors in 1993 to Hans Blix in 2002, Iraq went from having VX gas and other Biochemical and Biological agents to having none.
Fact: Hans Blix said that he was shown no evidence and no proof that the known agents were destroyed.
Those facts are, i beleive, justificaiton for war. the problem is that Bush did not have the guts to confront the american public with these facts and back his original desicion, this is because he is a man who cannot stick by his decisions and why (as a strong conservative) do not support Bush
Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90’s, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.
Fact: They were originally given those WMD by the US.
Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion. No proof has been found that Saddam did not follow orders to get rid of the WMD after the Gulf War.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Saddam never claimed to have WMD.
Unlike some other nations (like, oh, North Korea).
Justification? Far from it.
Bush just wanted a war, and he did and said everything he could to get it.
He’s a lying son of a bìŧçh that’s cost the lives of more than 2000 American soldiers and unknown thousands of Iraqi civilians.
But I’m sure there are wonderful ways of spinning these facts.
Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: “Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?”
This is completely unrelated…but being the linguaphile I am, I’m curious.
I understand the intent of ‘democwat cwybabies’ and the phonetic spelling at the end of that paragraph. Using childish pronunciation emphasizes the point.
However, I am not understanding the intent of ‘lyberals’ and ‘progressyves’. This doesn’t change the pronunciation in any way, it’s just spelled wrong. And I’m unaware of any political connotations related to the i/y usage, similar to the connotations one finds with the ‘c/k’ in ‘Amerika’.
This is purely a scholarly pursuit of understanding the intent behind the wording chosen.
roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I’m seriously just confused about why you’re labeling it as such.
As for the content of my argument, if Rumsfield’s job at the time was to respond to Bush’s request for a threat analysis of Iraq, and if he presented the worst case scenario, the maximum amount of threat Iraq could be to us, based on what Rumsfield knew to be the best intelligence available, is that manipulating data or doing his job? Now, if Rumsfield has conflicting sets of intelligence – maybe not correct versus incorrect, but minimum versus maximum threat – and he decides to present maximum threat, what is that? Now, if Rumsfield flat out ignores solid intelligence that hurts his worst case scenario, what is that? There’s an awful lot of ‘what if’s’ for both sides to examine here, and I guess what I’m trying to point out is that to show any sort of wrongdoing in the buildup to the war, you’re going to have to prove that at each successive level, the officials involved either knew the information given to them was bad or actively altered it to fit their particular needs. And each level was responding to a request from the next level up, so the request made is as important as the response given. And in the end, the filters that information had to get through to get to President Bush might have only left him with what he felt was the only way to look at it. In the end, everyone might have done their jobs correctly and still have gotten us to this point. Me personally, I think Rumsfield’s the one who affected how intelligence was handled and what intelligence was presented further up the chain.
Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won’t happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.
It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one’s own candidate but perhaps they know something I don’t. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation.
Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party’s special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions.
Jason, you’ve been impressing me. That’s a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.
What they need is one person who can instill some organiation–maybe Dean can pull it off. The others are trying to be president and won’t be able to get their rivals to go along. Having tken himself out of the running Dean may have more power than if he was just another candidate out for his own self interest.
Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq, however, biological agents are not classified as WMD unless they are found in quantities large enough to be seen as use for weapons.
Fact: When wanting to prove that one does not have WMD and has destroyed all relevent equipment. One keeps the information to prove that they have done so. Therefore, within the guidelines of the IAEA, the lack of proof that diarmament had occured was unanamously agreed upon by all members as proof that disarmament had not occured. (or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist. try opening your mind to other views, becasue making a judgment based upon one view point [and watching both cnn and fox news does not count because they are both american view points] is stupid, to make a judgement based upon 7 or 8 viewpoints to get a more accurate world view is [while not always accurate] more of a logical choice)
Fact: all this information can be found from the testomony of and following that of hans blix, from the transcripts of the UNMOVIC, IAEA, and from the International Security and Disarmament Council.
Fact: Most Americans only watch American media and attempt to make cognitive thesis based upon only this information (which is presented so that the uneducated in this country are able to understand and follow)
or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist.
Well, last I checked, the Downing Street Minutes were straight from Blair and his set of cronies.
And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam’s WMD.
It seems pretty straightforwad to me: there were no WMD to be found. Bush based this entire war on a pack of lies.
And we’re going to pay for it for years to come.
Thank you, Dubya and his supporters.
“And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam’s WMD.”
I have to agree with you, no evidence that when we went in that there were any WMD in Iraq. and no evidence that the WMD that everyone knew he had were ever destroyed. which is exactly what i said and what the IAEA and UNMOVIC said. that there was no evidence that the WMD in Iraq were destroyed. Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.
again, i find justification. thank you for you help
Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.
And here we are, back to the Ultimate Answer, no room for other possibilities.
But then, we have no proof that Saddam moved them either.
See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade.
It’s always “he had them” or “he moved them”. Yet you have no evidence to back such claims up. Just assumptions because you’re stuck on the belief that you were right, and eveybody else was wrong.
“See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade.”
perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them. I personally have to agree with the final ruling of the UNMOVIC which was that in a situation as important as this, no evidence of disarmament is a sign that no disarmament took place. Now that is the ruling of the UNMOVIC, not my personal opinion. so the entire international community thought that if Saddam had really destroyed them, then he would beable to have some evidence that this was done, either a piece of paper that told someone to destroy them, or perhaps something somewhere amongst the massive weapon list that was given to the UN that stated a specific biochemical agent and then next to it stated “destroyed”. however, none of this was done. if he had truely destroyed his WMD do you honestly not think that there would be something somewhere that proved it. even if it was a Scud missle graveyard? something, are you that convinced that he didn’t have them that you can’t see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?
The international Community felt so, atleast those who are members of the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. but i mean, i’m sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.
roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I’m seriously just confused about why you’re labeling it as such.
And I’m confused why you’re NOT seeing it as such.
Basically, you’ve over-simplified the situation (the essence of the straw man fallacy). You’ve stripped it down to an either/or situation; I’ve pointed out at least one factor (which points to the basic competence of this administration) which should NOT have been neglected.
“Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won’t happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.
It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one’s own candidate but perhaps they know something I don’t. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation.”
My problem, Bill, is that you are attempting to get the entire Democratic party to take responsibility of a few people who threw Oreo cookies at a guy that they view as condoning whites only country clubs. You don’t even know these people are Democrats. You’re assuming they are because they don’t like this guy. You’re assuming they are because the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore (how odd that the Washington Times would frame an article that way…). Me, I find it incredibly funny and very clever.
perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them.
Perhaps. But Saddam didn’t stay in power as long as he did by being stupid. His army was trounced the first time around, and there really was no reason to think it wouldn’t happen again (and, as history has shown, it did happen again… we just didn’t account for insurgents).
I mean, really, on the face of it, Saddam has been pretty low-key since the Gulf War.
Yes, he was trying to pay families of Palestinians for blowing up Israeli’s, but considering the rhetoric coming out of Iran, can you really use such an argument against Iraq and then ignore Iran? Not in my opinion.
are you that convinced that he didn’t have them that you can’t see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?
Yes, I’m pretty much convinced he didn’t have them because we have not found them. Anywhere. At all.
Nothing in Iraq. No proof he moved them to Syria or anywhere else – and let’s not forget, Saddam was on good terms with very few, if any, of his neighbors.
but i mean, i’m sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.
Supreme intellect? Apparently: they were all wrong.
But then, there were many doubts along the way. There were PLENTY of doubts within our own government, and from Britain as well.
Remember the claim by Bush in his SotU Address regarding Saddam trying to get uranium from Nigeria? Debunked… by Joe Wilson, who was sent to investigate (which is what lead to the whole “Plame Game” the Administration is caught up in).
But then, that info was debunked months before Bush’s SotU, and he used it anyways, knowing it was wrong. If that’s not a lie, well, then the sky is green.
Guys, you’re arguing with a guy who is still convinced that Saddam had nukes. Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?
I keep hoping we’ll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it’s clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.
But, at least some people on both sides have the sense to disavow such tactics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702115.html?nav=rss_technology
It’s simple fact that black Americans still vote overwhelmingly democratic. As a big goofy white guy, I don’t pretend to understand why the small number of black republicans generate so much ire from their own community. It’s unfortunate, but until the republicans find a way to broader their appeal to black Americans, it isn’t likely to change.
Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?
Because keystrokes aren’t that precious. 🙂
Jason, you’ve been impressing me. That’s a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.
Good analysis. Right now, the democrats are not a unified party with a common set of goals or standards. They are coalitions of various interests united primarily by their opposition to Bush. The GOP have mastered playing the electoral map. They knew that the gay marriage and other hot button issues would play well in the south and sent their moderate faces (Scharzenegger, Giuliani) to Ohio. The dems keep thinking that all they need to do is run as the anti-Bush party. The problem with Reid’s maneuver is that it’s still them fighting against Bush. Until they show they’re ready to fight for something, they aren’t going to regain power.