The comedy stylings of John Kerry have provided something else to play into GOP hands besides congressional pages. They’re teeing off on his statement that lack of education “lands you in Iraq,” claiming that he was trash-talking the troops. Everyone knows that lack of supporting the troops has replaced social security as the third rail of politics. Kerry’s response is that he was making a misfired joke about the administration.
Who to believe? Well, putting aside my personal dislike for Bush and the fact that I voted for Kerry, let’s see what makes more sense: The notion that Kerry, who served in the armed forces, would be dissing the troops, or that Kerry, who despises Bush and Co., would be dissing the administration.
To quote that great pundit, Daffy Duck: Pronoun trouble. Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said “we.” “We wind up in Iraq,” which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on “you,” then it becomes, “you wind up landing us in Iraq.” Something like that.
Considering word around the campfire is that “Studio 60” may be shutting down soon, perhaps Kerry can draft Aaron Sorkin to write some jokes for him.
PAD
• 
There was a bit of an update about that missing soldiers this morning.
He’s Iraq-American, with an Iraqi wife. As if our troops aren’t enough of a target, this unfortunately made him an even bigger one.
But the military says they are in some sort of negociations with the hostage-takers, but won’t really elaborate.
Hopefully it turns out well in the end, but one soldier was killed and eight more wounded during the searches for the missing soldier.
Then Bush goes up to the podium and someone asks him about Kerry’s comment. Bush shrugs his shoulders and says. “He botched a joke. No big deal.”
Sadly, that will never happen. We’re in the era of the political spots featuring naked Betty Boop impersonators and politicians who tell an Iraqi war veteran who lost both her legs in the line of duty that she wants to “cut n’ run”.
The level political vitriol has hit an all time low and, as much as I would want to be even handed about it, about 90% of the vicious slander is coming from the GOP side. They will say anything and distort even the slightest mistatement in order to stay in power. They have no shame any more.
Kerry said something stupid. My God, stop the presses and treat this like a national crisis.
Goatse
1Ok…what is this? From your description I’m afraid to even google it.
Don’t. Trust me. It’s the second most disturbing picture I’ve ever seen. The aforementioned tubgirl tops goatse.
Can you describe what it is in a way that will not potentially put me over the brink
It involves a nude guy doing something that you wouldn’t think was possible, assuming it isn’t a photoshop.
——–
Rex – Thanks for the acronym. I never knew goatse meant anything.
politicians who tell an Iraqi war veteran who lost both her legs in the line of duty that she wants to “cut n’ run”
After the way the repugs went after Max Cleland, this shouldn’t be a surprise.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 09:36 AM
But it IS funny!
You’ve got a wicked sense of humor that doesn’t always show up in your more serious comments.
Bill, thank you for the compliments and I’m glad you enjoyed my “performance art.” But you really shouldn’t encourage me. For me, it’s like alcohol is to an alcoholic — once I start it’s hard to stop! 🙂
The level political vitriol has hit an all time low and, as much as I would want to be even handed about it, about 90% of the vicious slander is coming from the GOP side.
I’d disagree but what is one person’s “vicious slander” may be someone else’s “hard hitting truth”. I’m afraid there may not be anyone on this particular board who can take the high ground on the vitriol front…except maybe Kathleen, who is obviously a better person than the vast majority of folks one is likely to run into.
I doubt that some of the nominated judges who saw the Democrats in congress try to paint them as racist extremists would agree that 90% of the viciousness came from the republican side. The outing of gay republican staffers–staffers! Not even the actual politicians, just the people they work for. The “Republicans support underage gáÿ šëx” angle. It’s from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it’s directed at people we like. I’m the same way, don’t get me wrong.
Looking at the Kerry flap, can anyone really think that a Republican would have gotten away with it? Ask Trent Lott how easy it was to get away with a stupid statement. At least Kerry will not lose any position in the party (given that right now his position is “Official Pariah” that may not be an altogether good thing.)
And again, it’s a problem of his own doing. He somehow misquoted himself while trying to belittle the intelligence of another. Bad enough. He then went ballistic and called anyone who took offense as a right wing tool. He then twisted in the wind while one ally after another joined said tools, including many in the military. Then he apologized to the tools. That’s what, 3 days the Democrats will never get back.
I would still bet money, were I a betting man, on the Democrats winning the House, handily. But if they don’t it will be because the get out the vote team for the Republicans is even better than they are believed to be. Kerry will be a minor factor. But man oh man will he take the heat! The daily kos crowd will want him strung up by his gonads. It’ll make the hate they have for Joe Lieberman look like gentle kisses from a baby.
This could be the first political career destroyed by Youtube.
But in all liklihood the Democrats WILL win the house, maybe even the Senate. So he will live to see another political day. But I think his presidential ambitions, already very unlikely, have almost vanished. Like George Allen for the Republicans, he has shown that he just doesn’t have the right stuff to be trusted with the Party standard.
I think it’s kind of a shame some of you stoop to orc-chitter here solely for the virtue of intimidation.
I mean, you, Sean, and Bill Mulligan have since admitted Sean’s comment was directed at me, so I’m just defending myself. But your orc-chitter? That’s just chickenshit.
Racist in the extreme?
Calling you a white guy is as bad as someone trying to flatten the severity of genocide? Yeah, there’s no bias-denial in flattening the degree of distinction there.
It’s from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it’s directed at people we like.
That would apply for me as well, if I liked Kerry, but I think he’s a douchebag and have said so many times before.
I wasn’t talking about the nomination process of judges, which I’ll admit gets to be bareknuckled from both sides. I was talking specifically about political advertizing on TV for this race. And from what I’ve seen, nothing the dems have come up with has compared to the GOP’s antics. Here, in PA, Santorum has gotten increasingly vicious as his reelection bid slides closer and closer to oblivion. It it’s not just “hard hitting truth”, but stuff that independent groups have described as misleading, like portraying as group of Casey “supporters” in prison. Except that none of them had given any money to Casey’s senate race, at least has been dead for two years, and a couple actually gave money to Santorum’s campaign!
As for Kerry, considering he’s been once again savaged in the media, Fox “News” in particular, I’d hardly say he’s gotten away with anything. Yeah, his esteem in the democratic party couldn’t really get any lower, but he’s also been disinvited from several campaign events this week, Casey’s included.
I still think the dems will take the House. The Senate is a toss up. It may go 50-50, which would leave it in GOP hands. The problem is, the more apparent that the GOP will lose at least one house, the more vicious they’ve gotten.
Hey!!! What are you talking about? He sounds nothing like me! Trying to call me out, Mulligan? Lucky for you I’m in too much of a state of mourning over the passing of the great legendary luchador Huracan Ramirez (creator of the Huracarrana) to slap you around.
“Yes…I DO want to retract my statement. Jerry C is NOT a jabrone….but what Jerry C IS, is a seven foot, five hundred pound, steaming, stinking, steaming, stinking pile of Grade-A monkey crap! And I say this, Jerry C, did I call you a jabrone? You dámņ right I did, I called twenty others a jabrone as well, shut your mouth, and look at me, read my lips – jabrone – J-A-B-R-O-N-I-X-Y-Z-A-B-C-oh, it doesn’t MATTER how you spell ‘jabrone!’ I say this, Jerry C, come Royal Rumble – MY Rumble – I guarand*mntees to take my hand and one, by one, by d*mn one, over the top rope, I’m guarand*mnteeing winning the Royal Rumble, Me, going to WrestleMania, and going out of WrestleMania…the People’s Champion.”
BTW, here’s Republican Media Analyst on last nights Anderson Cooper 306:
“But it does tend to be a race toward the dumbest possible communication. But, again, I’m sorry to say that, in America, a lot of morons vote. It’s a free country. And they often reward cartoonish campaigns.”
This wasn’t a botch joke about an individual that, if you stripped away the context, sounds like an insult to the troops. He’s flat out calling many American voters morons.
But, I’m sure someone on Fox “News” will be demanding that he apologize for calling American voters morons, right?
Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
The thing that worries me, Den, is that I’ve heard about a lot of people who think all of Pennsylvania are little Santorum-drones. Forget what I said before about security deposits. Elected officials need to have a rationality recall switch. They go loopy, and it’s Scanners all over again!
Mulligan has gone so far around the bend he’s back to where he started originally.
I’d disagree but what is one person’s “vicious slander” may be someone else’s “hard hitting truth”.
Most likely, however, it’s just vicious slander. (“Hard hitting lie” also works.)
Courtesy of Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2152671/nav/tap1/)
Last week, I turned on the TV set in a hotel room in Phoenix. The first commercial I saw, for Rick Renzi, a vulnerable Republican congressman, was an effusion of pure political poison. In a voice rancid with contempt, the announcer declared:
“Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association, a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon’s actions “utterly disgusting.” He’s right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona.”
While hearing this, the viewer sees just key terms superimposed on the Democrat’s face: “LIBERAL” … “Served as the President of the ACLU” … “Radical Organization defends hard core criminals Man/Boy Love Association” … “ACLU Defends Child Molester Group” … “Preys on our children” … “utterly disgusting” … “radical, liberal.”
Dutifully performing the fact-checking function expected of responsible newspapers, the Arizona Daily Sun analyzed the content of the ad. It could not “independently verify” that 100 elected officials had endorsed Renzi, though 55 are apparently members of a Navajo tribal council whose gambling interests Renzi has championed. Ellen Simon was not the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, but a volunteer lawyer in Cleveland who represented the group in precisely one case. That case had nothing to do with NAMBLA or child molesters. The “Democratic mayor” who called Simon “utterly disgusting” is effectively a Republican. Simon, who supports school choice and cracking down on illegal immigrants, is by no means a “radical liberal.” In other words, not a single claim in the ad is actually true.
. . . .
According to factcheck.org, a respected site that reviews the accuracy of various ads, “the National Republican Campaign Committee’s work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers.” Negative Democratic ads tie Republican candidates to President Bush, and to the Iraq war, or accuse them of being in the tank for the oil or pharmaceutical industries. But Democratic ads do not charge that their opponents “prey on our children”—even though one recently resigned following accusations that he did precisely that. One can only imagine the ads Republicans would have made this year if Mark Foley had happened to be a Democrat.
And from what I’ve seen, he’s dead on. I haven’t seen the Repubs’ level of viciousness approached in any Democratic ad. And I haven’t heard much in the way of “Mark Foley guilt by association” either. But the article’s author is dead right . . . if Foley had been a Democrat, the ads we would have seen from the GOP would have gone (inconceivably) even further beyond the pale.
Sean, PA may be a tad more conservative than other northeastern states, but things are shifting. The most recent polls are all giving Casey a double-digit lead. Today’s Harrisburg Patriot poll shows Santorum losing in every part of the state except the northwest region, which means Rick may be the first Republican in decades to lose in the highly conservative central region. That’s the region I live in. Believe me, if Rick can’t win here, he’s lost the state.
Sasha, the only thing that surprises me is that the GOP didn’t try to tie as many democrats to Foley this season. After, Fox “News” called Foley a Democrat on both the O’Reilly Factor and the Special Report with Brit Hume. Clearly, the stage was set to plant the idea in the public’s mind that Foley was a “D”.
Sasha, the only thing that surprises me is that the GOP didn’t try to tie as many democrats to Foley this season. After, Fox “News” called Foley a Democrat on both the O’Reilly Factor and the Special Report with Brit Hume. Clearly, the stage was set to plant the idea in the public’s mind that Foley was a “D”.
I suspect that the RNC realized that way too many Repubs would be stuck to the Foley tar baby to do that. The more Foley would be mentioned by the Rs, the more people would start asking “Yeah, and why hasn’t Hastert stepped down again?”
Besides, they have the Hussien verdict announcement to prep for.
On the subject of negative political ads, a friend is running for state-wide office as a Republican. Either his opponent or the Democratic party is running negative radio ads about him, in which he’s lumped together with both Bush and the Republican gubernatorial candidate, as if all three march in lock-step. They don’t. (I’ve also seen a similar ad aimed against a Republican candidate in another race).
That, in and of itself, isn’t that big of a deal, but the… um… interesting thing is that the ad talks about my friend and his “cronies” in the capital, as if he’s A) the incumbent, and B) has squandered opportunities to serve the people in favor of special interests. He’s _not_ the incumbent; and neither is his opponent. It’s an open seat. Interesting that his opponent isn’t running ads that focus on why she’s the better qualified candidate. At least I’ve never heard any.
For the record, I have neither seen nor heard any of my friend’s ads (or Republican party ads on his behalf), but if they’re also of the same “attack the other guy instead of promoting yourself” variety, then I’d have the same low opinion of them.
Having known the guy for more than a decade, I doubt that _he_ would put forth such ads. The Republican party, on the other hand, is another matter.
Case in point, the Republicans in the community where I live seem to send flyers in the mail attacking their Democratic opponents more often than they send ones touting their own qualifications. I get recorded phone messages of the same ilk, too.
And I am so sick of the way they toss around the word “liberal” like it’s the incarnation of all that is, was and ever will be evil. I don’t have much incentive to vote for Smith if all he does is make cheap attacks against Jones.
He’s retired now, and there’s pretty much zero chance anyone could ever entice him back into politics, but I’d really like to see former Michigan Governor William Milliken (and others like him) back in the political arena. Hëll, I wouldn’t mind seeing him in the White House over most of the candidates (both actual and potential) in both parties. Milliken’s that rare breed, a moderate Republican who worked cooperatively with Democrats to get things done. He and the late Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, a staunch Democrat, worked well together, to give one example.
In fact, according to a local news article today, Milliken apparently wrote an op-ed piece about the negative attack ads of today’s political climate (the article doesn’t say where the op-ed piece appeared). Apparently Milliken criticized the Republican candidate in one race for making outrageous allegations against his Democratic opponent. Milliken, who often campaigned against the Democrat’s father, apparently said that while their campaigns were spirited, they never resorted to “fabrications and personal attacks.”
Would that more candidates and politicians in both parties were of Milliken’s mind set.
Rick
I should also mention that my friend has not served in _any_ elected office; so any talk of his “cronies” is even more ridiculous.
Rick
Rick, that’s hysterical in that it points out the tactics that politicians will use, but your friend has my sympathies. Guilt by association is a nasty thing. I’m surprised a little that the opponent’s ads aren’t voluminously pointing out your friend’s “complete lack of experience” as a way to pound him.
Den, judging by what I’ve seen, and granted what I’ve seen is only Bucks County and a little of Philadelphia, I would’ve said Pennsylvania was a little more diverese in its mix. But with some of his recent behavior, I think Santorum may have gone from “conservative” to “that wierd fringe guy.” I don’t see anything wrong with conservatives or liberals, meself, it’s the extremists that worry me. And to you and Sasha, maybe some of the Republicans realize that to do that would be crossing a line. Unlikely, I know, as generally politicians can’t usually SEE the line, but still….
I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry’s recent botched joke with statements he made in ’71, where the military would only be a haven for “poor brown and black people.” What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence? Glad I never thought about going into politics. I’ve said way too much between ’72 and now. Granted, I was BORN in ’72, but still, if people are going to go back that far they’ll find out I called my neighbor a big smelly piece of dog poop with flies on it in ’78.
What, we can’t agree with the idea that it was a botched joke on his part AND say that he should just become a monk with a vow of silence?
That be my choice.
I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry’s recent botched joke with statements he made in ’71, where the military would only be a haven for “poor brown and black people.” What do you guys think?
I think the RNC is grasping at anything that doesn’t have the words Bush, Katrina, Foley, Iraq, or the like on it.
If bashing Kerry is the only way the GOP can gain traction and stop it’s downhill slide, that’s pretty GD pathetic.
The ads have been a mess here in Colorado, as I’m sure they are everywhere else.
Since neither Senate seat is up, the focus has been on two House races, the 4th (between Musgrave (R) and Paccioni (D)), 7th (O’Donnell (R) and Perlmutter (D)), and the governor race.
In the district I live in, the Democratic candidate is only running against an independent, so I haven’t even seen an ad for the guy… well, girl, now that I’ve actually checked.
The Musgrave/Paccioni race has been ugly, with lots of accusations on both sides. Musgrave really is coming across as complete scum, so I hope she loses.
But the governor race has been pretty special too.
Beauprez (R) is a former US senator, Ritter (D) is the outgoing state Attorney General. Things were going along just fine, until Beauprez’s campaign ran an attack ad that caused Ritter to make a phone call to the FBI – Beauprez’s campaign apparently used a government criminal database illegally in the attack ad on Ritter.
So, I think it’s backfiring in a bad way, as Ritter has a +20 point lead in the latest polls.
Craig,
You think that’s a mess? Well, yeah, it is. But try keeping a straight face in VA. The ads and talk have now turned to whether or not what Webb wrote in a chapter of a FICTION novelis something that should keep him from being in the Senate.
The only bit funnier then the local stuff was watching the key monkies the Fox News Zoo Channeltalking about how what Webb wrote in a FICTION novel was by clearly and by far more vile and twisted then what Foley (a real flesh and blood person) emailed and text messaged to underage boys (who were also real people made of real flesh and blood people).
Ok, I should say that I’m not posting drunk. Although, that would be the best reason that I would come up with for the typos in my above post.
Geez, I need to cut back on the overtime this month and get some rest.
Jerry, I think my state is now in a race to outdo yours. *chuckle*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations
Sean Scullion: “I’m surprised a little that the opponent’s ads aren’t voluminously pointing out your friend’s “complete lack of experience” as a way to pound him.”
That wouldn’t work in this case, as he has more experience than she does. He ran for the same office two years ago, and lost by a very narrow margin. This is her first campaign.
Come to think of it, maybe that’s why all I’ve heard from her campaign are attack ads. It’s easier to attack the other guy than to say what you, yourself, bring to the table in terms of qualifications. Especially when you’re running for the first time.
Of course that mind set doesn’t explain the experienced politicians running for re-election or some other elected office who _can_ talk about what they’ve accomplished while in office, but instead choose to go the attack route.
Rick
Jerry, in the immortal words of Count Rugen, get some rest. If you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything.
Thinking about why politicians run attack ads. Only reason that comes to mind is if they actually ran on what they’ve accomplished, assuming they’re the incumbent, is that whatever they accomplished is bound to have ticked off someone somewhere. Or maybe some of them just haven’t accomplished ANYTHING.
I guess I’m lucky–my state doesn’t seem to be having very many competitive races this year.
It’s from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it’s directed at people we like.
That would apply for me as well, if I liked Kerry, but I think he’s a douchebag and have said so many times before.
Well, I wasn’t thinking of the Kerry imbroglio. I think he brought that on himself. Anyway, if the critisiozm of Kerry is an example of vicious slander then much of it has come from the Democrats–they’re the ones who really threw him under the bus.
But I’m not surprised if you’re seeing more crap from Republicans–you’ve got Rick Santorum. That’s all you need to say. (Hey, anyone remember a while back when some folks here kept mentioning Santorum as a possible republican presidential candidate? I said he’s be lucky to keep his seat in November. Nice to see it looks like I got at least 1 prediction right, for a change.)
BTW, here’s Republican Media Analyst on last nights Anderson Cooper 306:
“But it does tend to be a race toward the dumbest possible communication. But, again, I’m sorry to say that, in America, a lot of morons vote. It’s a free country. And they often reward cartoonish campaigns.”
…But, I’m sure someone on Fox “News” will be demanding that he apologize for calling American voters morons, right?
Well…it’s not quite at the level of a former presidential candidate saying something stupid. I mean, you can’t even remember the jerk’s name. I rather doubt that Fox will be giving free publicity to CNN any time soon (Why aren’t you upset with CNN?)
And besides, is he wrong? Me, I’d avoid ever questioning the intelligence of voters. It would be very dumb for a candidate to do so. However, an armchsir analyst is free to say it. Hëll, on this very board if not this very thread I’ve seen LOTS of claims to the effect that Bush is proof of the voters stupidity.
Someone mentioned factcheck.org–good site. Worth checking out. Looking it over they go after both sides and make some pretty hard to argue with points. It would appear that you are quite correct, Den, that the RNC is doing much more negative advertizing than the DNC (though nowhere near at 90% advantage!). Shame on them, especially for the misleading or out and out false crap.
I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry’s recent botched joke with statements he made in ’71, where the military would only be a haven for “poor brown and black people.” What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence?
It was a botched joke. His statements from 35 years ago were part of a very confused statement he made (Where he said he was against the draft but also against the volunteer army…leaving what?)
There are people who do think that the volunteer army is full of retarded people and failures–some of them quickly voiced agreement with those thoughts when they believed it was what Kerry had said, before they got the revised talking points. I don’t think Kerry is one of them. For one thing, it’s demonstrably false.
critisiozm…wow, THERE’S some creative spelling. I think I’m going to bed with Jerry.
Wait a minute. That came out wrong.
The level political vitriol has hit an all time low…
I used to think that. However, earlier this year I read (or rather listened to) John Ferling’s Adams vs. Jefferson and followed it up with Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton. Believe it or not, we’ve come a long way in how well our politicians act toward one another. The attacks were much more direct and personal – not to mention sometimes tragic in the case of Hamilton. You would be amazed at how little has changed in our political discourse, though.
Jerry, I think my state is now in a race to outdo yours. *chuckle*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations
If this story pans out, it could utterly take the legs from under the GOP.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 08:25 PM
I think I’m going to bed with Jerry.
Hey, slow down there, Mulligan. At least buy the man dinner, or a drink at the very least.
Den, judging by what I’ve seen, and granted what I’ve seen is only Bucks County and a little of Philadelphia, I would’ve said Pennsylvania was a little more diverese in its mix.
PA is almost evenly split between republicans and democrats, which is why we’re still considered a swing state, even if we’ve trended blue in presidential elections since 1988.
But with some of his recent behavior, I think Santorum may have gone from “conservative” to “that wierd fringe guy.”
Which is why he’s going to lose. Pennsylvania is not a state for extremists. Most of our pols tend to be more like Specter: Middle of the road and slightly dull. Santorum won his first senate race riding the big GOP wave in 1994 and benefited from an extremely weak opponent in 2000. Now, his extremism has turned too many people off and he’s going down in flames.
I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry’s recent botched joke with statements he made in ’71, where the military would only be a haven for “poor brown and black people.” What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence?
I’d vote for the vow of silence. Of course, 1971 was a very different political climate than today, both in terms of how the average person views the military and our race relations, so I wouldn’t draw too many parallels. I’d agree that the GOP is desperate to find some kind of traction and at this point, they’re esctatic at the possibility of reliving the 2004 race. Of course, now it’s 2006 and I’d doubt Bush could get elected dogcatcher this year. The smart move for dems is to stay “on message” and keep this election a referundum on Bush.
Well, I wasn’t thinking of the Kerry imbroglio. I think he brought that on himself. Anyway, if the critisiozm of Kerry is an example of vicious slander then much of it has come from the Democrats–they’re the ones who really threw him under the bus.
And they should. It’s the only way he’ll learn to never, ever try to be funny again.
But the only reason this story had legs was because Bush and Fox “News” flogged it for two days to keep it alive, out of context that it was.
BTW, did anyone see Bush’s response? How come no one jumped on him when he said that we were not in Iraq when they attacked us on 9/11? Talk about pronoun trouble! And if you caught the clip on the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart nailed it. If you’re getting applause for exploiting the murder of 3000 people, something is seriously wrong.
But I’m not surprised if you’re seeing more crap from Republicans–you’ve got Rick Santorum. That’s all you need to say.
Not for long.
(Hey, anyone remember a while back when some folks here kept mentioning Santorum as a possible republican presidential candidate? I said he’s be lucky to keep his seat in November. Nice to see it looks like I got at least 1 prediction right, for a change.)
I called that one, too. Santorum is losing for one reason and one reason only: Santorum. Casey’s strategy this election has been to keep as low a profile as possible and to let Santorum self-destruct. And it’s working.
I’m watching _Supernatural_ right now, and John McCain just came on to speak on behalf of the Republican gubernatorial candidate. McCain said he’s the guy _we_ need in this state.
We? McCain’s from Arizona. Who’s this “we”?
Rick
Well, before our sexual appetites kick in, and after they wane, aren’t we all at least a little bit fággÿ? I can appreciate you not wanting to live in denial anymore, Bill Mulligan.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 02:34 PM
I’m afraid there may not be anyone on this particular board who can take the high ground on the vitriol front…
It’s funny — one of the first threads I participated in here I made the assertion that Bush was a crappy president, but that it was hyperbolic in the extreme to compare him with Osama bin Laden as others were doing. So I got hit from all sides.
That tends to happen to me a lot. Many of my fellow liberals think I’m too soft on Bush because I won’t go so far as to call him the anti-Christ, whereas some conservatives want to believe I’m a soft-on-terror milksop because I won’t deify the man.
In fact, the exchange that got first Mickey so angry with me was one in which I pointed out that George W. Bush’s tax cuts benefited more than just the rich. Even though I acknowledged that Bush’s tax cuts certainly provide disproportionate benefits to the wealthy, the mere fact that I tried to point out that the poor and middle class benefited as well was just not palatable to Mickey’s sensibility. It wasn’t enough to agree with him in part — it was all or nothing.
Mickey’s a nutter, of course. But this sort of thing happens to me all the time. The difference is one of degree.
I continue to call myself a liberal but really, it’s hard to know if the label fits anymore. I’m not really sure what I am. I can’t fully embrace conservatism, yet I now believe it is a valuable ideology. I can’t fully reject liberalism, but I believe it can be as problematic as conservatism. I don’t consider myself a moderate because I don’t believe in “blending” ideologies. If a conservative or liberal idea seems to make the most sense to me in a given situation, I draw a line there and say, “Yes, I believe that is the right thing, period.”
It’s funny. On the one hand, liberals and conservatives tend to look down on me because I haven’t “picked a side.” I tell those people that I believe that choosing either liberalism or conservatism is simply too limiting; both ideologies are “big tents” but they’re still not big enough to encompass all of reality. Those selfsame people who criticize me for not choosing one side or the other usually take umbrage at that point, as though I’m trying to pigeon-hole them!
I will not claim to occupy any moral high ground above anyone on this board. But I will say that my situational ideology does seem to make me a pariah wherever I go. Conservatives think I’m too liberal, liberals think I’m too conservative, and moderates think I’m crazy.
Anyway, speaking of Mickey…
Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 02:45 PM
I think it’s kind of a shame some of you stoop to orc-chitter here solely for the virtue of intimidation.
I mean, you, Sean, and Bill Mulligan have since admitted Sean’s comment was directed at me, so I’m just defending myself. But your orc-chitter? That’s just chickenshit.
Mickey, I am dismayed that you would stoop to using slurs such as “orc-chitter” and “chickenshit.”
Orcs are not a monolithic group. Sure, they’re slobs, they have B.O., they eat raw meat, and they run around raping and pillaging everything in sight. What culture doesn’t have its idiosyncracies? But that’s no excuse for being culturally insensitive.
And chickens can’t help šhìŧŧìņg. It’s a natural, biological process and it’s time we removed the stigma and let the chickens poop in peace.
Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 02:45 PM
Calling you a white guy is as bad as someone trying to flatten the severity of genocide? Yeah, there’s no bias-denial in flattening the degree of distinction there.
I didn’t flatten the distinction. Not at first, anyway. Initially, I rolled it up into a ball and discovered that it had a consistency similar to Silly Putty. So I flattened it against today’s edition of “Blondie” in the funny papers and lo and behold, it picked up some of the newspaper ink! I then stretched it out, turning Dagwood Bumstead into Mister Fantastic.
Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 08:14 AM
I think I’m going to bed with Jerry.
Well, before our sexual appetites kick in, and after they wane, aren’t we all at least a little bit fággÿ? I can appreciate you not wanting to live in denial anymore, Bill Mulligan.
Mickey, Mickey, Mickey… haven’t we had this talk before? Bill Mulligan is a heterosexual, and even if he wasn’t, he’ll never have feelings for you.
That’s why there’s a restraining order in place: because Bill Mulligan got sick and tired of the unsolicted bouquets of roses, the really bad poetry, and that awful country music song you recorded and sent to him (entitled “I Love You Like I Love My Horse”).
Time to move on, Mickey.
Hi, Bill Myers.
And any of this is my fault, how?
As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, she made her cultural impact playing a 15-year-old high school student. Why make your point with her? Isn’t Marcia Cross or Naomi Watts small and young enough for you?
Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 10:14 AM
And any of this is my fault, how?
Because I’m funnier than you are. 😛 😛 😛 😛
Sigh… this is too easy, though…
Boys, keep this up, and PAD’s going to send you to your rooms without any cookies.
Bobb, I wrote a slightly longer response that got caught in the spam filter. While that’s waiting for approval, let me just say… sorry, everyone. This stuff is detracting from the quality of the conversation, and I will cut it out regardless of what Mike does.
I’ve spent a few minutes trying to understand Mike’s, um, mind view. Now yes, this is several minutes more than it deserves but still. I think I have him figured out. I just had to apply his own brand of logic to him.
First, he’s clearly a white supremacist. The way he tries to link simple hate crimes with genocide, specifically the Holocaust is a dead giveaway, an attempt to minimize the true horror of what happened to the Jews in World War 2. This is standard White Supremacist behavior.
His claim that he is only being attacked by defensive white guys is just a distraction from his true motives. Note though how he is making broad racial generalizations–classic WS. Pardon me, Mike, but your sheet is showing.
And his taking a playful comment and turning it into a gay bashing insult? And references to pulling things out of his ášš? Well, we know how homophobic these extremist types can be and, while the topic of Mikes own confused feelings is a dark scary place best avoided, I note that people who do such things are often reflecting their own struggles. Perhaps he should give the Rev.Ted Haggard a call.
“Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 08:25 PM
I think I’m going to bed with Jerry.”
Huh… Well, that WOULD explain why the mattress felt so dámņ lumpy last night.
Because I’m funnier than you are.
Whoop de frikken hoo. Right off the top of my head I can come up with 10 things funnier than our Mike:
1. Carrot Top
2. Homeboys in Space
3. Any of the jokes in those awful “101 Pickle Jokes” type books that you get kids right before a long trip and then end up throwing out the window when it turns out that every punchline in some play on the word “pickle”. “What’s green and flies through the air? Super-pickle!” By that point you’re looking for a concrete bridge to drive straight into.
4. Any National Lampoon movie since Vacation.
5. Richard “Ðìçk” Cheney
6. John “Ðìçk” Kerry
7. Thanksgiving at the Haggard house this year.
8. Kids who sign out to go to the bathroom with names like “Phil McCracken” and “Hugh G. Rection”
9. Over-fishing may cause the total collapse of the ocean ecosystem by 2050. Admitedly, he almost beat that one. It was close.
10. The screenplay for Man Of The Year.
Let’s set the bar just a bit higher, my friend.
You mean this?
You heard it here, folks. Genocide is a simple hate crime.
Please cite the gay-bashing insult, Senator Allen.
Bill Mulligan — yes, I’m well aware that I’ve allowed my posts to degenerate into infantile nonsense, and that out-snarking Mike is no feather in my cap.
When I said I was sorry in my prior post, I meant it. If it helps, I’ll be more explicit: I was being just as much of a troll as Mike, and I apologize for that.
Bill Myers –
I continue to call myself a liberal but really, it’s hard to know if the label fits anymore.
Oh, I run into fun problems all the time because of my views (and not just because of how I argue them).
I identify myself as a liberal, but I’m registered independent. Of course, this just usually means, to conservatives, that I must vote Democrat.
Yet, while I am certainly socially liberal, I consider myself econmically conservative: I want the money the government already takes from us to be spent more wisely, I want to reduce the deficeit and balance the budget.
Yet, as soon as I say anything that supports a liberal POV, I’m branded as a liberal.
I’ve talked to far too many conservatives who will vote Republican without even looking at the ballot, or refuse to vote Democrat, regardless of who’s running. And, yes, that means they would vote for a Foley just because he’s a Republican, no matter what he’s done.
And it just gives you further proof that our two-party system is a complete failure right now, because it attempts to force people into simple labels which are then used against you.
It isn’t that simple, it never has been, never will be. But that won’t stop the neocons (who I’m probably more conservative than, overall) from making you feel dumb for voting against them. 🙂
Craig J. Ries, I forgot to mention: I will pray that your brother remains safe and comes home alive and unharmed.
I understand that your family is having trouble making sense of his decision to enlist. I don’t know you and I don’t know your family, but I can tell you that one of my uncles was drafted into the army during the Vietnam war. He did his compulsory one year tour of duty, and then volunteered for another. I don’t know why he volunteered for the second one. I can only say that he came back disillusioned and embittered.
But I will not call him “stupid.”
By the way, my uncle threw away his medals. His disgust was expressed in a manner far less public than Kerry’s, but I believe they both share one thing in common: they both saw combat. Many of Kerry’s critics have not.
I don’t believe those who have seen combat are above any and all criticism. But when I see us giving the benefit of the doubt to those who paid lip service to the need to fight this war or that, while dodging combat duty themselves; and I simultaneously see us piling on an actual combat veteran; well, I think we’re in an upside-down world.
“It’s funny. On the one hand, liberals and conservatives tend to look down on me because I haven’t “picked a side.” “
Well, welcome to the human race. ;p
I catch that crap all the time. I refuse to take a party affiliation because my beliefs are based on a topic by topic decision and not a party line. The result is my getting called both a flaming lib and a cold hearted conservative by various co-workers who are a bit more politically extreme. Often within a few hours of each other.
I think it has something to do, these days, with Bush being made the Gold Standard for judging your position by the people in the ideological extremes. Hëll, most people here often tag me as a lib because most of PAD’s threads are about Bush or the utter insanity and failure of the Bush plan for Iraq. Some of them tend to forget that they themselves have tagged me in other threads as a conservative when talking about things like Sharpton, Kanye (SP?) West, race in general, gun control or the complete derailing of the mental faculties many on the left went through over the Cheney hunting accident among other things.
I think their need to tag someone with a label that they can rip apart says more about them then it does you or I. I also tend to think that it’s easier for many to demonize or generalize an ideology or a group as a whole then it is to take on someone over a specific point of argument. Desperate generalizations also gives them a great backdoor escape for when they have realized that they don’t have a logical or rational argument or when they’ve gotten argued into a corner.
“There’s no point in trying to explain this to you. You liberals just don’t understand the situation or the stakes.”
“You conservatives are just cold hearted. There’s no point trying to explain it to someone who’s only out for what they can get out of life and doesn’t care about anyone else.”
“You’re not worth wasting anymore breath on. If you undecideds are so mindless that you can’t pick a side or that you think you should be “open” to “intellectual debate” that allows yourselves to be swayed from your beliefs then you have no spine, no beliefs and you aren’t worth the effort to debate.”
I love it when I hear one of those statements or a variation of them. I can really tick off the other person by thanking them for conceding the argument and, when they look at me with a confused look, explain to them that it’s the statement made when someone is trapped in the debate and knows that they’ve lost. Ticks ’em off so bad because they know it’s the truth.
It’s probably why I like PAD’s site so much. You rarely run into those phrases here, they’re even more rarely meant here in the way that they are meant out in the surreal world, most people are polite and we rarely have more then one insane debater on the site at any one time. That, and most the people here are far more creative and far better at deflating my hot air when it needs it.
🙂
Bill Myers, you’d have a long way to go before you even approach Mike’s trollishness. Trollocity. Whatever.
lease cite the gay-bashing insult, Senator Allen.
My pleasure, former Representative Foley. Your use of the word “Fággÿ” indicates a level of discomfort with gay and lesbian people. Whether this is from an intolerant upbringing or from self loathing only you can say.
Plus, of course, no matter how much you pretend otherwise, it’s clear that you are trying to call me gay as a way of insulting me. I’m not gay but I’m also not in any way bothered by being called that by a person of your caliber. That sort of “insult” was mostly effective in middle school and is still popular among the less acomplished members of the high School environment (which perhaps provides a clue as to where you’re coming from, Mike)
Oh, now we will hear the denials. But you aren’t fooling anyone here. You’re out of your league. Grow up a little and maybe you can come back to the Big Boy’s table without dribbling gravy on your shirt.
I think their need to tag someone with a label that they can rip apart says more about them then it does you or I. I also tend to think that it’s easier for many to demonize or generalize an ideology or a group as a whole then it is to take on someone over a specific point of argument
This is just Political Correctness, in its purest, most virulent form.
I find it highly ironic that people are still identifying this as solely the provence of liberals when the current administration is such a strong example of prizing ideology over experience and expertise in New Orleans, Iraq and NASA.
I love it when I hear one of those statements or a variation of them.
You only say this because you cold-hearted liberals are only in it for other people! …or something like that…