So let’s see where we stand. In recent Republican debates, we have seen audiences cheer for the prospect of a young uninsured man dying in a coma. We have seen audiences cheer the high rate of people being executed in Texas. And we have seen them boo a soldier on duty because the soldier could now be openly gay.
Here’s the question: Is compassionate conservatism dead? Or was it, like other Bush creations as WMDs in Iraq, something that never existed in the first place?
PAD
• 
I think there are conservatives out there who are of sound mind and heart who truly believe their approach to governing is compassionate. I would be hard pressed to count any of the current high-profile Republicans among them.
C’mon, this post is just stupid.
A dozen or so people clap for the death penalty. Obviously that means every Republican cheers death.
Reportedly one person boos (http://bit.ly/orXhp4) and suddenly all Republicans hate gays. Let’s ask Ðìçk Cheney if he hates gays… no one is more Republican than him, right?
I’m certain I could find a dozen (or more people) in just about any crowd who would cheer or boo all manner of things that “right thinking” people like Peter David would find disgusting. Is it really fair to paint an entire group based on the actions of a few?
If it is, let me know. I have some choice conclusions to jump to based on the actions of a few Democrats.
No, this post is right on the money.
.
And you know what’s worse than the idiots in the crowd doing those things? The idiots on stage who said NOTHING about it.
.
Just like all the booing and whatnot of Obama during the presidential campaign, and the fact that it took McCain far too long to stay “Ok, this is silly. Stop it”.
.
The GOP has fanned these flames over the years, and then they wonder why their party has been pushed to the far-right fringe.
The biggest mouth gets the most votes. So it makes sense that the more ridiculous the candidate, the more traction they’d get.
I mean, some people still believe Palin has a legitimate shot.
Conservatives have allowed those who at one time were radical fringe dwellers, shunned by society who you found under rocks take over their movement. And the average conservative who you think is really not much different than you are cheering them on or turning a blind eye. I got conservative friends who 20 years ago had no problem with social security and even would say what a benefit it was to the masses, getting in my face that I’m a welfare queen and thief of their personal riches. I have ended decades old friendships with people who were conservative when we met, because today they are radicals I don’t even recognize from 3 years ago. People who once thought Ayn Rand a crappy science fiction writer are now spewing passages of Atlas Shrugged at me verbatim, as if it was reality.
It is my fear we are seeing in this country a radicalization of the conservative movement similar to the raise of Nazis or Taliban or Communism where once shunned and abhorred ideals are not only accepted by embraced by the larger population.
Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who is liberal leaning, about medicare. He literally told me that at 45 he hasn’t succeeded in getting rich and won’t have much at retirement so really when he reaches 60 he has no right to medical care that he doesn’t pay for and if he can’t pay for it he should go die… I was left flabbergasted, this was coming from a liberal leaning moderate.
I really do fear where we are going to be in 10 years if the fringe elements are shaken out of the conservative movement and I don’t see them being removed but digging their claws in deeper. Look at Wiener’s old seat,last week a liberal district voted in a radical teabagger!
“Look at Wiener’s old seat,last week a liberal district voted in a radical teabagger!”
.
Gee, you think maybe a district that had voted Democratic every Congressional election since 1922 and currently has a 3 to 1 advantage in registered Democrats DIDN’T see the Republican as a “radical teabagger”? You think maybe they thought he was a breath of fresh air and a wakeup call to what they saw as a corruption locally and a chance to sens a message about Obama’s shabby treatment of Israel the past three years? Let’s put it this way: Obama’s strong U.N. speech this past week would have been very different without that election result.
“Shabby treatment”??!?
.
It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.
Lemme explain the spin involved:
.
1) The “young man in a coma” story wasn’t about letting him die. It was about a guy who decided he didn’t need insurance, spent his money on other things, then got sick as hëll and then woke up with a humongous bill — what should be done about the bill? Sure, let’s all suck it up — those fools among us who actually bought our own insurance should also pony up for him, who chose to not spend it that way.
.
2) The cheering was, in my opinion, on two fronts. First, it was a rejection of the biased and slanted question. Second, the guy in question was beating and trying to rob a homeless guy when a cop showed up — and he shot the cop. And then shot him some more to make sure he was dead. My personal sympathies for such a guy is minimal.
.
It’s also worth noting that the very same night he was executed, Texas also put to death one of the guys who dragged James Bird to his death back in the 1990’s. That white supremacist’s execution was given no attention, let alone protests; the cop-killer was almost canonized.
.
Several years ago, I read something that really stuck with me. “If the Palestinians want my sympathy, then every now and then they ought to do something remotely sympathetic.” In both cases, the subjects involved were profoundly unsympathetic.
.
J.
I think you missed the point on number “2.”
The lack of outcry for the white supremacist had more to do with the public’s perception of his guilt than anything else.
.
The “cop killer” wasn’t being “canonized.” The reason his case was making so many headlines was the fact that, though he *was* convicted, there is actually doubt in some quarters as to his factual guilt.
.
From what little I’ve read, in the Troy Davis case, there was no DNA, no weapon found, no video evidence and literally 7 of the 9 original witnesses recanted their testimony.
.
Troy Davis was a cop killer and justice was served! As usual, we only get one side of the story from the media. For example, much has been made of the “recanting witnesses”. “From what little I’ve read, in the Troy Davis case, there was no DNA, no weapon found, no video evidence and literally 7 of the 9 original witnesses recanted their testimony”.
.
this is the talking point that has been brought up by the MSM constantly as a prime source of why Davis should not have been executed and why the act was an outrage.
.
Except there were no recanting witnesses! In some states an affidavit might be accepted if the witness is dead or in a coma, but usually a witness can only legally “recant” testimony under oath in the witness box where the other side can cross-examine them.
Davis could have called any number of “recanting witnesses” to his hearing. He called NONE. That alone should tell you something.
Okay, you know what? I’m actually against the death penalty because I feel it gives government too much power and the very possibility that someone innicent could be executed disturbs me.
.
However, the martyrdom of this convicted cop killer Troy Davis – everyone from Ed Schulz to the NAACP have made this guy out to be Martin Luther King, Jr. – sickens me even more right now. As usual, reporters were too lazy to do their jobs and latched onto the same talking points – all of which are easily refuted.
.
For instance, I’m hearing a lot from people opposed to Troy Davis’s execution that there is no physical evidence in the case — and a whole lot of other hoo-haa.
.
First of all, let’s set out that the case has been going on for twenty years. That’s twenty years for there to be solid evidence to overturn his conviction. It didn’t happen.
.
Second, let’s point out that two witnesses at Davis’s trial testified under oath that Troy Davis admitted to the shooting. I don’t recall that being brought up during the past week at all. If Jerry or someone can correct me on this, please do. It would lessen my feeling that the media dropped the ball in this case.
.
Yes, those witnesses have now, twenty years and much badgering by anti-death penalty advocates later, recanted. A federal judge spent two days reviewing the evidence and the testimony last year and issued a 172 page order explaining why the witnesses recanting was “smoke and mirrors.”
.
Was the fact that the judge used the term “smoke and mirrors” ever brought up this past week?
.
One of the biggest talking points about why this case was unjustis that there was no physical evidence. Except that is total bûllšhìŧ. There is the matter of Troy Davis’s bloody clothes that you’ve probably never heard of.
.
Obviously, the media felt the finding of Troy Davis’s bloody clothes would ruin their martyr narrative. or they’re just lazy and don’t care.
.
There was also the matter of a .38 caliber gun in the case. Both Troy Davis and the man Davis’s team claims in the real murderer, Sylvester Coles, had a .38 caliber gun.
.
Davis’s gun had been used in another shooting and the gun casing were linked between both shootings. Everyone likes to gloss over that. They point out that the man who claimed Davis fired on him has now recanted — yet again 20 years later.
.
But here are some additional facts — if we’re going to deal with things that weren’t in contention twenty years ago.
.
The federal courts and state courts in Georgia have all denied Davis’s appeal. Prior to 2008, Georgia’s Supreme Court was decidedly liberal and even they passed.
.
For the first time in 50 years the United States Supreme Court ordered a federal court to conduct an entire rehearing of all the evidence. The court did and found all the new stuff was, again, “smoke and mirrors,” including the retracted confessions. And while building the case to claim that Sylvester Coles was the real murderer, the defense would not call Coles in for examination.
.
But then there is Officer MacPhail himself and what the defense all too conveniently forgets to bring up. Officer MacPhail “testified” at Troy Davis’s murder trial. See, MacPhail, an Army Ranger and police officer was working a second job that night as a security guard. He chased Davis and Sylvester Coles, who were assaulting a homeless man over a beer.
.
MacPhail reported in that he had run passed Sylvester Coles. MacPhail was shot from the front in the chest and face — not from behind where Coles was, but from the front where MacPhail himself located Troy Davis.
.
And then, if we really want to get into the weeds and talk about facts, consider this fact. Troy Davis immediately became the suspect and fled. Police roped off his house, obtained entry, and searched the home. In the laundry they found Troy Davis’s shorts from that night with evidence on the clothing directly tying him to Officer MacPhail’s murder — Officer MacPhail’s blood. (editorial note: it should be noted that Troy Davis’s shorts were not DNA tested. There were multiple people’s blood on his shorts)
.
According to Darrell Collins, who is now recanting everything or claiming not to remember anything, Davis admitted to Collins that Davis had shot MacPhail in the chest and then went back to shoot MacPhail in the head at close range because MacPhail had seen his face — hence MacPhail’s blood on Davis’s shorts. Oh, and at the time Collins gave his statement way back in 1989 it was not public knowledge that Officer MacPhail had been shot in the chest and then at close range in the face.
.
Another incredibly important bit of info that again did not seem to be reported accurately is that there were actually 34 witnesses, not the 9 as claimed. The defense claims seven witnesses changed their testimony. That’s actually not true! Only two materially changed their testimony and Davis’s attorneys refused to present those two in federal court in 2010 to be examined in the evidentiary hearing even though they sat outside the courtroom door.
.
Among the eyewitnesses were three airmen in the Air Force in a bus who had prime viewing for the murder and all identified Troy Davis as the wearer of the white Batman t-shirt, which is what the murderer wore)
.
Of course, this justice system that is supposedly carried out a travesty of justice ordered Davis’s shorts excluded as evidence from the trial because the police did not get a search warrant.
.
So anti-death penalty advocates can conveniently say there is no physical evidence by discounting the gun, the casings, and ignoring Officer MacPhail’s blood on Troy Davis’s clothes found in Troy Davis’s laundry all because the very same court system that found him guilty without that physical evidence followed the law and excluded it.
.
Troy Davis is a cop killer and I’m perfectly fine with his execution.
Jerome,
.
I couldn’t help but notice that the bulk of your text above was lifted clean from at least a couple of conservative websites that I’ve seen supporting the execution of Troy Davis. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there was necessarily an “agenda” pushing this argument, but in fairness you can find counter arguments on liberal leaning sites that make just as strong a case questioning the validity of the evidence and the initial witness statements, such as this missive from the NAACP’s site:
.
http://www.naacp.org/pages/troy-davis-a-case-for-clemency
.
Neither side may be absolutely valid in their assessments, but it does show that there is a Grand Canyon-sized space for doubt in the guilt of Davis.
Okay, here’s a link to the video with Wolf Blitzer questioning Ron Paul about the hypothetical uninsured man:
.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html
.
Paul did say that the man needed to take responsibiity for his own decisions regarding insurance, but right afterward, Blitzer asked this question:
.
“Are you saying that society should just let him die?”
.
And that’s when several very vocal members of the the audience erupted into cheers and laughter, over the prospect of letting the man die.
.
There’s no spinning that.
.“Are you saying that society should just let .him die?”
..
.And that’s when several very vocal members .of the the audience erupted into cheers and .laughter, over the prospect of letting the .man die.
..
.There’s no spinning that
.
Unless the “spin” is that the audience was cheering that Blitzer put him on the spot with the question. (I’m not saying this is what happened, but that is how I *might* try to spin it.
Oh, and I can’t let this one go by: US Troops found rather substantial stockpiles of mustard gas in Iraq after the invasion.
.
This was revealed in Wikileaks, of all places.
.
And that’s just one example.
.
J.
Amazing how the definition of ‘mass destruction’ has changed. Time was, it was a big ka-boom, or something else which DESTROYS on a large scale. Mustard gas doesn’t destroy anything, save parts of people. By that logic, a minigun with ample belts of ammunition is a weapon of mass destruction. Aim it as a big crowd, hose people down and you’ll likely kill as many as the gas would, all the while also doing more property damage.
Actually, no. The definition of “weapons of mass destruction” always had a nice, simple, specific definition. NBC: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Or, as Tom Clancy once put it, a nuke is a bug is a gas.
.
In that definition, which was the US policy for decades and internationally accepted, mustard gas — a chemical weapon — was absolutely a weapon of mass destruction.
.
It’s only in recent years that things like car bombs have been lumped into the WMD category, which bugs me, but poison gas has and always been a WMD.
.
J.
Amazing how the definition of ‘mass destruction’ has changed
.
Well, why the heck not? All the other definitions regarding Iraq, ranging from the goals to what constituted victory, kept changing. So why not shift that as well?
.
“We need to bomb the living crap out of Iraq because we think they might have mustard gas.” Yeah. That would’ve flown.
.
PAD
.
PAD: “Well, why the heck not? All the other definitions regarding Iraq, ranging from the goals to what constituted victory, kept changing.”
.
Yeah. My personal favorite rewriting of word meanings happened a few years ago when Rice was doing an interview where she explained that Iraq, even with what we all knew by then, was still an “imminent threat” to us when we went on because an “imminent threat” was defined as a combination of you believing that some country could one day be strong enough to threaten you and at the time of that determination you had the ability to deal with that threat before it reached that stage.
.
Made me wonder when we might declare Ethiopia an “imminent threat” to our security.
Keep spinning, Jay, but Condi and the rest of Team Dubya were spending their time frightening the American public with images of NUCLEAR WEAPONS being delivered by Saddam’s missiles.
.
How the hëll you can equate that with “mustard gas” is absolute right-wing desperation to vindicate Dubya.
.
But, I’ve got a better argument (that, for some reason, is never answered by the war-boosters and chicken hawks): Why, if Saddam was really sitting on vast supplies of WMDs, did he NOT use those against those American troops who were invading his country? As much as the right-wing likes to paint Saddam as an idiot, the man was utterly ruthless towards his enemies and had no trouble unleashing chemical and biological weapons on them WHEN HE HAD THEM. (By the way, it’s worth noting that no one denied he’d ever had WMDs–most had been supplied by Uncle Sam during the 1980s when Saddam was “our guy” against the Iranian mullahs.)
The evidence I have seen does not support the claim that the USA supplied most of the WMDs that Saddam had at his disposal. Sources?
.
There is evidence that USA sources did supply biological agents to Iraq but the WMDs that were actually used by Saddam were chemical weapons. From wikipedia–“Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gases to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gases to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gases. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.”
.
It’s a popular meme to claim the USA gave iraq all or most of its WMD, just as it’s claimed that the USA created and armed the taliban. the facts are not on that side, from what I’ve seen.
Let me put this kindly, Joseph: grow up and get a clue. Borrow the money to buy some, if necessary.
.
The definition of “weapons of mass destruction” has meant “nuclear, biological, or chemical” for decades. The only significant change was in the addition of “radiological” — “dirty bombs,” weapons that used radioactive material not to explode, but to contaminate.
.
It probably escaped your apparently extremely shabby education, but Saddam had a very lengthy history of using poison gases against his enemies — both against Iran and the Kurds. And folks had no problems calling those WMDs at the time.
.
He didn’t use them in the war for the very same reason Hitler didn’t use his: we made it exceptionally clear that we weould retaliate far in excess of the provocation. Further, US troops are probably the best-prepared for resisting chemical attacks in the world.
.
As far as “the US supplied Saddam with his WMDs,” again you’ve swallowed whole stupid leftist talking points. The biological samples we sold him were utterly unfit for weaponizing, but only useful for medical uses.
.
Also, I don’t recall ANYONE ever talking about Saddam hitting the US with missiles. He had much simpler ways of delivering such weapons — it’s called a “cargo container.” Stick the bomb in one, toss it on a freighter, and sail it right into New York. But he certainly did have missile technology that could be used to deliver WMDs — he used it to fire missiles into Israel (clear across Jordan) in the first Gulf War. And everyone at the time was surprised that those missiles weren’t carrying poison gas.
.
Now here’s where I’m going to talk above your apparent ability to understand, and explain to the other readers why Saddam played his little bluff: Iran.
.
Saddam was running a huge bluff. He wanted Iran to think he did have WMDs, to keep them from getting too aggressive on his border. He believed that that was the only way to keep Iran from attacking.
.
On the other hand, while he needed Iran to believe he did have WMDs, he needed the rest of the world (mainly the US) to believe he didn’t. So he did what he could to keep both sides guessing and uncertain, trying to balance the “does he or doesn’t he” game to the best of his ability.
.
He made two big mistakes. First, he accidentally convinced the US that his position towards Iran was the correct one. Second, he didn’t fully comply with the terms of his 1991 surrender regarding the full, documented destruction of his WMD stocks and inspections.
.
Learn to think and read for yourself, Joseph. Just parroting idiotic talking points like “Bush lied, people died” and “Saddam was innocent” and all that other crap makes you look… well, like you are what you are.
.
J.
Napalm is a chemical. It can ruin your neighbourhood. And doesn’t only kill people as poison gas does. That would indeed qualify as mass destruction.
.
“Learn to think and read for yourself, Joseph. Just parroting idiotic talking points “
.
Never has a line been made more ironic and comical simply by source of its writing.
Sigh… Starwolf, a “chemical weapon” is defined as “a weapon that kills or injures through a chemical process other than combustion.” So no, napalm isn’t a chemical weapon. Neither is gunpowder or dynamite.
.
J.
.
Oh, by the way, Jay. Your Wikileaks revelation is not only laughable, but it displays why you telling anyone else think for themselves or that they need to stop parroting idiot talking points is the height of seeing the pot call the kettle black.
.
The Right Wing went nuts when they found their little “revelation” about mustard gas” in the Wikileaks dump and ran around like they just learned something new. The thing is, it was neither new nor relevant.
.
The Wikileaks “revelation” of the Right was old news. It was covered by the media back in 2004 when the stuff was actually first found. It was gas that was meant to be destroyed fully and wasn’t. It was old, it was kept in a disused storage area, it was stored completely improperly and the result was that the Iraqi Survey Group and others concluded the mustard gas was ineffective. And, again, this is old news.
.
It was the equivalent of finding in a rotted out tree stump grandpa’s old revolver that he lost years ago, discovering that it’s so rusted that the trigger can’t even be pulled and then trying to use it to declare that grandpa is arming himself to go on a shooting spree. But the professional Right Wing punditry figured that this old news made new by Wikileaks would be a great idiotic talking point that they could count on the blind faithful to go out and parrot it rather than researching it or thinking for themselves.
.
And here we are less than a year later with you proving them right. Your comedy value never gets old, Jay.
Jay, perhaps you should your own advice before offering to others.
.
The fact remains that Condoleeza Rice herself raised the specter of a NUCLEAR ATTACK BY IRAQ USING IRAQI SCUD MISSILES if the US didn’t stop Saddam. All your conservative spin does NOT change the fact that THERE WERE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAQ. Your spin also does not change the fact that Dubya and his cabal DELIBERATELY chose to switch targets (from Osama to Saddam) based on much bûllšhìŧ–áš well as a little PERSONAL revenge.
.
Did you miss Dubya’s little press conference where he decided to look for those Iraqi WMDs in the Oval Office, making a fûçkìņg joke while OUR troops were being put in harm’s way? Or have you figured some way to put a conservative spin on that little “joke?”
.
For what it’s worth, from now on, if I want any advice from you, Jay, I’ll tell you what to say. Otherwise, you can take your advice and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Better yet, just STFU.
.
I can’t believe I missed this before. This is brilliant! Jay, you are in fact exactly what I said you were before; pure comedy gold.
.
Here you are trying to pull off the, for you, difficult trick of simultaneously being insulting to others and also trying to come off as the smartest guy in the conversation. Well, the “being insulting” part is easy for you, it’s just the “smartest guy in the conversation” bit that’s tricky for you since, as you’ve so often shown, you can only think and write in predigested talking points that you’ve been spoon fed by others. But, man, did you easily pull of here making yourself the source of comedy gold that you are.
.
Jay Tea: “Now here’s where I’m going to talk above your apparent ability to understand, and explain to the other readers why Saddam played his little bluff: Iran.
.
Saddam was running a huge bluff. He wanted Iran to think he did have WMDs, to keep them from getting too aggressive on his border. He believed that that was the only way to keep Iran from attacking.
.
On the other hand, while he needed Iran to believe he did have WMDs, he needed the rest of the world (mainly the US) to believe he didn’t. So he did what he could to keep both sides guessing and uncertain, trying to balance the “does he or doesn’t he” game to the best of his ability.”
.
You really aren’t smart enough to comprehend when you’re using a talking point for argument “B” that undercuts the argument that you were making for argument “A” a few moments earlier. You just know the talking points that you’ve studied for various arguments and then just regurgitate them on demand without even realizing when they contradict one another.
.
So here you are trying to declare that Saddam had those WMDs that Bush said he had. Here you are on top of that trying to explain that Saddam had them but didn’t use them on the invading forces coming to take him out for fear that would would then take him out for using them. And then, master stroke, you get really insulting, try to pretend that you’re smart and shoot yourself in the foot with the above quote.
.
You declare that Saddam was trying to bluff Iran into believing that he had WMDs.
.
I know you live in a world of conservative blogs, Fox News “news” reporting and the dumbed down standards of Wizbang and thus don’t understand that words have meanings that are clearly defined and recognized by others, but this is comical even for you. You just made the centerpiece in your argument that Saddam had WMDs at the ready to use the idea that he was bluffing about the existence of them to fool Iran.
.
Jay, if someone is trying to bluff about the cards they have in their hands, that means they have nothing. You just made the centerpiece in your proposition that Saddam had WMDs and the centerpiece for your ability to insult others about thinking for themselves and not repeating idiotic talking points the argument that Saddam had nothing. And why? Because, as you’ve shown so often before, you can’t function in discussions like this without simply regurgitating idiotic talking points that you’ve been fed elsewhere and you can’t think for yourself long enough to figure out when one of those talking points completely undercuts the other talking points you so love.
.
Pure comedy gold.
.
“Did you miss Dubya’s little press conference where he decided to look for those Iraqi WMDs in the Oval Office, making a fûçkìņg joke while OUR troops were being put in harm’s way? Or have you figured some way to put a conservative spin on that little “joke?””
.
That was actually the Radio & Television Correspondents Association Dinner. But, yeah, that was a wonderful sight. Bush, the guy we’re now told was in touch with the pulse of America and sensitive to the war dead in a way that Obama can’t be for playing golf, cracking jokes about maybe finally finding those pesky WMDs in the Oval Office or down the street at the Chinese take-out place. But he did show some level of good taste I suppose. He only told those jokes while the numbers of our war dead was still under 3,000. I’m sure he would have felt that renowned sensitivity for the dead and the families of the dead and never joked about that if we’d hit 3,000 dead soldiers.
Well, I’m glad that mustard gas alone makes the deaths of over 4000 American troops (not to mention other troops, Iraqis, etc), as well as the spending countless billions of dollars, worth it.
.
Excuse me while I go find a bucket to puke in while you cheer that, Jay Tea.
JosephW,
Bush did not “switch targets”. I repeat, he did not “switch targets”.
.
I am currently doing a project I can’t fully disclose yet, but it has required a lot of research. Look at the full Bush video where he is condemned for “not thinking about him much”. It is clear it is because he did not think he was as powerful as he had been before the invasion of AFGHANISTAN.He made it clear there was still an effort to capture him, but did not want to give him too much importance, especially since his base of operations in AFGHANISTAN had been destroyed and he was “on the run”. adding, “We’ll get him eventually.”
.
So Bush decided a rogue nation with a leader who could conceivable sell WMD to terrorists was more of a threat than a much-weakened Bin Laden.
.
And even with all that, there were plenty of skirmishes in 2004 with us trying to kill Bin laden and that killed a lot of Al Qaeda in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, that happened and that few know about because…well, the purpose of the missions was not to draw attention.
Bush did not “switch targets”. I repeat, he did not “switch targets”.
.
Well, thank God you repeated it. I mean, the first time you said it, I thought, “Is he high?” But since you took the time to repeat it, I’m convinced. I repeat: I’m convinced. Because when you repeat it, it must be true. The Bush administration proved that.
.
PAD
Jay, the cheering alluded to was to the statistic that 294 people were executed in Texas during Perry’s relatively brief time as governor.
.
Were they all multiple-murdering cop-killers?
Not only am I pretty sure that they weren’t, but I’ll wager some of them didn’t even commit the crimes they were executed for.
.
PAD
Not be an ášš, Peter, but that’s what the appeals process is for.
Is it too lengthy? Yes. Is it flawed? Sure is. I personally believe that there should be a five year limit on death penalty appeals, because sitting in a High Max cell for 20 years waiting for appeal after appeal is not only a waste of tax payer dollars (which, y’know, could go to schools, in a perfect world), but it’s effectively a Life Sentence anyway (most states identify a Life Sentence as 20 years, I know Georgia does). A Life Sentence, y’know, with that whole killing you thing at the end.
20 years for an appeal and it’s repeatedly shot down? Either there was a mass conspiracy, from the highest court in the land all the way down to the eyewitnesses, intent on taking the life of some loser from Chatham County… or there was no substance to the appeal.
Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, letting a man rot for at least 20 years before killing him is wasteful, inefficient, and inhumane. If you, as a society, commit to killing those you find guilty of particular crimes, then do it quicker. Don’t draw it out, and then proclaim justice was done. Do it and be done with it. There are children, the disabled, the disadvantaged, or even, you know, other convicts (for, gasp! rehabilitative programs, usually one of the first things to be cut during budget crises) who could use the money.
Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, letting a man rot for at least 20 years before killing him is wasteful, inefficient, and inhumane.
.
No, sending a lethal cocktail through his veins is inhumane. Sending electricity surging through his body is inhumane. A sentence which is frequently applied along racial and poverty lines is inhumane. Sending an innocent man, any innocent man to his death, is inhumane.
.
If someone wants to fight for his life for twenty years, that’s called “hope.”
.
The death penalty is a lose/lose scenario. On the one hand, the state shouldn’t be in the murder business. On the other hand, even a single person executed for something he didn’t do is horrific.
.
PAD
Well, that’s supposing that the person didn’t do the crime.
Really? How does “the state shouldn’t be in the murder business” involve supposing the person did the crime?
.
Either you believe murder is wrong under any circumstance or you don’t.
.
And please, just in case it occurs to you, don’t drag soldiers and cops into this. Don’t waste my time with the “So soldiers are murderers?” “So cops are murderers!” wheeze.
.
PAD
Sorry, Peter, been a soldier and am in law enforcement. I know the difference.
You are fixated on the possibility that innocent people are executed. That’s true. It happens.
So let’s suppose that we simply go ahead and sentence them to Life in Prison instead.
We have some problems with this –
– Who, exactly, is going to pay for it? Granted, this isn’t a new problem, and keeping inmates on Death Row is prohibitively expensive thanks to long, drawn out appeals processes. Is it more of a moral imperative to spend money on incarcerating a murderer for the rest of his life than to take that money and not lay off teachers or public safety personnel? Now we both know that this is a pie in the sky dream, more likely, the money is going for my corrupt governor’s sex toy secretary to get a lucrative consulting job, but the point remains.
– Who is going to watch them? Oh, is it humane to let them live in the genuinely fûçkëd up environment that prison is? Is it humane to inflict a Lifer on other inmates, officers, staff like counselors, mental health counselors, volunteers, etc? We can lock them up, let them live, but what about the rights of those around him? Is my life worth less because of a murderer’s civil rights? Are his civil rights worth more than me getting a shiv stuck in my gut, or anyone else’s, for that matter?
– Where are we going to put them? Who is going to work these prisons filled with convicted murderers? I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but not everyone is clamoring to work inside of such an environment. We are not well-paid, not respected, and have to work with the worst that our respective states have to offer.
I’m aware that you feel strongly about this, so there’s no changing your mind.
I’m against the death penalty for much the same reasons Jerome stated: I don’t want the state having that power. It has been abused in the past. I’ve seen how competently they handle my money, I have no desire to give them the same opportunity with my life. I can always make more money.
.
I won’t argue against it on moral grounds since I would do anything within my power to punish, harm and possibly kill anyone who did to my family some of the things that prisoners on death row have done. So it would be hypocritical for me to go the “every life is sacred route.” I don’t believe that. I was happy Bin Laden got the double tap. Conversely, I feel sad that Pol Pot died in his sleep. (On cheerier note, it might have been suicide).
.
There are just a few circumstances where I could see a justification for the death penalty:
.
1- Killing hostages. That would give the cops something to bargain with. Otherwise, why not shoot them all and walk out smiling? If I’m being held at gunpoint I’d feel a lot better if I know that the gunman feels he has something to lose by shooting me.
.
2- Killing a cop. same thing–if a criminal sees a cop approaching his car and knows he has enough cocaine to be put away fro life what’s the incentive NOT to start shooting?
.
3- Killing prisoners or guards in prison. Again, what’s the incentive NOT to kill people if you are already a 3 consecutive lifer?
.
4- possibly rape/murders and kidnap/murders, for the same reasons as #1.
.
Conversely, if we overuse the death penalty, executing people who committed crimes of passion or armed robberies gone bad, we sort of encourage more killing. If a guy has shot his wife and feels he’s getting the chair why NOT go out in a blaze of glory with the police? To be a deterrent it has to be used sparingly and in specific circumstances.
.
the other advantage of limiting it to some of the above circumstances is that it removes pretty much any chance of executing the innocent. It’s pretty hard to be falsely accused of robbing a bank, holding 20 people hostage, and calmly shooting each in the back of the head before the tear gas takes you down. Two guys in a cell and one of them ends up with his skull caved in so far with a toilet seat lid that they need dental work to ID him…you don’t need Quincy for that one.
.
Hmmm, one other possible category–terrorists whose continued incarceration might encourage their followers to stage annual hostage dramas to buy their freedom. That one’s a bit dicey though. Better to keep them alive, squeeze as much info out of them as possible and if they don’t talk let it leak out that they were singing like canaries. Every time one of their comrades wakes up to the sound of a drone missile hitting the roof make sure the papers report that our prisoner gave us the address, work schedule and his aol password.
.
One thing I think everyone on both sides should (but won;t) agree on–there should be some commission whose sole purpose is to evaluate death penalty sentences and have the power to commute them to life in prison, no chance of parole if they don;t reach an even higher standard than conviction. Like there has to be photographic evidence or absolutely incontrovertible physical evidence. Just having eyewitnesses or even a confession can’t be enough.
.
Sam: “Who, exactly, is going to pay for it?”
.
The same people who pay for the, now quite often in most states, more expensive executions. They’d just pay less in the long run.
It saddens me, Sam, that you apparently seem to see cold blooded, state-mandated murder as simply a matter of practicality.
.
PAD
Whenever I read americans defending death penalty on the basis that it sure stops criminals from doing more harm I wonder if they ever took a look at other countries and a good look at their own’s
.
I won’t argue against it on moral grounds since I would do anything within my power to punish, harm and possibly kill anyone who did to my family some of the things that prisoners on death row have done.
.
So? So would I.
.
It’s the question that sank Dukakis: So you’re anti death penalty? What if someone raped and murdered your wife? What would your response be? Would you want to see him executed?
.
Hëll, no. I’d want to do it myself. I’d inject him without hesitation. I’d flip the switch on the electric chair. Hëll, give me fifteen minutes alone with him tied down to a table so he can feel helpless, and me with a baseball bat in my hands, and I’ll beat him to death and leave whistling a happy tune with a clear conscience.
.
That’s what I’d want to do.
.
But I shouldn’t be allowed to do so, if for no other reason than that, in a civilized society, simply wanting to do something isn’t necessarily sufficient reason TO do it.
.
And none of this digression, none of this diversion or endless belaboring of a topic that the two sides are never going to agree upon is going to change this simple fact: an audience of people cheering a sizable number of executions is appalling and a singular display of inhumanity. And it came from the right and the Tea Party. And not all of the spin is going to change that fact.
.
PAD
I wonder if they ever took a look at other countries and a good look at their own’s
.
I wouldn’t bet on it.
.
For example, an unfortunate number of people in this country are flat out high and mighty about the USA. To look at another country for guidance on *anything* would be un-American.
.
And while being pro-death penalty is not quite of a right-leaning position in this country as others, there’s a lot of crossover with pro-gun (some of whom want guns in the hands of every man, woman, and child as a “deterrent” against violence), or pro-life (where they can rationalize who gets to live and die).
PAD, your death-penalty comment, “the state should not be in the murder business,” rings a bit hollow, since you’ve made it clear in the past you are “pro choice” — which some perfectly rational and scientific people would argue is a nice way of saying “state-sanctioned murder.”
.
R. Maheras, least it be forgotten, I’ve argued for the death penalty here an several occasions. I’m not coming from this from the same POV that Peter has.
.
Your comment just doesn’t hold water. While abortion is not outlawed by the state, it is not carried out by the state either. It is a medical procedure carried out by a doctor. An execution of a convicted criminal is an act carried out by actual state itself as an act of a state’s legal system. The people involved are not a part of a private practice that is required to license through the state, but actual employees of the state carrying out the death sentence.
.
Spin and twist the two concepts as much as you want to, but they’re not the same.
Jerry, I said “state-sanctioned” because that’s exactly what abortion is. It’s state-sanctioned, with very specific rules and laws. I didn’t spin anything. In the case of an execution, does it matter if the executioner is a state employee or not? And in the case of execution by lethal injection, do you even know if the average medical person administering the serum is a state employee or a contractor? In this day and age of outsourcing, the doctor in charge may very well NOT be a state employee. Still, either way it’s still state-sanctioned murder.
I live in another country (Brazil), and I envy the US.
.
I am so sick and tired of seeing murderers walking after 6 years for good behaviour, and 16-year old rapists/torturers serving 3 years on juvvie jail and walking.
.
This is one of the few positions that I am very much not a liberal. I think it’s more heartless and less compassionate when you’re merciful to a murderer. Usually the families of the victims of murderers that get off lightly have stories of depression, suicide, divorce. Is that compassion?
.
It’s a whole family that gets destroyed when a murderer gets off lightly.
.
Not to mention the social unrest that it causes. Cops and even civilians are encouraged to act as vigilantes when the state is too lenient.
.
We don’t have the death penalty in Brazil, and we have a LOT of laws designed to respect the civil rights of prisoners (very lenient good behaviour laws, max of 30 years in prison no matter what, etc., pratically immunity to minors).
.
And what is the result? Plenty of cops shooting criminals in suspicious circunstances that that a majority of citizens approve of. Violence in the big cities. A feeling of despair and lack of protection.
.
And I’m sorry, but I am really very skeptical about “recovery” for people who have crossed the line and taken a life for petty, selfish reasons. Same for other similar, hideous crimes like rape and kidnapping.
.
“Jerry, I said “state-sanctioned” because that’s exactly what abortion is. It’s state-sanctioned, with very specific rules and laws.”
.
Well, using the blanket term you’re using it as, everything is “state sanctioned.”
.
Any medical service requires very specific rules and laws. Driving involves very specific rules and laws. Fast food service sales requires very specific rules and laws. Sales of commercial goods and services through a major corporation require specific rules and laws.
.
Was my annual checkup a “state sanctioned” checkup? Is a cheeseburger happy meal a “state sanctioned” meal? Was that three ring binder some kid picked up for back to school the other week at his local Walmart a “state sanctioned” notebook? Was the Twinkie my coworker got from the office vending machine and so happily scarfed down the other night a “state sanctioned” Twinkie?
.
There are a lot of things that we deal with every hour of every day that have very specific rules and laws governing them that have been set down by both the state and federal governments. They are not all, in the way you’re trying to blanket define the term, “state sanctioned” activities.
.
There are any number of things that the state has looked at and determined that it is not the place of the state to make a moral judgement call on, but, so that society can still function properly and smoothly with the least amount of conflict popping up over how some things are used, sold or done, laws are written to regulate sales, uses and time frames of activities. That is what governments are suppose to do in some cases. They regulate and define how and when some things can be used/done/whatever so as not to have anything goes chaos. That does not automatically mean that the “state” endorses, approves or would actively promote an activity or item.
.
Abortion is a medical service. It is a transaction that is conducted between a private citizen and a private practice physician. But because it is a medical service, it does go through the legal regulation and legal standards as set down by a state government. That however, makes it no more “state-sanctioned” than my gyro dinner the other night was.
.
A “state-sanctioned” execution is one ordered by and carried out by the state and on a subject who, odds will get you, isn’t really wanting it done to them. It is not a voluntary procedure done by a private citizen who engages the services of a private practice physician. To equate the two is both simplistic and idiotic.
Jerry — I’d say abortion is a tad bit more serious a legislative issue than the gyro dinner you ate last night. And classifying abortion as merely a “medical procedure” — as if someone was having some benign polyp removed — is far more callous an attitude towards human life, numbers-wise, than that of someone who supports the death penalty.
.
Emergency open heart surgery is fairly serious. I would call it just a medical procedure. Food regulation is also pretty serious. Without it, that gyro dinner could be part of a serious of food poisoning cases that kill a hundred people.
.
To write off such regulation as so trivial shows such a callous disregard on your part for your fellow human beings and their health, welfare and life.
Seriously, Russ? You’re going to drag a woman’s right to choose into this?
.
Yeah, not playing that game.
.
PAD
.
And, R. Maheras, no matter how you wish to spin it, one fact does not change and that fact pretty much invalidates what you’re trying to spin up here. Abortion is not an action ordered by or performed by the state. The carrying out of the death penalty is an action ordered by and performed by the state.
.
You are trying to say that something that the state merely regulates as a matter of public health is the same as an action that the state is empowered to perform itself and does so on a fairly regular basis insofar as how the state is involved in the act. They are not the same, they do not equate in the least.
.
Nothing you say and no amount of spinning will change that.
Abortion and the death penalty are alike in two respects:
– They’re both extremely unpleasant.
– They’re both necessary sometimes.
I think Rene put it best. Trivializing abortion, or avoiding discussions about it, is a cop-out. Despite all of the countless stories I’ve read about the issue, and despite the countless discussions about abortion I’ve had with people — including women who have had to go through the decision-making process first-hand, I’ve never been able to cavalierly rationalize abortion down to simply being a woman’s right to choose. That said, I understand that sometimes, abortion is necessary. But from a moral standpoint, state-sanctioned abortion (irrespective of who does it) is fundamentally no different than any other form of state-sanctioned killing, be it a criminal execution, a person’s right to kill someone in self-defense, martial law shoot-to-kill orders during a crisis, euthanasia, a soldier’s right to kill during wartime, etcetera. And all I’m saying is that if you are morally OK with one form of state-santioned killing, then you should be morally OK with them all.
In Canada, we abolished the death penalty in 1976. Since then, the murder rate has dropped consistently, several people unfairly convicted have been released which would have been … difficult if they had of been executed and criminals lost the incentive to kill witnesses. Win-win-win all around and we get to uphold the Biblical injunction against killing.
The same problem I have with statistics used by the pro- and anti-gun control groups: people will look at the data and see what they want to see.
.
When the issue is too polarizing AND involves mostly sociology and other soft sciences, it’s easy to question the objectivity of researchers.
.
Also, it’s not only that many factors may have contributed to a drop in criminality in Canada, but also that different solutions may wield equally good results. The policies that cleaned up NYC, for instance.
Rene, as a rule of thumb, when there is data supporting both points of view, try to look at the societies that you’d like yours to be like. At least regarding crime. ¿Do we want to be China or France? ¿Saudi Arabia or Sweden?
.
But then the question is; ¿Do we legislate to make society better or to satisfy the desires of the victims/families? ¿Do we legislate to reduce crime or do we simply prepare to give felons what we feel they deserve?
And all I’m saying is that if you are morally OK with one form of state-santioned (sic) killing, then you should be morally OK with them all.
.
That’s your problem, Russ, right there. Your disconnect. That’s what the right does: Reframe discussions in its own terms and then try to assert that that’s what’s being discussed.
.
The problem is that the right’s philosophy is inherently hypocritical: Life is so sacred that even wearing a condom to prevent it from happening is a Bad Thing…right up until someone is actually born, at which point the gloves are off (so to speak).
.
My position, however, is not hypocritical, because I’m not staked to questions of morality that are conveniently fluid in order to serve immediate desires. My objections are based not on morality, but on practicality, and in that framework they are entirely consistent. I object to the notion of the government forcing a woman to carry a child to term. I object to the notion of the government interfering in a personal decision that’s already a brutal one. I object to the notion of the government being in the execution business because I consider execution cruel and unusual punishment. I object to capital punishment because there are demonstrable inequities in the legal system. As opposed to conservatives who supposedly don’t trust the government, except when it comes to the prospect of innocent people sitting on death row; that they’re willing to overlook.
.
The right’s hypocrisies are not mine and I’d appreciate it if you stopped trying to conflate them.
.
PAD
It’s the Left who are disconnected. The reason conservatives are both pro-life and pro-death penalty stems from the concept of innocence. A fetus is the essence of innocence. A spree-killer is not. The Left seems to think that we should allow the killing of the innocent for the sake of convenience while simultaneously allowing true menaces in our midst to live at our expense or, worse, be set free. The hypocrisy is firmly enschonched on the left in that argument.
.
As far as condoms go, the reason they are rejected by conservatives is because they are not addressing the problem. They are a false solution. Abstinence is the only method of birth control that works every time it is applied. Condoms have been distributed in high schools and grade schools across the country for over a decade now and the problem of teen pregnancy has not diminished.
PAD — Your big mistake here is assuming I am of the “Right.” If you look carefully at my last statement, it’s pretty clear that I have no moral problem with all current forms of state-sanctioned killing — including abortion and euthanasia. That is not the standard platform of the Right (or some on the religious Left). Where I have issues with any form of state-sanctioned killing is when it is not carefully controlled. In the case of criminal executions, you freely admit the reason you oppose them is because there is a chance that an innocent life may be taken. Yet, regarding a woman’s “right to choose,” you suddenly throw up a wall and say that form of execution is none of your business. I can’t do that. From a moral standpoint, I have no problem with a day before/day of/or day after pill (a view that is also not the view of many on the Right). I cannot, however, stomach the idea of the wholesale use of abortion as just another form of birth control. I believe it is necessary in some cases, but it chould be limited with the same amount of care and scrutiny as any other form of state-sanctioned killing.
In the case of criminal executions, you freely admit the reason you oppose them is because there is a chance that an innocent life may be taken. Yet, regarding a woman’s “right to choose,” you suddenly throw up a wall and say that form of execution is none of your business.
.
A staggering oversimplification of my position, Russ.
.
In both cases I’m looking at the historical overview of both practices. Embracing capital punishment, historically, doesn’t work, for a variety of reasons. Having abortions be illegal, historically, doesn’t work, for a variety of reasons.
.
And I’m not going to go into a point by point detail because it’s going to be a monumental waste of my time, plus it’s nothing I haven’t said before. What it comes down to is this: It’s not my problem that I’m looking at the big picture in both cases while you’ve boiled it down to something simplistic.
.
PAD
I try and distill everything complex down to as simple terms as possible for the simple reason that it clears away all of the hype, extraneous partisan ratholes, emotional testimonies, and BS. It then allows the core of the fundamental issue to be much more evident, and allows easy comparisons with similar issues, whether they are contemporary or historical. It’s really the most effective way to solve complex problems. Unfortunately, regarding politically-charged issues, more often than not it does not endear one to special interest groups or the partisan faithful, simply because it holds no one point of view as sacred over any other.
Well the death penalty is one of those wedge issues that the media has really played up as “liberals vs. conservatives”.
Speaking as a liberal, and maybe because I’ve been watching to much of the Investigation Discovery channel, I’m for the death penalty only when an heinous crime has been committed and if there is irrefutable evidence.
I might not agree with the few that cheered but you have to try to comprehend their thinking.
If it was a Democratic debate, and it was said that the death penalty should be abolished, I’m sure the crowd would be cheering.
Probably angerying some family members that were directly effected by horrific crimes.
Were the couple of boos we heard directed at the gay soldier because he is gay or his question or the new military policy?
Since I was in the military myself, I agree with the new policy, but there will always be a few out there that disagree.
Also, this notion that the Republican candidates are all right wing extremist is just not true.
Front runner Mitt Romney is certainly not neither is John Huntsman and Ron Paul is in a world of his own.
And for the record, sometimes that Ron Paul makes a hëll of lot of sense.
Although, I don’t think any of these candidates will beat Obama.
Yes, a few booed at these debates but you can’t judge all the conservatives based a few uncivil individuals.
There’s a false equivalence that you’re applying to both sides of the death penalty issue.
.
When Democrats/liberals applaud abolishing the death penalty, that doesn’t mean they’re against punishing criminals harshly; rather, they recognize that capital punishment is a flawed, unjustly applied system that has without question taken the lives of countless innocent people, especially in the pre-DNA testing era.
.
When many Republicans/conservative applaud the existance and application of the death penalty they’re approaching it in stark black and white terms, leaving no room for recognizing mistakes, inequities and injustices in convictions meting it out, and you can certain question any compassion that they may feel for those convicted with more that a modicum of reasonable doubt.
Saying only Liberals think capital punishment is flawed and conservatives only see it as a black or white issue, is of course, false. And only living in a liberal bubble.
Engaging conservatives in theses issues and trying
to understand their point of view, you’ll find out, they think the justice system is flawed too and they are not compassionless as these sound bites and TV programs show you.
I did say “many” Republicans and conservatives see the issue in stark terms, so I was careful not to paint them too broadly. But you know dámņ well that there are woefully too few leaders in the GOP who are willing, or brave enough, to speak out against the inequities and injustices in capital punishment for fear of alienating their base.
Well the Democrats have been speaking out against it ever since I can remember, but they haven’t done a thing about it.
Both parties hold their toung to appease their base.
And did you ever think that in some cases the party agrees with their base, you might not like it but it happens.
Capital punishment is never a big issue, so you hear little about it from both parties.
We both agree that the justice system has it’s problems but solely blaming it on many republicans, is factually wrong.
Well now you’re contradicting yourself, saying that “the Democrats have been speaking out against it ever since I can remember”, and then saying “Both parties hold their toung (sic) to appease their base.” It’s also a convenient dodge to say that Democrats haven’t done anything about the situation, with the implication that that means they haven’t even tried or aren’t trying hard enough to correct or change the system. If things were that easy, the NRA’s social influence today would be roughly that of the Salvation Army’s.
.
Gauging the success or failure or either party upholding or changing the existence and application of capital punishment isn’t the issue here, it’s how Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives view and react to it as it stands now. Are you denying that more conservatives support maintain the status quo of the death penalty than liberals? Are you denying that Republicans do and will continue to fight off Democratic efforts to either abolish or reform it, regardless of how they feel about it personally in order to appease their base? If your answer to those questions is “No”, then I’m at a loss to see how you can see any parity in the righteousness of either side’s stance on the issue. I’m definitely not blaming all Republicans and conservatives for the problems with the system, but the resistance to getting things set right definitely falls on their side.
.
“Well the Democrats have been speaking out against it ever since I can remember,”
*****VS*****
“Capital punishment is never a big issue, so you hear little about it from both parties”
.
.
And these statements are from the same post and by the same person. You’ve gotta love the… uhm… logic… presented by some people in these debates.
I am in favour of the death penalty for certain instances of murder, rape, and kidnapping.
.
But CHEERING when they say there’s been a record number of executions? That is low, that is incredibly low. I would even say it’s degenerate.
.
The death penalty is like abortion, IMO. Something you may recognize as necessary in some situations, but never something to be cherised.
I guess I didn’t make myself clear, although it was in my statement.
Yes, Democrats have been speaking out on capital punishment once in a blue moon but if you think the republicans are the only ones who hold their tongues on a few issues to please their base, then you haven’t been following politics long.
And it’s only a convenient dodge if you have been following politics for a few years.
No I’m not implying that the democrats haven’t been trying, i’m saying, they haven’t been trying.
Every since Jimmy Carter, democrats have been talking about gay rights and immigration reform, introduced one weak bill after another, knowing the bill won’t pass just to turn around and say, you see, we tired.
“If things were that easy”
Why should we democrats cry and say, well it’s to hard for us.
Gee, Bush had an easy time pushing his agenda through.
If you think all politicians don’t know what it takes to get bills passed then you are naive about politicians.
We all know conservatives agree with the death penalty and liberals don’t, that’s not an issue.
Are the republicans stifling efforts to reform the justice system to please their base?
My answer is no, they are not. Because if you ever spoke to a conservative you’ll realize most of them agree with and want more states to have the death penalty.
It’s a belief that they have not something they say to please their far right.
And by saying they don’t believe in what they stand for, is just dismissing and ignoring conservatives, and not trying to understand them.
Are the republicans stopping the democrats from reforming the justice system?
Well if you can show me bills that democrats have tried to pass, then I can agree with you.
But they haven’t.
Yes, you are suggesting the republicans are what’s wrong with this country, but leaders like Obama are saying lets talk to them, try to understand and come to some agreement.
I wonder what ever happen to the old democrats, the new liberals call themselves progressives, call conservatives evil and try to fight fire with fire, just makes conversations tough to have.
I’m not contradicting myself, I’m trying to make you see both sides of the coin.
Hicks, you’re good man, I’m tired and can’t do this anymore.
I gotta go back to my life, work, drawing, wife, dogs, cats and Yankees.
Nice going Jerry, cutting and pasting my comments out of contents to prove that you have no point and no opinion.
Well Jay, your word-salad above still hasn’t cemented your argument on the issue (no, “once in a blue moon” does not equate to “ever since I can remember”), but now you seem to be saying that it should in fact be a cake-walk for Democrats to make social and legislative changes when they have the majority because Bush and his Republican majority were able to ram through their post-911 radical agenda with little opposition, and that’s laughable in a multitude of levels.
.
Saying that you can find a lot of republicans who desire death penalty reform and that proves that the party isn’t against it is a straw argument; hëll, I have a very good Republican friend who’s very liberal on social and human rights issues. But that does not refute the fact that the vast majority of conservatives and the base of the Republican party is against abolishing or reforming capital punishment; the leadership of the Republican party as a whole will always fight against it to appease that base. I’ll be the last person to deny that Democrats have wimped out terribly at times over this and other leftist issues, but it’s the opposition on the right that makes the fight difficult to begin with.
.
You scoff at my declaration that “if things were that easy” as a Democratic cop-out; well, name one major nationwide social reform issue that was easy to establish. Only this year, this month, has the military allowed gays to finally serve openly, a mere 63 years after women and racial minorities were allowed to be fully integrated into military units (and women still can’t serve in combat units to this day). Abortion rights for women; voting right for minorities; health care right for all – each of these took decades of struggle, perseverance and blood to make happen, and it remains a battle today to fight off narrow-minded efforts to weaken or abolish them, spitting on the graves of gallant heroes and martyrs who made these issues their life’s work. Ðámņ right it’s not easy to get death penalty reform to happen, and no anecdotal observations you care to throw out will counter that.
.
Oh, and this chestnut you offered here: “Yes, you are suggesting the republicans are what’s wrong with this country, but leaders like Obama are saying lets talk to them, try to understand and come to some agreement. “ – I won’t even begin to try and address the futility of that stance given the scars that Obama has to show for it today.
.
I will agree that you and I probably won’t come to an agreement on this issue, but I can live with that. Like you, I’ve got a life to go on with as well.
I’m sorry Jay Tea, I watched the debate in which Perry was asked the death penalty question and members of that audience were definitely cheering his record of execution. They were not protesting the ‘biased and slanted question’ as you put it. If they were protesting the question, they would have booed. The only spin here is yours, but as you say, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. The good thing about being able to see and hear these debates in real time is it makes them more difficult to spin after the fact. Just as Rick Santorum did the other day when he said he didn’t hear the audience booing the gay soldier when you could actually see him pause a moment for the boos before he spoke. And Jay Tea, as the late Tip O’Neill once pointed out, you’re entitled to your own set of opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
.
And Peter, going back to your original question, the facts seem to be speaking for themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of compassionate conservatives out there, but for the moment, they certainly don’t seem to be making themselves heard.
I remembering hearing about the gay soldier being booed, and then I saw the video, and was surprised that it sounded like one or two people booing.
Why would that surprise you? That’s exactly how I would expect it to go. If any more than 5 members of any group do something it will be reported that “The crowd was_______”. as long as it serves the narrative, of course.
There are two maxims i like to recall in cases like this:
.
One ends with the words “…good men do nothing”
.
The last sentence of the other begins “When they came for me…”
.
If you sit quietly by while people engage in bad behaviour, you are at least complicit.
So when a Union Leader, speaking before Obama at a rally, called the tea party activists “sons of bìŧçhëš” who were “waging war” against workers and offered his own union members as “your army” who “like a good fight” and would “take these sons of bìŧçhëš out”…and the president said nothing about this when it was his turn to speak…well…
.
Boy, that new civility in political discourse sure didn’t last long. You’d almost think the people who said they were for it were just playing politics or something.
So that’s where you take your stand, Bill? The other guys do it, too?
.
Funny. When someone I despise does something, I never take that as an reason to excuse the actions in others.
.
PAD
Where did I say I was excusing anybody? I was pointing out to Mike that if he is going to apply that standard to politicians he disagrees with he may also have to do it to those he holds in higher regard. Wouldn’t you agree with me that this would be the proper stand to take?
.
You have occasionally gotten irritated when people put words in your mouth, justifiably so. I’m not terribly offended or anything but I think you are making a huge assumption if you take what I wrote as some kind of excuse for bad behavior.
.
My own personal opinion has been that nobody is obligated to apologize or condemn the words of others who might just happen to be supporters. Both parties have idiots, douche nozzles, flakes and fools as members. Expecting candidates to constantly prove their bona fides by pointing out said idiocy, douche nozzleness, etc is ridiculous and just a distraction from real issues. And if one plays that game one will have to play it down the middle.
.
That said, if I were a candidate who had an easy opportunity to look good handed right to me in the form of being able to look like the better man by admonishing a jáçkášš supporter I’d grab it with both hands.
Bill, perhaps you’d do better if you actually quoted that union leader’s EXACT WORDS instead of just pulling a FoxNoise and cherry-picking the words that you want. What Hoffa ACTUALLY said was “Everybody here’s gotta vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these sonabitches out.” Bear in mind, too, that this had come in conjunction with comments about how worker rights have been attacked by the right-wing this past year.
.
Somehow, by using the word “vote” in the comments preceding the “take the sonabitches out,” it lessens the level of hostility. But that doesn’t fit the FoxNoise narrative.
I dunno, Joseph, we’ve established that framing violent images and rhetoric within calls for votes is a big no-no; remember Palin’s crosshairs? If “Don’t retreat; reload” and other martial metaphors can lead to congresswomen being shot, well, I sure don;t want to risk what might happen of the gentle members of a union fall prey to the mindwarping images that Hoffa put into their brains.
.
All joking aside, I agree with you that this sort of thing is just noise. Of course, I thought so back then as well. For a lot of people it’s just a matter of whose ox is getting gored.
Where did I say I was excusing anybody? I was pointing out to Mike that if he is going to apply that standard to politicians he disagrees with he may also have to do it to those he holds in higher regard. Wouldn’t you agree with me that this would be the proper stand to take?
.
Bill, come on. It’s the default excuse of the right. The right does something a hundred times and the response when called on it is, “Oh yeah? Well, the left has done it ten times!” Your “point,” such as it is, would have been remotely relevant if anyone had claimed the left was pure as the driven snow. No one had. So you brought it up to try and distract from the general heartlessness of the right wingers in general and Tea Party in particular and the unwillingness of its high profile politicians to call them on it. Nice try.
.
PAD
Ok, so we acknowledge that I did not say what you said I did–it’s just a foregone conclusion I feel that way because it’s the default position. Got it.
.
I brought it up to illustrate that if JosephW wants to insist that the lack of rebuke on the part of the republicans is an indication of a lack of character–which is not an automatically invalid opinion, I might add–one would also perhaps have to acknowledge a similar character deficiency in the president as well.
.
And he may well feel that way, though I suspect most liberals will somehow justify excusing any behavior they find repulsive when it comes from their opponents if it is instead directed at same.
.
No wonder it’s so hard to have rational political discourse; a few voices out of a crowd becomes the audience, the audience becomes right wingers in general and finally it becomes the default position that one can be assumed to have, stated opinions to the contrary be dámņëd.
Yeah, speaking as a Christian, it never existed. The simple fact is, the “old” ways i.e. that which is conservative, were never very compassionate. Not that the new ways are much more compassionate. But doing away with social security, which the GOP in one form or another has been wanting since the program’s inception? That’s not compassionate. That’s populism. And not very good populism either.
I’m of two minds on the “gay soldier” controversy. On the one hand, it was two or three people in the crowd who booed his question, and the reaqction has been to say the whole crowd was part of it. As with so many things in life, it’s a case of the small-but-vocal minority getting all the attention, while the more reasonable, polite people get no credit for their traits.
On the other hand, none of the candidates bothered to address the people who felt it was fine to verbally attack a U.S. soldier serving in Afghanistan because of his question. Because they’re trying to appeal to ultra-conservative conservatives and evangelical Christians, they can’t appear to do or say anything remotely supportive of anything realting to homosexuality. A few candidates had their staff issue statements about the “booers” after the fact — but the candidates wouldn’t say anything directly. It’s the campaign equivalent of running a headline of an extreme position on the front page of a newspaper on Monday, and a clarification in a small paragraph on page 23 on Tuesday.
It’s what I feared when Republicans started letting the most radical statemens of Tea Party members slide or get endorsement. Any “compassionate conservative” who suggests compromise or common ground with Democrats can be attacked. Anyone who suggests that the Tea Party goes too far or may be wrong faces condemnation from everyone from local morons in tri-cornered hats to Palin and Perry. I almost feel bad for the current Republican candidates, who have to spend the primaries appealing to these radicals — then do a 180 in the general election to try to get the moderates who don’t think everything but Fox News is the “lamestream media.”
Right. See my post a ways up for my opinion here.
When a term like “compassionate conservatism” enters into popular parlance, isn’t that the same as admiting that usually conservatism is heartless? Since you’ve got to qualify it with an adjective to say your conservatism isn’t the vanilla, UN-compassionate version.
This is primary reason why I was against the term “compassionate conservatism.” “Conservatism” doesn’t need a modifier. It’s inherently compassionate.
Conservatism aims to oppose change, revert it or, at its best, slow it. While it has its role in a sane society opposing revolutionary measures, traditionally it has opposed whatever measures were proposed to improve the lot of anyone to whom the status quo is aggravating and unfair. Conservatism is inherently not compasionate and often much the opposite.
Yeah, well that’s your definition. The actual conservative movement has a different one.
Actually, it’s not my definition. My definition is a little harsher. This is a wikipedia definition, based mostly on quotes from illustrious conservatives of the past.
.
If you can name an example of compassion in the usual conservative politics, something that consistently appear in conservative political programs, I will stand corrected.
It’s your definition. Meaning, it’s the one you prefer rather than the one defined by conservatives and conservative thinkers. Small government is compassionate. Capitalism is compassionate. Liberty is compassionate. I understand that most liberals are not conditioned to think in those terms, so I’m not prepared for you to agree with that assessment… but since you asked, I thought I’d give those examples.
So the problem is not that you dont agree with the definition of Conservatism but rather that you have new and exciting definition of compassion.
I see. So the problem is not the definition of conservatism here. It’s your new and exciting definition of compassion.
It hasn’t been new since 1776, actually.
Oh, I see. You are an excepcionalist. Radiant city on a hill and all that. Cute.
Yeah sure, I’ll accept that.
I am mostly a supporter of capitalism, but I don’t think it is meant to be compassionate, and even most of capitalism’s defenders won’t say it’s compassionate.
.
Capitalism may be efficient, and the apologists say it’s fair because it rewards hard work, honesty, prudence. But compassion doesn’t enter into it. Actually, attempts to make it compassionate are criticized as misguided. Their narrative is that when you try to make economics compassionate it backfires on you and makes things worse.
.
Liberty is one of my favorite things, but it ain’t compassionate either. In an ideal libertarian world, people are free to make their own mistakes, and I am free to live my life without worrying about their problems. That’s a big point on libertarian politics, right? According to libertarians, I should not be forced to pay taxes to help whoever. Charity must be voluntary in their worldview. So people who believe in liberty can be compassionate, but liberty in itself isn’t.
.
As for conservatism itself, I am not sure. If you consider social conservatism, then maybe you can make a case for sincere Christians being compassionate, because they’re really thinking about the status of your immortal soul when they try to tell you how to live. That will always be controversial, because it conflicts with liberty.
.
But no, I don’t think conservatism is inherently compassionate. Conservatives even mock Liberals as bleeding hearts.
In order to see that they are compassionate, you have to also look at the alternatives that have existed elsewhere throughout the world and history.
Wow, Darin has a good point! I never thought I’d see the day. Miracles happen.
.
Most alternatives to capitalism have been big, fricking disasters. Things tend to go south when you concentrate power in very few hands, as is the case in most state-planned economies.
.
But just because capitalism is the best alternative, it doesn’t make it compassionate. It’s just that the alternatives are even worse.
.
I believe capitalism is the good foundation every house needs. But once you have that solid foundation, it helps to have the ammenities that the security net of European wellfare states provide. It’s just softening the edges of capitalism.
I still remember when people in the USA (or in my own country) would tell liberals to “go to Russia, see if you like it there”. It was funny because, see, the URSS was a very conservative place, ruled by very conservative people. Nowadays is common to hear the whole “the alternatives are worst” from conservatives, hinting at China, or Saudi Arabia or whatever. Again, conservative regimes ruled by conservative people. Try to udnerstand that conservatism is an stance, not a political program.
.
Capitalism and the present status quo that western hemisphere conservatives staunchly defend against the aggresion of misguided liberals is the product of… liberalism. Radical liberalism sometimes. And back them, those who named themselves conservatives (or Tory in the english sphere) fought against those ideas with the same zeal their present day counterparts defend them. Because conservatism is about minimizing change, regulate it to better suit the interest of the ones who rule, who are at the top, because beign at the top is the best prove you deserve it.
.
This is not a moral judgement upon conservatism or its adherents. A healthy society needs a balance between forces of change and forces of stability, and a change that happens too fast on not grounded enough ideas usually end up producing very conservative and repressive societies (like the USRR).
.
But Conservatism resist change. And change is usually proposed to better the conditions of those in need. And often, conservatives aknowledge the problem but prefer stability to a solution. Making them not compassionate at all.
.
Consider, Darin, that you might not be a conservative. You might be a Laissez Faire libertarian, an objetivists (ohboy, those ARE compassionate) or something in between everything else, like most people is. In the USRR you would have been a liberal.
It’s one reason why labels like liberal or conservative have little meaning–you can argue that anyone you dislike is not really _________ but actually _________ using the “no true scotsman” fallacy.
.
In the USA communism and places like China and the Soviet Union were despised by conservatives and all too often defended by leftists, so it’s no wonder that the association has stuck. Even now one would be unlikely to find many conservatives who see Cuba as a conservative paradise while Castro and Chavez’ dwindling number of lickspittles are still more than not misguided dupes from the left side of the spectrum.
Words change their meanings, so that in the US “conservatism” is a political program, Hombre. It certainly is in the way Darin means it. Some of them are quite radical in how they intend to change society to enshrine Christian values. The difference is that conservatives claim they’re restoring things to their correct state, Liberals are future-oriented.
“Compassionate”
To quote a fine film: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Let me see if I understand what Rene is trying to articulate here. Capitalism is “the best alternative” (i.e. it’s the one that provides the best results for a given group of people when it comes to opportunity and prosperity) but is not compassionate? That doesn’t compute, I’m afraid. If you were creating your own country, the most compassionate economic choice you could make for the people living there would be to establish a capitalism in said country. Capitalism establishes the economic freedom one needs to pursue self interest, create a business and compete for jobs. The notion that capitalism is not compassionate is one that appears to be held by those who have no understanding of it.
Darin, capitalism sometimes is like what they say of a constitutional legislative body. You can have a lot of vileness, of corruption, of selfishness, and suspicious interests. But the result is often surprisingly benign, despite the individual vices of the men composing the legislative body. Like bees. Bees are amoral, yet they make honey.
.
The Libertarian motto is more or less: “If everyone looks out for one’s own interests, things will work out fine.” There is nothing compassionate about it. I don’t think it’s as simple as people selecting capitalism when they’re “creating their own country” as if you were playing Age of Empires.
.
People embark on capitalism because they want to profit! It’s not evil, it’s not good, it’s not compassionate. It’s praticality.
The vast majority of capitalistic entities in the US are not vile or corrupt. As a matter of fact, the one that’s getting a lot of publicity right now (Solyndra) happens to not only be a great example of crony capitalism but also happens to be a “green” corporation closely tied to liberals.
Sadly we’re stuck with a Conservative majority and ‘compassionate’ is definitely not a word I’d use to describe them. ‘Dinosaurs’, maybe. Consider the monster ‘omnibus’ bill they want to ram through. The so-called ‘get tough on crime’ thing. It generally consists of spending billions more on new prisons to stick more people in for longer periods. Funny thing about that being, even the ex head of the DEA under Bush came out stating it was a failed approach. Didn’t work. There are better, more effective ways to help reduce crime. Does our government listen? Of course not. But what can you expect from antiquated relics led by a man who, when asked if Canada would support Britain’s bid to change the law making the first male heir the only one who can ascend to the throne (Elizabeth got it because there WERE no male heirs at the time) answered “It should be a man who holds the reigns of power.” They’re called ‘Conservatives’ for a reason, and it ain’t a nice one.
Clinton Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin, wrote a memoir titled 88 Men and 2 Women, about the executions he oversaw; he was a strong opponent of the death penalty.
.
A former head of the Georgia Department of Corrections (who personally oversaw several executions during his term), in a Newsweek piece inspired by the Troy Davis execution, calls capital punishment “rehearsed murder”.
Be advised, the only reason more liberal theories of prison diversion and public safety policy are being implemented is because of fiscal conservatism. Hence, more transition centers, more diversion centers, more chances for probationers and parolees to get second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh chances.
That’s right, the more conservative we get financially, the more liberal we become when it comes to crime and punishment. Can’t lock em up if we can’t afford it, so we gotta figure out other ways. Even if it means putting inmates out on the street who have no business being there, and cannot function appropriately in society (see also, California)
That said, I work for the Georgia Department of Corrections, and unlike a vast majority of the public, I have a more informed view of the prison system. This whole Troy Davis thing, I have no opinion on. That is to say, I never met this particular inmate, I have no opinion on him as a person, and if the court made their decision, and it’s been upheld several times on appeal, hëll, that’s good enough for me. I am pro-death penalty, simply because I have seen the kind of close security & maximum security inmates that fill our prison system, and they are decidedly not nice people. I identify myself as a Moderate Democrat, and I used to not believe in capital punishment, before I saw a convict stab another man because it was rumored that he was an ex-sheriff’s deputy. The prison bungled the case and the guy who stabbed the dude got off on a technicality. I heard with my own two ears ‘Yeah, I had to wet me up a police’ coming out of this degenerate’s mouth. ‘All police must die!’
But okay, seeing that is part of the job, or so I’m told. That I chose to become a corrections officer and this is part of the job, to watch over degenerates. And I do a good job. And, okay, I can compartmentalize seeing a human being stab another human being, sure. It’s prison, it’s behind bars, okay, sure. As if that somehow makes it okay, that if they are in prison, it’s okay for me or anyone, really, to become a target for violence, because, hey, it’s part of the job, baby! As if it’s okay to dehumanize both officer and inmate to the point where it’s just considered all in a day’s work.
But there are some of my decidedly liberal friends who are vehemently anti-death penalty, arguing that the system is flawed, that their are innocent men who are convicted because they are _____ (poor, black, retarded, etc, take your pick.), because, because, because. None of them have ever met a murderer, or someone who has raped another human being, shot or stabbed another human being, never saw blood and semen mixing together on a cell floor. They never had to stay with an inmate in the hospital because he was getting swabbed with a rape kit. They never seen racial violence. They’ve never had to deal with criminals, or convicted felons, or any really screwed up human being. The closest they’ve come is watching it on TV. They have no context, no real grounding in their opinion.
You could always say (and I sometimes do when I contemplate the death penalty – my decision constantly evolves as I grow older and work longer in the system, because, you know, I’m a thinking human being, and we tend to be able to do that) that ‘Well, you’d have a different view if you were the one strapped to the chair’, and yeah, I would, wouldn’t I? But I’d at least have a more informed viewpoint than a great many people who are, like my friends, vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
The thing that clinches it for me is that if someone hurt my little baby girl or my wife, they would have to die. Circumstances permitting, I would be the one to kill them, but those circumstances rarely, if ever, come about. I’d want that animal who hurt my baby or my wife to die for what they did. And no amount of Christian forgiveness can ever change that. I think of the parents who have to be told ‘Sir, your son was killed’, or have to go identify a body, and live with the fact that some scumbag took their baby out of this world to fulfill some selfish desire, some addiction, or whatever. I can’t process wanting that slime ball to simply spend the rest of his life in prison. He (or she) would have to die. Even if it took 20 years.
Then there’s the fact that anti-death penalty folks say life in prison is more humane. It’s not. It’s really not. Even if you go through the rest of your life in prison without being attacked, raped, hurt, victimized by corrupt staff or your ‘fellow’ inmates, institutionalization is more insidious and debilitating to the human spirit than anything I’ve ever seen. Hollow Men, as T.S. Elliot would have said. Slowly destroyed from the inside over a period of years. It’s disturbing.
That’s my opinion, anyway. Is my opinion colored by my experiences and my job? Yes. There’s no way it cannot be.
.
Here’s the very simple fact of the matter-
.
Had this been a liberal/Democrat crowd that made some sort of inappropriate comments or cheered something stupid while Obama was speaking, the very loud talking point leading the top of every hour on Fox News, the screeching of the Right Wing echo chamber and the talking point being parroted by some here who have already posted above would be about how horrible the entire Left was and how Obama was so horrible because he didn’t either (a) condemn the statements/cheering on the spot or (b) leave the room in response to them. While most of that would be foolish on their part, I would find myself in some agreement with option “a.”
.
That’s also the only criticism I can agree with here. I wouldn’t condemn the entire Right by the actions of a few in that crowd. I will say that those who were up on the stage failed completely in not responding to it though. Of course, the were probably scared to do so. While the actions of those crowds that sparked so much discussion here and elsewhere shouldn’t be used to tar the entire conservative movement, the simple fact is that you can see exactly what was put on display there reflected quite vividly in the comments of the conservative base pretty much everywhere they write or speak.
.
That is the base of the new Conservative movement. They weren’t about to condemn them because they fear that to do so in that public of a stage would be to kill their chances at getting the brass ring. So I won’t condemn the entire Right. I will condemn the freaks that have become a strong component of their new base and I will definitely condemn the gutless non-response of the “leaders” of the party who were standing around on that stage like hapless idiots.
.
But, no, you can’t rip on the entire right for it any more than you can rip the entire Left for the statements of Sharpton or some other fringe idiot.
You would think, after seeing that inappropriate crowd reactions grab the lion’s share of the news, that one of them would have the smarts to have a prepared statement for that possibility. Something generic, something that could take the moment and not only make them look like a leader in condemning it but turn the moment into a chance to critique democrats.
.
say something about how their side is the one with the confidence to allow others to dissent. Mention the last few times a conservative has been prevented from speaking on campus by organized shout downs; highlight the worst among the union protests, compare and contrast the violence at left wing rallies vs the Tea Party. tell the crowd to channel their anger not at individuals but toward changing the process. Slip in a few choice words from Maxine Waters and crew and ask if the smart move is to emulate them or too be nothing like them. Etc, etc, the usual BS. that would be the moment that gets reported. Seriously, how obvious is this? Don’t these folks pay people big money to think these things up? hëll, if you’re willing to risk it, plant someone in the audience to make an inappropriate comment! (although, if the Democrats have a collective brain among them, that will not be needed. They should probably be doing what it takes to make Bad Audience Response a regular feature of any upcoming debates).
.
Yeah, but it seems that their prepared (after the fact) statements are to claim that they didn’t hear it.
.
Wonderful strategy.
@Jerry “I will say that those who were up on the stage failed completely in not responding to it though. Of course, the were probably scared to do so.”
Actually, that action alone tells me more about these “candidates” than any prepared question of any of these debates. NONE of them (IMO) have the “stuff” of a leader. They’re no more than a pandering politician who would bring nothing new, nothing of substance, to lead this country.
.
On a side note about the debates –
.
Anyone else finding it hilarious watching Perry, built up in some quarters as the great second coming for the Republicans, do everything he can in these debates to show that, yes, when he and W. were in the same room it was in fact W. who was “the smart one” of the two of them? I swear, some of the stuff he said the other night whenever he stopped speaking in talking points, even when doing the should-be-easy task of attacking Mitt in front of a Republican crowd, sounded like someone just string words together randomly and hoping that it means something by the end of the sentence.
.
If I were W, Rove and Cheney, I would be rooting for Perry with everything I had. Him as POTUS such a short time after W.’s time in office is one of the few things that might have history looking back and deciding that Bush wasn’t the absolute worst man to hold the office during this era after all.
This is the disadvantage of getting in late. Sure, you avoid all the risks that come with campaigning and you look like a fresh face but you also make all the rookie mistakes that the others get out of their system early. Perry looks tired, pretty odd for a guy who hasn’t been out on the campaign trail.
Well, Bill, to be fair he is one of only three candidates up there that don’t have “former” before their title – Bachmann and paul obviously being the other two – and he is the only one responsible for running a whole state, and a huge one at that.
.
I’ll cut him some slack on the looking tired. They have been dealing with some nasty wildfires and other issues.
I don’t know, if I were on stage in a high pressure situation like that I would think the adrenaline rush would be like an injection of expresso directly into the femoral artery. I’ve given presentations at 9 in the morning at conventions after the Saturday night parties, running on 3 hours of sleep and the aftereffects of mango flavored rum. The fear of looking stupid is better than a cold shower.
.
And lets face it, the stakes are pretty dámņ low for me- “Boy, that guy sure doesn’t know as much about Godzilla as he thinks he does.” would be the worse thing anyone would say (though that would, in fact, leave me hurt and despondent). This is for the presidency–wake up! You don’t see Vladamir Putin nodding off as he wrestles polar bears and swims the Bering Sea pulling a fishing vessel with his teeth.
@Jerry
Isn’t that kind of like saying ‘Yeah, being dragged across a floor covered in broken glass is nice, but what about doing it naked?’. We already know that jáçkášš governors from Texas are inappropriate in the Oval Office. We don’t need to put our hand back in the blender to know that the experience is bad.
Frankly, most of the republican candidates kinda scare me. We had 8 years of complete disaster under Bush Jr, and 3 years of obscructionism from the repubs in the house and senate.
We DON’T need any more. Staying the course doesn’t help when there’s a giant mountain or iceberg looming up ahead, and they just don’t understand that. The world is changing, and they refuse to change with it. Their perspectives are, at best, out of date with the current reality. We have entire COUNTRIES defaulting, and we’re rapidly heading that way as well.
Their support of anti-gay policies? Going after ANYTHING Muslim just because a certain faction came after us? I’m sorry, but last I checked, bigotry was immoral REGARDLESS of whomever it’s against.
I’m all for taking out the terrorists. They’re the bad guys, no question. But there’s no excuse for the hateful bile I’ve seen coming from the Repubs, especially the Tea Party. The nonsense of opposing that mosque in Manhattan alone made me sick. We’re supposed to be a melting pot of cultures in America, and it’s high time we started acting like it.
(Yes, I know I’m rambling. YOU try waking up early to the discovery that your kitty just piddled your bed with you in it.)
How do you get a Republican/conservative to be against the death penalty? Re-name it “retroactive abortion”. THEN they’d be against it in a heartbeat.
Wow! with “wit” like that I’d be surprised if you weren’t a best-selling, award-winning writer yourself, Kevin.
.
Do you actually know any republicans/conservatives?
Way more than I would like actually. I work with a few of them. And, yes, they’re pro-death penalty and anti-abortion.
.
I take it you’re a Tea Party ultra-conservative who’d rather destroy the country to get Obama out of office, rather than do anything of note.
I could care less what a couple of yahoos cheer about during a debate, just like I could care less about what a bunch of people say in a comments section about those yahoos.
What I don’t care for is being lumped in with those yahoos simply because of which way I lean on the political spectrum. Sure the media focuses on the extremist candidates who make the most noisel; however there are candidates on both sides that are dispicable people or are completely unqualified to hold office.
How does lumping an entire group of people together based on the actions of a few ever add to an argument? It does not. Instead it shows intolerance, poor judgment, and alienates those you might otherwise reach with a compelling argument.
Lot of great discussion here… much I don’t agree with but I’m happy people feel they can express their feelings.
Other people who have debated in the past have said they could hear everything and found it weird that people said they didn’t hear the responses. Regardless, its the sum of their responses. McCain let all the improper talk go before and after the one incident he personally stopped.
No one in this debate yet (I’m hopefully always) has said in a response “we honor any American and their sacrifices to our country but I believe Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a good policy and should be reinstated”.
No one has said “death is terrible in any circumstance but I believe consequences of certain extreme and outrageous intentional deaths must be the intentional taking of that man’s life in the name of justice.”
Two weeks ago, Billy hit Timmy on the playground. When Timmy hits Billy on the playground and says Billy hit me two weeks ago, we don’t give Timmy a pass. We told Billy it was wrong two weeks ago and we tell Timmy it’s wrong now. That Democrats have done something remotely similar is not a legitimate excuse to bad behavior from Republicans. How about actually reporting and actually let people decide instead of reporting selectively and deciding for me.
Another thought regarding the entire soldier-booing brouhaha:
.
One thing that stood out was the fact that Santorum did not bother to thank the soldier for his service.
.
Perhaps not that big a deal, but such stuff is standard for politicians, especially GOPers. It’s absence was conspicuous.
.
(And, of course, had a Dem candidate made the same omission, the talking point that “Democrats hate our brave troops” would have been birthed and broadcast via the usual outlets within an hour.)
Santorum seemed extremely angry during this last debate performance. Just in general. which is odd considering he had done well in virtually every one prior and that with Perry’s suport eroding and the die-hard conservatives not buying Romney, it is still possible for every candidate up there – except for maybe Paul and Huntsman – to enjoy a surge. Look at Cain.
.
Santorum’s performance was odd given all that and the stakes.
I don’t understand what Santorum is trying to accomplish. he’s not going to win, he doesn’t have a book to pimp that i know of and if he’s trying to pull the potential winners to the right he needs to come off better.
.
He’s done better in the debates than I would have guessed but to what end?
.
You may say that the die-hard conservatives are not buying Romney, but everyone else is. Romney, according to the conservative pundit’s wisdom, was supposed to get his backside handed to him by various challengers early on and he stomped them flat. Then Perry was going to come in and become the clear front runner only to fall flat and get beaten by Romney up until this point.
.
Cain may have a small surge going, but he’s not a dependable candidate. He makes the hardcores happy, but not anyone else. Romney will cream him in final results because the majority of conservatives out there aren’t looking for someone who’s angry and/or divisive. Pretty much everyone but the fringe and the hardcores on both sides are getting tired right now of the politicians who act like it’s going to be 100% their way or nothing or that their base matters and the rest of the country can go take a flying leap.
.
Romney may not be a great candidate, but he’s fortunate in this run by looking amazingly good in contrast to what he’s he’s up on stage with right now.
Romney may not be a great candidate, but he’s fortunate in this run by looking amazingly good in contrast to what he’s he’s up on stage with right now.
.
I said it awhile ago: what does it say about the Republican candidates when the Mormon is the sane one of the front-runners?
That would be true if he was a convert, but beign born in a mormon family… I dont see how his adherence to the faith his parents raised him into is any more insane than that of a catholic, baptist or jew. Hëll, even
.
This said, them mormons are funny.
It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will be willing to risk making Romney’s faith a big issue. It might open the door for a re-examination of the delightful Jeremiah “Them Jews” Wright.
Shrug, I don’t really have a problem with his being Mormon. But when you get down to it, Mormonism is generally viewed as the red-headed stepchild of Christian denominations.
.
Will it be an issue? I dunno. Obviously people recall JKF and his being Catholic.
.
But I’m not sure the Dems would have the balls to bring it up. However, if Romney was a Democrat, I’d bet on the GOP going after him for it.
.
In the end, I’d see it as a sign that sanity can still be found if he got the nomination over the likes of Bachmann or Perry.
.
“Shrug, I don’t really have a problem with his being Mormon.”
.
And yet you’ve brought it up multiple times (as have others elsewhere) as a remark of surprise that “the Mormon” comes off looking either good or sane. That’s then followed by a deceleration of how little his religion really matters to you or them.
.
Seems to be a bit in the same vein as Beck not long ago claiming that it doesn’t bother him that the new Spider-Man was Hispanic and gay and then going on and on and on about the fact that the new Spider-Man was now Hispanic and gay and that this was part of the bigger problem. If it’s no big deal, why keep bringing it up and bringing it up in a manner that suggests that it somehow is a big deal to you?
Yes or no, Jerry: Is Mormonism viewed favorably in this country?
I’ll go ahead and answer it for you: No, they’re generally not. Romney is, smartly so, keeping his religion in the background.
.
Where as the likes of Bachmann and Perry are shoving it down our throats, which is turning off a lot of people off, regardless of party.
.
While Mormonism is often ripe for satire in this country, most Mormons that are in the public eye are not (at least not for their Mormonism.) Whether you look at Hollywood types like Glen Larsen, Don Bluth, Wilford Brimley, Rick Schroder or Billy Barty or politicians like Bob Bennett and and Harry Reid, we tend to just look at the person and what they were saying or doing and not their Mormonism. Outside of Larson, I’ve actually rarely seen it used as a point of criticism at all. And I’ve certainly missed any of the many references you’ve obviously made to Harry Reid amazingly coming off as the “sane one” in debates, conversations and elections despite his Mormonism.
.
Out of all of the possible things to ding Mitt with, it’s really the most irrelevant one. So why is it that so many people keep having to bring it up (while claiming it doesn’t really mean anything at all to them) on such a regular basis?
Because while I have no use for organized religion, Mormonism is further ‘out there’ than most.
.
But in the end, with far-right wing nuts trying to rule the day, being a Mormon is perfectly fine, what with an evil socialist-fascist Muslim who’s going to destroy America currently sitting in the White House.
Bill,
What is Santorum trying to accomplish? Becoming President of the United States I would think.
.
It’s only September. I remember Kerry at an even later date in 2003 barely being a blip on the radar. Giuliani and Romney were the big poll grabbers at this stage in 2007 and no one thought McCain had a shot and almost no one in the general population knew who Mike Huckabee was. Heck, at this stage in 1991 Clinton hadn’t even announced yet.
.
Santorum HAS done well generally in the debates. he has a record and could possibly break through. Is it probable? No. But hardly impossible.
.
No one can doubt his authentic conservative credentials. He is from a swing state – though that may matter less if they succeed in splitting the electoral votes here. He can talk intelligently about military matters and he not only is one of the few who can talk passionately about the “culture issues”, he relishes doing so,
Yeah, not all conservatives are like those people. But, there are some who are going around on places like yahoo.com, aolnews, huffingtonpost, youtube, etc. spouting off some of the most inane, generalizing personal attacks imaginable. With very few, if any, Republicans calling them on it. Also, there are some who are going around insisting that MLK, Jr. was a conservative. Trying to make it sound like he would be on their side in reducing welfare and cutting aide to the poor. The thing is, he was highly critical of the government spending so much money on the Vietnam War while spending so little on the War on Poverty. He wanted more money spent on the War on Poverty, not less. There is video footage of him saying that included in the LBJ American Experience biography on PBS.org.
I’ve seen nothing about Perry that makes me think Perry the Platypus wouldn’t be a better choice.
.
PAD
Actually, Perry the Platypus would be absolutely fantastic.
I’ve been WAITING for the Daily Show to start making those Phineas and Ferb jokes ever since Perry joined the race.
And yes, he WOULD be better than the human Perry. If nothing else, he’d never make long rambling speeches. Just a little chattering.
Compassionate conservatism is merely a play to the middle, to those who have nothing else to feel guilty about. I’m compassionate to the illegal aliens: if the entire family, including those born here, wish to be repatriated, let’s do it. Don’t break up families, for goodness sake. As far as capital punishment, I’m content that God has allowed our government to be established. Justice is a requirement of our type of system. Compassion has nothing to do with it. It’s the rule of law that should prevail. It is not compassionate to the victim’s family to delay justice. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Is that a shame? Absolutely. But compassionate conservatism is an emotional ploy that simply has lost it’s legs.
If you rush to judgement just to spare the family’s feelings, do you really have justice?
If it comes to light after the fact that the person punished was innocent, how do you think the faimly will feel knowing that not only did you kill a human being in their name, but that the actual perpetrator is still walking free?
Compassion is not for the criminal. Compassion is being able to tell those involved, both the Individual and the Sate, that they did the right thing. That they did not give in to expedience or bloodlust, and that Justice, not Vengeance, was truly served.
Believe me, it’s no worse than knowing the one who killed your loved one still draws breath and lives at the expense of the state. Particularly when the murder involves rape, torture, and/or unusual cruelty.
.
If 1 in 10 of those sentenced to death actually are innocent (something I very much doubt, but let’s assume it), I still think it’s worthy it that those other 9 families are going to be able to live again that the air is clean of the scum that killed their loved one.
.
I’m not a forgiving person when it comes to violence. And I don’t really believe in rehabilitation when it comes to murder or rape. I think it’s the flip side of my belief in personal responsibility and personal freedom. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt other people.
.
But when you do cross this line and hurt other people, the punishment shoud be as brutal as the crime.
.
Okay, just so I know we’re on the same page here…
.
.
Rene, you’re saying that it’s just fine with the idea that we might execute 10 innocent people for every 90 who are actually guilty? It’s worth it to imprison for years and the kill on death row 10 innocent people for each 90 real criminals we catch and execute?
.
You know, I like you, Rene, but do me the favor of not chiming in on my side of death penalty discussions in the future.
I think about the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims. Just think about how many lives the hypothetical 9 murderers have ruined. Like I’ve said, families with loved ones whose killers have gotten off lightly are horror shows of broken lives: divorces, suicides, psychosomatic diseases.
.
Would I sacrifice one innocent person so that scores of people would be able to live again? I think I would, though it’s not something to be celebrated (like the áššhølëš who cheered as if Texas had won some sports competition).
.
It’s not something I feel good about. It’s just that I don’t see any other good solution. I am not happy with my own country’s exaggerated lenience when it comes to big crime. Dude, in the 1990s a young woman was killed with SCISSORS by a mad couple whose husband was “in love” with her and was urged to do the murder by the jealous wife.
.
The guy served 6 YEARS and got off for good behaviour. The woman served even less in female prison. It’s a fricking joke. It makes one nihilistic to live in a society where such things happen and you can see why I envy the US here.
.
But I would love an alternate solution that would allow families to breathe easier, society to see justice done, and that would be foolproof and no innocents would be ever comdemned by mistake. What are your ideas?
Justice should’nt be vengeance. Not even with it’s Sunday dress. Nor it should be about closure. Justice is there to make of us a better society in wich fewer horrible things happen.
.
I am against death sentence but not because I am a liberal. I am because I dont see it acomplishing nothing society-wise, not as it is proposed by most (and by Rene). When you say “murder” you evoke a horrible thing but I am sure most of us can think of dozens of examples of murders that, if not justified, wouldnt deserve death in your books. That you could very well see yourself committing under the right (and hopefully extreme) circunstances. And murder only proves once thing, that the murderer killed once… in many cases he is as prone as anyone else to kill again. For society to remove someone from it so drastically, it should be sure that it would be better off without him/her.
.
On the other hand… take someone who doesnt respects a bus queue. Or parks on a pedestrian crossing. Someone who takes upon himself to piss in the face of everyone else for a minimal gain. For a few seconds less of waiting, for a few meters minutes less of parking hunting, he is willing to doa little harm but to anyone else that happens to share the world with him. That guy, I say, under the right circunstances, would kill you. That guy, with a good enough incentive, will do anything to anyone. That guy deserves death penalty.
.
Not willing to kill those? dont talk me about killing anyone else.
Hombre, are you’re comparing a murder to people who don’t respect queues?
.
While I don’t think all murders are the same (and that is why there are trials and attenuating circunstances that should be taking into account), I think it’s a little naive to say a murderer in many cases he is as prone as anyone else to kill again.
.
That reminds me of the Batman school of thought that just one bad day can turn a normal person into the Joker. Actually, many murderers variously have histories of poor impulse control, abnormal entitlement, abuse (commited against them or others), and that is not even discussing killers who already are career criminals or drug addicts.
.
A few days ago, a Brazilian living in the US was accused of killing a woman he was involved with (she’s also Brazilian). This guy didn’t go from Mr. Right to killer in one day. There is evidence that she’s tried to leave him many times and was beaten for her troubles. There is a history of abuse there.
.
Now, you’re going to tell me you’re not sure society is going to be better off without this guy?
.
Sorry, but I disagree.
It’s the potential abuse of the death penalty that keeps me from being for it.
.
We could easily make rules that would make it virtually 100% guaranteed that anyone who gets the death penalty was 100% guilty of the crime. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt at all.
.
But neither side will be willing to adopt those rules. the pro-death penalty folks will rightly see it as eliminating the majority of cases where the death penalty would otherwise be applied, since cases where the guilty party is undeniably guilty are not the norm. And the anti-death penalty people will likely oppose it because it would take away their most powerful argument, that an innocent might be executed.
.
The worst argument against capital punishment is one I used to hear a lot but has thankfully fallen off, possibly due to a sudden attack of common sense–that it was a better, crueler, more vengeful punishment to put them in jail and have them suffer constant rape and/or forced ingestion of caustic drain cleaner or whatever other horror would await them in prison. The death penalty was too merciful, these people would say. I hope that argument was just pseudo tough guy posturing because if not, dámņ.
.
I have to agree with Jerry on this Rene, a 10% error rate is several orders of magnitude too high. Surely there is a happy medium between killing them all and letting God sort them out and letting criminals walk. How exactly did things get so out of whack down there?
Bill, we had a right-wing military dictatorship here in Brazil from the 1960s to the early 1980s (though it became far less restrictive as time went on). When the dictatorship ended, and we got free elections, the spectre of the government killing and torturing political enemies haunted the lawmakers.
.
So we got too far into the other extreme. The obsession with respecting due process makes for seriously convoluted laws and the absurd of murderers walking after serving only 1/6 of their time. And anyone who wants harsher laws is labeled a fascist who is nostalgic for military dictatorship.
.
Many Brazilian lawmakers also are high on debased Marxism: everything is society’s fault, it’s all economic, etc. so it’s a horrible thing to punish the poor, even when those poor are murderers.
.
But the funny thing is that, while major criminals like murderers and rapists often get off lightly with the time they serve, the conditions in prison are hellish, and overly bureaucratic laws sometimes mean people are going to jail for stealing a bar of soap.
.
I don’t claim to understand it all, but it seems like the worse of both worlds, maybe because big-shot lawyers aren’t going to waste their time with soap thieves and so by-the-book judges throw all the weight of the law at them.
.
Or maybe when you cap punitions at the higher ending and all the myriad benefits apply equally to all criminals, it’s the guys that commit the big crimes that look like they’re getting off lightly, since everybody serves only a few years.
Rene: “Would I sacrifice one innocent person so that scores of people would be able to live again?”
How exactly does killing an innocent BRING BACK the dead???
“How exactly does killing an innocent BRING BACK the dead???”
With a life-essence transfer machine, like in BABYLON 5?
A lot of the discourse lately reminds me of some of the stories my parents used to tell me about the thinking during the second world war. The Japs, the Germans, all the enemies were being treated as faceless, less than human archetypes. “They’re not like us so they’re the Face of Evil.” It’s easy to not be compassionate when the other party is perceived as a lesser.
One point worth making – and if someone else has made it I apologize – but Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and RICK SANTORUM – all apologized for the audience that booed the soldier’s QUESTION. This is different from booing the soldier for being gay, which is of course the running narrative despite the ansence of logic or facts to support it,
So the offending audience members didn’t actually boo a soldier for being gay. Rather, they booed a gay soldier for asking if, under a Republican presidency, DADT might be brought back in some fashion (and, thus, if he and his fellow gay servicemen [and women] would again be treated as second-class citizens).
.
I would consider that to be a distinction without a difference.
Well, I don’t expect much compassion from anybody on this one either: We’ve apparently killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a missile strike in Yemen.
.
What’s different about this one? He’s an American citizen.
.
Which means the US government has taken the extraordinary step of assassinating one of it’s own citizens. Ordered by Obama, and quickly praised by GOP Rep. Peter King, and probably in violation of the 5th Amendment which guarantees due process.
.
“What’s different about this one?”
.
You mean other than the fact that he apparently came back from the dead when we killed him in 2009 so that we could kill him in 2011?
Excellent point, Jerry. 🙂
.
But I’m finding myself very ambivalent about this situation, which in turn just makes me more jaded and depressed about the world in general.
Yeah, I’m actually okay with that. I mean, if he’d been arrested and then mysteriously had his brains blown out while in custody, that’s one thing. This is another.
.
Does it seem like I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am vast. I contain multitudes.
.
PAD
.
Craig, an armed madman is running down the street you live on and shooting randomly into windows and at people. He’s already injured several people and killed several others in his little spree.
.
The cops arrive and draw their guns. He turns his gun on them and they responding by creating substantial ventilation work to his guts and his brain. American cops kill an American criminal who was actively trying to kill others and them.
.
Do you have a fundamental problem with that? If not, how is this really different?
.
He was out there in “the battlefield” and plotting to kill U.S. citizens and troops as well as others around the world, his actions have already caused deaths before now and he was holed up wit terrorists and declare himself a member of their little merry group. He was a “bad guy” and a military target and he got scrubbed in the end.
.
U.S. citizen or not, there’s really very little different here than the above theoretical or between him and a terrorist leader of non-U.S. origins.
I’m glad he’s dead. But he wasn’t “Running down the street firing a gun in windows.” He was riding in a car not hurting anyone at the moment.
I approve of capital punishment, but this wasn’t a case of “immediate threat” or “convicted of a crime”. This was an assassination.
You example does raise a question in my mind–if the argument against the death penalty is that there is a chance that an innocent might be killed would that not also be an equally good argument against arming police? I think I’m on safe ground saying that more innocent people are killed every year in accidental shooting by cops than are put to death by the state. So using the “if it keeps one innocent from dying” argument shouldn’t we disarm the cops?
.
I suppose one could counter argue that the result would be far more innocents dying, from both cops being shot and them being unable to effectively protect the public. And incarcerating someone for life in solitary should be equally effective in preventing them from ever killing again as killing them would be. Whether or not life in solitary is cruel and unusual punishment is a matter of opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to put the lives of prison guards (or for that matter, other prisoners) at risk. If we are unwilling to consider death for those who kill while in prison then we have no choice but to isolate dangerous prisoners. It would be hellish but TFB.
.
The easiest counterargument to that is to show people the real footage of the L.A. shooters. Here were two guys who were better armed than most police at the time and covered almost completely head to toe in body armor that most of the handguns carried by police couldn’t penetrate.
.
They were an extreme example, but what they did would be much easier to do if they didn’t have to worry about cops with guns and what they did was terrorize everyone.
That example is irrelevant since this guy wasn’t doing that.
.
But then, considering all that’s happened in the last 10 years with non-citizens (rendition, Iraq, Guantanamo) and US citizens (TSA getting grope-happy, corporations apparently have more rights than actual people) the issue of our Constitutional rights and how they’re used/abused is certainly a real one.
.
As I said, I’m ambivalent about this situation. Contrary to what a former administration might think of these things, I know the world isn’t black and white.
.
Although, for a guy that not a lot of us had heard a whole lot about, the Obama Administration is certainly getting the word out there now about who he was. Even claims that he had been more powerful than bin Laden in the last few years.
.
Though, apparently before he left the States he got himself arrested for soliciting prostitutes couple of times. Very righteous of him.
And Jerry, such things as the LA shooters wouldn’t be easy for anybody if we didn’t have such a hard-on for guns in this country.
.
But that cat was long ago let out of the bag, then the house, run over by a car, and shot a thousand times for good measure.
.
“That example is irrelevant since this guy wasn’t doing that.”
.
No, of course he wasn’t. He had just taken up a leadership role in a major international terrorist organization where he was instructing other people to kill U.S. soldiers, bomb civilian targets or become suicide bombers. So, beyond the question of his cowardice, what’s the fundamental difference between killing a mad gunman in the street to save lives in your neighborhood and taking this guy out in a drone strike to prevent him from ordering more killings?
.
.
“And Jerry, such things as the LA shooters wouldn’t be easy for anybody if we didn’t have such a hard-on for guns in this country.”
.
Look the incident up. Most of what they had wasn’t legal and a good chunk of it was obtained via the black market. They would have done what they did whether or not the guns and body armor were “easy” to get for everyone else or not (which they weren’t and aren’t to the degree they obtained them.)
.
“Although, for a guy that not a lot of us had heard a whole lot about, the Obama Administration is certainly getting the word out there now about who he was. Even claims that he had been more powerful than bin Laden in the last few years.”
.
the “not a lot of us” being people who didn’t keep up with such things. When they thought they nailed him in 2009, they discussed who he was. Also, if your job requires you to keep up with such things or look at regular briefings about such things, you know a lot about him and others. I have such a job so, yeah, he was a rather important kill for the anti-murderous terrorist side.
.
“Contrary to what a former administration might think of these things, I know the world isn’t black and white.”
.
Nope, it’s not. But this isn’t exactly an example of something so grey that there should really be any questions about how black and white it is. He, American citizen or not, took up a leadership role in a terrorist organization and has been involved with multiple incidents even before then. He was killed in a drone strike on a terrorist target in an area that qualifies as the battlefield/zone of combat.
.
Seriously, there’s no difference in this than if we killed an identical guy who happened to have been born over there rather than here. How this is even questionable is beyond me.
Yeah, I’m missing the outrage here. We routinely bomb places with drones, killing bad guys and the unfortunate civilians alike and suddenly it’s time to wring our hands just because this guy was born here?
.
Kudos to the Obama administration for doing a fine job of killing these guys. Some may say it would have been possible to capture him instead, in which case kudos to the Obama administration for doing a fine job of killing this guy. As i said above, terrorists of this type are a perfectly good exception to my general distaste for the death penalty. Alive he might have been something worth taking hostages for. Now if they want to talk to him they’ll need a Ouija Board.
Bladestar, I don’t really see the problem with assassinations as a part of war. Whether it was targeting Yamamoto or Heydrich or any other upper level military or political operative in an enemy, I’d much rather we killed the guy making the orders than the grunts who have to carry it out.
Yeah, I’m missing the outrage here.
.
You’ve seen me (and Bladestar for that matter) show outrage here. This is far, far from it.
I wasn’t specifically saying you or Bladestar were outraged but there are some who certainly seem freaked out by the idea of the USA specifically targeting an American for assassination. Glenn Greenwald, for one, and while I disagree with him on this (and many other) issues I will give him credit for consistency. A lot of leftists went from wailing about every move by the Bush administration as evidence of impending jackbooted totalitarian Armageddon to whistling dixie when Obama continued the same policies. Greenwald is still arguing the same points. I still think he’s wrong but at least I can respect the fact that his beliefs are genuine, not determined by the party affiliation of the people in charge.
I’m not familiar with Greenwald, but I get what you’re saying.
.
On the whole, I’ve been very disappointed with Obama for exactly that reason: that he has simply continued some of the things that Bush was despised for. Or, in the case of TSA, has not only continued bad policy, but allowed it to become much worse.
.
And yet, one area where Republicans tried to hammer Obama hard is where Obama has succeeded: he has most certainly NOT been soft on terrorism/defense.
This is true. You have to give him a lot of credit for the recent effectiveness in offing our enemies.
.
It’s ironic that this will most likely not be a tremendous selling point in his re-election but any fair minded conservative should give the man big props for it regardless.
Yeah, I’m missing the outrage here.
.
You’ve seen me (and Bladestar for that matter) show outrage here. This is far, far from it
.
I don’t think Bill means that it went past him unseen, like he ran late for a bus. I think he means he doesn’t see the reason behind it. Honestly, I don’t either. Al Wacky (not to be confused with KaDaffy) was a traitor who made himself an enemy combatant in a foreign land and was continuing to plan moves against his home country. And I’m supposed to be upset because Danno didn’t slap cuffs on him and book him? I don’t think so.
.
I wouldn’t approve if he’d been in Oklahoma City, the FBI had arrested him and, while in custody, they’d put a bullet in his brain. But blowing him to hëll and gone as part of a tactical strike? I’m pretty sanguine about that.
.
PAD
Add into that the fact that it would have put our men in danger to have to swoop down in a hostile country and try to grab him…unless they thought he had some incredible amount of useful intel using a drone attack was not only the right thing to do it was the smart thing to do.
On the one hand, I find this a bit more disturbing than a government executing non-political murderers with a trial, that so many of you oppose.
.
On the other hand, when other methods of fighting these fundamentalist nutjobs involve mounting large-scale military assaults that harm and kill so many non-combatants, I can’t be too bothered by a surgical strike that takes out this áššhølë without any other loss of life.
.
It’s a shades of grey world we’re living in. Often, we don’t have a nice, moral solution.
It’s a shades of grey world we’re living in. Often, we don’t have a nice, moral solution.
.
War is inherently immoral. Brutality is met with brutality just to survive.
.
The justice system should be moral. Brutality has no place in it. That’s why cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. I believe that capital punishment, by the nature of its administration, if nothing else, is cruel and unusual.
.
Pretty straightforward, really.
.
PAD
War is inherently immoral. Brutality is met with brutality just to survive.
.
I can’t agree with that. Going to war in say, Bosnia, to prevent genocide, seems a completely moral act. And certainly, choosing war is more moral than surrender if you are being invaded by a brutal occupation force.
.
I’m probably being pedantic here since I think we are in agreement on the issue but a blanket statement like that seems to fly in the face of history. When I hear that something is immoral I take it to mean that it is the wrong choice but there are times when war is a far more moral choice than inaction. Not usually, but often enough.
He, American citizen or not, took up a leadership role in a terrorist organization and has been involved with multiple incidents even before then.
.
Let’s take out the “or not.” An American citizen openly conspiring to tear down the government and taking up arms against the United States. That’s treason in its purest form. Treason, I’m pretty sure, is punishable by death. I’m supposed to be choked up because a self-proclaimed enemy combatant traitor got blown up? I don’t think so.
.
PAD
Treason, I’m pretty sure, is punishable by death.
.
I see you left out the word “summarily”. Treason may be punishable by death, but isn’t there still supposed to be a trial and conviction in there somewhere?
.
Assault is punishable by several years in jail, but I suspect you wouldn’t support the police immediately applying the punishment without any intervening due process step.
.
Seriously, what part of actions taken in a war, military strikes and the idea of targets on a battlefield/in a war zone do some of you people not get? What aspect of this guy being a member, a ranking member at that, of an organization that has declared war on us and that we are actively engaged in conflict with is beyond the ability of some of you to grasp.
.
Would you all have been happier if we had wasted lives by having a team go in and snatch him instead of using the drone strike? It would be better if we brought him back and tried him even if it cost a few soldiers their lives?
.
Or would you rather we had just left him alone? You think the better alternative would have been to just let him go cheerily on about his way to continue plotting, planning, ordering and executing the deaths of innocent people around the world?
.
We killed a piece of scum who was a leader in a terrorist organization, we did it on the battlefield and we did it without unnecessarily risking any soldiers’ lives. Case closed and good riddance.
Assault is punishable by several years in jail, but I suspect you wouldn’t support the police immediately applying the punishment without any intervening due process step.
.
Obviously. And the reason I know it’s obvious is because I already said that hours ago. If the police had someone in custody, there are rules of conduct. If the Feds had Al Wacky in custody, there are rules of conduct. Al Wacky wasn’t in custody; he was in a war zone, if for no other reason than all the world was his war zone.
.
PAD
And the reason I know it’s obvious is because I already said that hours ago.
.
In a thread with close to 200 comments, it’s possible I haven’t read every one so I may have missed your comments of hours ago.
.
Not that I was disagreeing with you the “police have rules of conduct for folks in their custody” point.
.
My point was (and Jerry take note, too) that any charge, including a charge of treason, should have a finding of guilty before sentence is carried out. In absentia is necessary (and where a terrorist leader is involved, it would be extremely likely they aren’t present). But that step should be taken before any sentence is summarily carried out. There is a difference between killing folks in a battlefield during a battle, and taking out a specific target with a surgical strike.
Seriously, what part of actions taken in a war, military strikes and the idea of targets on a battlefield/in a war zone do some of you people not get?
.
The part where there wasn’t an active battle or firefight going on but a specific person targeted, and where the justification given isn’t “We were fighting an active battle.” but “He’s guilty of treason.” Level a legal charge at someone and you should have to follow the right legal steps before killing them.
.
“There is a difference between killing folks in a battlefield during a battle, and taking out a specific target with a surgical strike.”
.
No, no there’s not. When you’re fighting a war or engaged in a like conflict, surgical strikes have always been a part of the tools available. If you think you can take out a high ranking or key figure on the other side and the option available to you is to do so without unnecessarily endangering the lives of your soldiers or the civilians in the surrounding area who may get caught in the battle’s crossfires and stray shells…
.
Surgical strike every time.
.
“The part where there wasn’t an active battle or firefight going on but a specific person targeted”
.
Except, it was an active battlefield. Right now, that entire region is essentially a battlefield. And there was no firefight? So f’n what?
.
Do you seriously believe that there has to be a firefight going on for us to target a high ranking member of a terrorist organization? And on what planet does this logic have any historical standing? Armies, both ours and those belonging to countries we supported, have shelled from afar and bombed from above targeted strips of land and key strategic encampments at odd hours and where zero “firefight” or other active combat was going on. You don’t have to announce that you’re coming and then engage men in conflict before doing something like this.
.
Really, you don’t. I pulled out my “Rules of War for Dummies” and checked it twice. Not in there.
.
“where the justification given isn’t “We were fighting an active battle.” but “He’s guilty of treason.” Level a legal charge at someone and you should have to follow the right legal steps before killing them.”
.
Except that’s not why he was targeted. It’s been discussed here, but that wasn’t the “why” behind turning him into compost. He was targeted because, and try to stay with me here, he was in an active leadership position in a terrorist organization and both has plotted and was plotting to kill Americans and other innocent people around the world. He was a part of the terrorist organization that we’ve been fighting since 2001 and he was targeted and removed when the opportunity came up just like so many other high ranking members of that organization have been.
.
We took out a ranking member of a terrorist organization with a drone strike just as we’ve taken out other ranking members of that organization with drone strikes over the last few years. His being American doesn’t factor into it. He wants to play for the terrorists’ team, he gets the same treatment as all the others.
I’m with jerry and PAD on this but Sean does make a valid point–why not at least try him in absentia? I don’t see the harm in doing so.
Because it would have been seen as an empty exercise and roundly lampooned by the right?
.
Just a thought.
.
PAD
Yes, of course. We wouldn’t want to do anything that might cause the right to make fun of us.
.
Don’t we already get enough of that from the Democrats?
If you’re going to justify the execution on the grounds that he was guilty of treason, (“That’s treason in its purest form. Treason, I’m pretty sure, is punishable by death.”) then you DO need to actually find him guilty of treason if you want to be able to lay any claim to having respect for the rule of law.
.
If your not claiming treason as a reason (“he wasn’t targeted because of the crime of treason” – Jerry) then I’ll agree it’s a different situation.
.
“why not at least try him in absentia? I don’t see the harm in doing so.”
.
Because it’s an insane hoop to add to have to jump through. What’s the next step? Do we then have to start getting war crimes tribunal convictions in absentia on other terrorist leaders before we’re allowed to go after them?
.
Besides, he wasn’t targeted because of the crime of treason. He, like the foreign born members of the Al Qaeda command structure, was targeted for a drone strike when the opportunity arose because of his leadership position in Al Qaeda. He was targeted because he was a high value target who was a member of an army that’s declared war on us and is actively plotting to harm us.
.
At this point, his acts of “treason” really doesn’t have anything to do with it and is completely irrelevant to the military and strategic reasons for taking the guy out.
Just FYI to all concerned:
.
GEORGETOWN, Texas (AP/Huffington Post); Texas prosecutors agreed Monday to release an Austin man sentenced to life in prison in the 1986 beating death of his wife in 1986 after new DNA tests showed another man was likely responsible.
.
Good thing he wasn’t executed, huh.
.
PAD