Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Boy, can’t you just wait for the retractions to roll in now? I’m sure everyone on the wrong side of this will take appropriate steps to rectify the record.

Right.

Sad enough I am sure that Rush, Michelle Malkin, Tucker Carlson, and Sen. Bennet will ignore that bit of information.

William:
“Team Blue is not being devious after all. Oh well, maybe we’ll learn how in time.”

You’re right, the dems aren’t that devious. That’s the problem. And I only wish they would learn how to be back-handed and dishonest. I doubt the majority of them ever will though. And so, they continue getting their heads handed to them on election years.

I’m not at all shocked at comments by Limbaugh, Carlson etc. and I dont expect them to correct their allegations.

Its all about spin and power - it has nothing to do with ethics or truth. In case anyone wondered how much value today’s Republican party places on ethics simply look at the repeal of the ethics act and the record of Mr. Tom DeLay.

Tom DeLay? Mr. I-Am-Gonna-Make-Them-Judges-Pay DeLay? First Senator to ever threaten a Judge?

As for the Memo, you can tell it was genuine cause its amateurish, unsigned and misspelled wording is standard for Republicans. A Democrat is far too intellectual to make such mistakes. Only people who believe Evolution does not exist and that the Earth is 6,000 years old would write such a stupid thing.

Aldous:
“Only people who believe Evolution does not exist and that the Earth is 6,000 years old would write such a stupid thing.”

Hey! Am you saying I am smart not?!?!?

William:
“Team Blue is not being devious after all. Oh well, maybe we’ll learn how in time.”

No, No! Don’t go down that road — leave all the deviousness to the Republican’s. Instead, of being crooked and devious, the Dems need to become much more clever and adroit when it comes to getting their own messages out, as well as informing citizens about the true actions of the GOP.

Zeek:
“You’re right, the dems aren’t that devious. That’s the problem. And I only wish they would learn how to be back-handed and dishonest.”

Please. They’ve already moved so far away from what they once stood for. And in my opinion, that has been a major problem. If all they keep doing is mirroring all the crap that the other party does, especially all the lying and spinning, they’ll do nothing but alienate even more voters than they already have.

I do feel, however, that they need to become a lot less squeamish and a lot more honest about their use of strong words. Really, perfect politeness at all times seems completely ridiculous in the face of all the diabolical “Word Rove-ing” of the Neocon’s.

For instance, don’t say: “The President hasn’t been completely truthful with the American people”, rather, just come right out and say in a straightforward manner that: “This entire administration has been lying and manipulating the American people through the media and the press.”

Adrienne,

“If all they keep doing is mirroring all the crap that the other party does, especially all the lying and spinning, they’ll do nothing but alienate even more voters than they already have.”

Not if you do it right (like the Republicans do). Additionally, I can’t seem to think of a democratic president that didn’t use propaganda to get elected.

“I do feel, however, that they need to become a lot less squeamish and a lot more honest about their use of strong words.”

See, this is more of what I was talking about. Rather than using words that are neutral or only slightly bent, why not just let the full fledged bull sh*t fly? I mean, if names like the clear skies act and no child left behind act are working for the Republicans, why wouldn’t they for Dems?

So, either way you slice it, dice it, and chop it, the Democrats still need to change their political tactics cuz’ they ain’t workin’.

(Note my simplistic speech in the last paragraph reaching out to voters :P)

I don’t think the DNC’s problem has been they’re not willing to spin, lie, cheat, etc… I think it’s been unwilling to be who they are. They let Reagan turn the word “liberal” into an expletive.
We liberals need to take it back, redifine it in the vernacular to what it really means and say “Yes, we are liberal, so are you (even if you don’t know it), and so you should be if you are not yet.”

The prospect of the Democratic party becoming even nastier … oh well. At least it’ll give conservatives even more ammunition.

BTW, from my end of the spectrum (right), it seems to me that for at least four years (ever since Bush’s first election), the Democrats have had one mantra, one credo - “we’ve gotta get nastier.” “We’ve gotta object more.” “We’ve gotta stick up for our beliefs more.”

Enmity sells, I guess. But from my perspective, the Democrats seem every inch (and several feet beyond) as nasty as Republicans. You have an image problem, and I don’t think becoming even nastier is going to help it.

Becoming more reasonable on the other hand (try admitting we on the right aren’t constantly plotting the overthrow of our democracy and longing for the day Nazism triumps) … well, I’d listen more.

Democrats must define themselves as being different from Republicans. Republicans are dishonest; Democrats are honest. Republicans are for helping the rich; Democrats are for helping the average guy. Republicans are “us vs. them” supercompetitive; Democrats are “we are all together” cooperative.

Concentrate on the differences.

Republicans are “us vs. them” supercompetitive; Democrats are “we are all together” cooperative.

All of us, I presume, except Republicans, unless they agree with you.

Do you honestly really truly have such a simplistic, self-serving, self-righteous view of the differences between Democrats and Republicans?

I generally try to assume my opponents are rational, but I’m beginning to doubt …

Daniel,

You see, the right often represents many things that are absolutely anathema to us on the left (although I am not a democrat, I consider myself a strong liberal). Religious control and the legislation of morality, censorship, strong government police power, warmongering, and militarism. Many of the economic policies of moderate Republicans don’t scare me, its the wholehearted rejection of the traditional small-government conservative in today’s Republican party. Where are the criticisms of Bush’s rampant neoconservative, imperialist, massive-government agenda from the right? Why are the moderate and libertarian wings actually following the zealots? I would like to know how such opposed ideologies can be grouped together.

To some degree, we go along with our more extreme wings becuause the rhetoric we hear from the left sounds a whole hell of a lot worse.

Not to mention, I think that left and right see two different realities - they read different news, believe different historical explanations for how we got here, have different views about utopia … I’ve been amazed as I’ve read various blogs, left and right. They don’t even agree about basic facts, let alone interpretation. The left’s rhetoric (that I’ve heard) is hateful. From reading leftist blogs, they consider the right’s rhetoric hateful. A great many days, all I can see in the future is civil war. It would be a relief, to some degree.

I don’t want civil war, but if you honestly believe Republicans are such evil people, why the hell does this blog even exist? How can such “good” Democrats compromise with such “evil” Republicans? In battles between the forces of good and evil, there can be no compromise that doesn’t sully the forces of good - haven’t you read your fantasy?

In battles between forces of human beings, when right and wrong and truth and error tend to be more evenly distributed, there can be a chance of peace with honor.

I see no chances for peace with honor coming from either side, which is why I worry.

Actually, I suppose I shouldn’t be worried - partisan rhetoric has always been inflated and vicious, from our founding until today. There were brief periods in which both sides were civil to each other, but it was more common than one side devoured the other (I’m thinking of the “Era of Good Feelings.”)

I am awfully glad that we stop at calling each other names and very rarely kill one another. It’s a great thing about this country - two hotly, bitterly contested elections in a row and still no revolution. That’s doing pretty good, if I do say so myself. I suppose I ought to give you Democrats a great kudos - you didn’t rebel, even though you lost by a knife-edge, and it hurts. I hope that when it’s my side’s turn to lose, we will also stay loyal. However, I will remember your nasty words of these past four (going to be eight, at least) years … and it will be difficult to keep them from spewing forth when you do eventually regain power and commit all the things you accuse us of. I’ll remember. When the Democrats do win back power, they’d better not get a judicial nominee through the system for the next several years in repayment for your obstructionism of the past four.

Of course, once you do win back power, the rhetoric will all switch around … suddenly Democrats will remember the arguments that a president has the right to appoint almost anyone he wants, and the opposition should honor that, and Republicans will remember (and use) the arguments you Democrats make now … it’s enough to make a man cynical about politics.

I don’t hate Republicans. I am currently dating one. What I don’t like are conservatives who seek to assert a moral righteousness over other people who they don’t agree with. The difference between my political philosophy (and many democrats, though I hesitate to even say most) is that in our belief, each person should determine their own path, to a reasonable extent. Religious conservatives seem to strive to force others to follow their own path through the legislation of morality. Now, I don’t care at all what people do in their private lives if they aren’t harming others. I don’t care if homosexuals seek to express their feelings physically or if people choose to die when they are faced with a terminal illness. It simply does not affect my own moral choices or my individual autonomy. If you’d like to know, I am personally pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. But I would never force a woman to bear a child she does not want to bear. I do not agree with white supremacists. Yet they, as we all do, have the right to exist and even to speak their minds (if they have any). I dare not impose my own moral standards upon others, for what right do I have to sit in judgment? What I always found attractive about the Republican party (such as it is) was that they refused to allow the government into the private spheres of their lives, whether it be to own guns or to order their own economic affairs. How did this party, espousing many of the values of freedom, become the jingoistic monster it is today, seeking to impose its own moral judgments on other people, and certainly not because they are harmed in any real manner by any of these actions? Republicans and Democrats used to have much common ground. I would love to see that return. But it never will while the Republican party is under the control of religious zealots, and the Democrats are certainly to blame as well for their stance on many issues. Why must everyone seek to use the government to impose values on others? We can disagree on taxes and economic regulation, and this is fine. But to try to tell someone else how to live their life, well, that is what I abhor.

Rich -

What I don’t like are conservatives who seek to assert a moral righteousness over other people who they don’t agree with.

Democrats must define themselves as being different from Republicans. Republicans are dishonest; Democrats are honest. Republicans are for helping the rich; Democrats are for helping the average guy. Republicans are “us vs. them” supercompetitive; Democrats are “we are all together” cooperative.

What I don’t like are conservatives liberals who seek to assert a moral righteousness over other people who they don’t agree with.

“I am currently dating one (Republican)

Well, I married one, and I still believe that
we can all get along without a civil war again.

Rich, your comments are right on the money and
reflect my own views

But Bush and Cheney curdle my supper.

Rich -

I know you didn’t say the second quote, but Paul did above, and that’s what got me so riled. Thanks for your post, by the way … it’s a lot more conciliatory than I’m used to hearing from your side. Suffice it to say that, from my perspective, the Republican party isn’t a “monster.” Maybe going to war in Iraq wasn’t a good idea, but I think it was an honest idea at the time, and we need to do our very best to give the Iraqis a decent country now. “We broke it, we bought it.” I’m uneasy about the Patriot Acts and want them to go away, but I believe they were enacted in good faith and probably haven’t been abused terribly (a few abuses, possibly, but not on a really big scale). From where I’m standing, things are nowhere near as drastically awful as Democrats seem to paint them.

… after all, none of you are worried about being arrested and sent to a prison camp for your criticism of Bush’s administration, unlike Stalin or Hitler’s regimes …

Daniel,

after all, none of you are worried about being arrested and sent to a prison camp for your criticism of Bush’s administration, unlike Stalin or Hitler’s regimes …

By that standard, by the time we would have a right to complain, we would be killed for doing so. I think I’ll try to prevent our getting to that point, thanks. I love that justification from the right. Abu Gharaib is OK because it wasn’t as bad as Saddam. Now the Republicans assaulting the constitution is OK because they aren’t as bad as Stalin? Your standards just keep going lower and lower.

I realize that by the time it got that bad, it would be too late; but I’m trying to give you Democrats some badly needed perspective, and try to calm you down. Your rhetoric is would be better suited to such a period as I’ve outlined above. A little perspective can do a lot to calm people down.

Zeek,

You are the kind of person that loves to make others confused yet angry (more so angry). Still, you surprise the hell out of me. When you post messages on the republican stories you find a way to tell everyone they are wrong and still manage to be completely uncreditable.
When you come on the democratic stories you act the same way. Are you not sure where you belong? Do you have a niche? Please post another message so i can try to comprehend this senseless mind game. Thank you.

Nik,

There’s always room for improvement, for anyone. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, because they’re both wrong much of the time. Perhaps your restricted mind can’t comprehend the idea of, “not taking sides,” but I, for one, do not allie myself with political parties.

I was almost happy when you referred to this as a game, until I realized you meant a sick, twisted, diabolical game with no fun. Perhaps you have a reason for treating this as a life-or-death matter, but I don’t. I’d say chill, but you’d probably bite my head off.

Paul

“Concentrate on the differences.”

Yeah, that way we can divide this country even more.

Daniel-
Our party has been subjected to withering assaults for the past decade. Go to the book shelves. Democrats may call Republicans names, but we do not, as a rule, advocate the destruction of conservatism as a threat, rather the rolling back of it.

I think the thing is, the Republicans are playing a game of gotcha, continually throwing insults and unfair policies our way, and then blasting us for being partisan when we respond in substance and force. We can’t complain without being labelled whiners and malcontents. Maybe the better measure lies in who has the real reason to be angry. I think an objective examination of things would reveal that my side does have the moral high-ground here.

Stephen,

It would be wishful thinking to hope the majority of Americans would ever do an “objective examination” of politics. Thus, one cannot expect too many Republicans to see you’re view that Democrats, “have the moral high-ground here.”

It’s all about perception my friend.

What is missing from these comments is the importance of looking at specific policies and bills enacted by Republicans rather than attacking Repulicans on principles and vague standards.

Consider “No Child Left Behind”, which would be more aptly named “No Child Left Untested” or “No School Funded”. The Republican party can espouse Christian values all they want, but the fact is that they’re not following through. Christ calls us to be compassionate and to take care of those with less than we have. Failing our children is not the act of a Christian - it’s the act of a hypocrite.

… after all, none of you are worried about being arrested and sent to a prison camp for your criticism of Bush’s administration, unlike Stalin or Hitler’s regimes …

Um, yeah… there’s a slogan for you: Support the President. He’s not as bad as Stalin.

Um, yeah… there’s a slogan for you: Support the President. He’s not as bad as Stalin.

Nice! How about these:

A dangerous man for a dangerous world!
Extremism in the defense of stupidity is no vice!
Just get sick or retire at the right time and you’ll be OK!

…or…

The environment is for sissies!

Consider “No Child Left Behind”, which would be more aptly named “No Child Left Untested” or “No School Funded”.

Yeah, that’s not working out quite as planned… or is it? Actually, a friend of mine has a son, in Ohio, who just started high school last fall. The school sent home a letter explaining that under the “No Child Left Behind” act, parents must permit the school to disclose thier students information to military recruiters. Denying release of records to military recruiters would unilaterally prevent the school from releasing your child’s records to anyone, including employers and colleges. So I suppose it’s also “No child left behind from war” also.

saw this on a bumper sticker (on a fuel efficient car, BTW)
A village in Texas is missing it’s idiot.

I like the fact that most of the liberals support (and all that I know!)the meaning of liberalism: favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized :of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially: of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives. Synonyms of liberalism:broad-minded, nonconventional, nonorthodox, nontraditional, open-minded, progressive, radical, unconventional, unorthodox
Related Words advanced, contemporary, modern; forbearing, indulgent, lenient, permissive, tolerant; extreme; impartial, objective, and unbiased which seem to be traits we want all to endorse and many endorsed by “Jesus Christ”.
Radical is claimed by both parties!
Unfortunatly the conservatives seemingly prefer to remain stagnant and unyielding to the freedoms our founding fathers promoted and endorsed. Seeing the synonyms of :old-fashioned, orthodox, reactionary, traditional, unprogressive and the near antonyms: extremist, radical, revolutionary; nonconformist I wonder why anyone would crow about having those traits???!!!

Now wait a sec…

You want the Republicans to retract the argument that the Democrats made up the memo

BUT

No Democrat is willing to retract the argument expressed by many here on this column and other places that Karl Rove created the forged CBS documents, to the point that some Democratic leaders in congress are calling for an investigation.

AND

You then say that you need to learn to ‘cheat, lie and steal as well as the Republicans’ in order to get your power back.

Trust me. Democrats and Republicans alike are both equally filthy and disgusting in the political dirty tricks campaign, you don’t need to worry about learning anything, you could teach a doctorate’s program on the subject.

Rhinehold:
“No Democrat is willing to retract the argument expressed by many here on this column and other places that Karl Rove created the forged CBS documents”

Well, I never made that argument, but I would be happy to retract it on behalf of the blues. Karl Rove may have told Shrub to point out that the documents were forged, but he certainly didn’t forge them himself. (On a side note: Just because the documents were forged doesn’t mean Shrub’s service record is solid)

“Democrats and Republicans alike are both equally filthy and disgusting in the political dirty tricks campaign”

No, they really aren’t. First, they have none of the organizational skills that the Republicans do. Second, they are too preoccupied with digging up genuine dirt to fabricate something. More often than not they come up with nothing and end up going on the defensive.

To use the last presidential campaign as an example, the Shrub team spread lies about John Kerry with the Swiftboat Vets and spread lies about John McCain via telephone calls. Democrats on the other hand, did nothing. You can disagree with the Democrats all you want Rhinehold, but the truth is that they are far more honest than Republicans.

I have a great friend in Charlottesville, VA who is a staunch GOP and said 4 years ago that he did not like Bush but because of his party loyality he would hold his nose and vote Bush. THIS election he said that because of the lies and dishonesty of the Bush administration that he would proudly vote for Kerry. I guess that it is apparent that not ALL republicans are following the current administration blindly.

Zeek, from previous comment (above, in response to his political ideology)

Perhaps your restricted mind can’t comprehend the idea of, “not taking sides,” but I, for one, do not allie myself with political parties.

Zeek, later comment (in response to allegations presented by Dems that Rove created Rathergate):

Well, I never made that argument, but I would be happy to retract it on behalf of the blues.

I’m with Nik on this one.

Hey, AParker, I was just trying to help them :P

Aldous said:

“Tom DeLay? Mr. I-Am-Gonna-Make-Them-Judges-Pay DeLay? First Senator to ever threaten a Judge?
As for the Memo, you can tell it was genuine cause its amateurish, unsigned and misspelled wording is standard for Republicans. A Democrat is far too intellectual to make such mistakes. Only people who believe Evolution does not exist and that the Earth is 6,000 years old would write such a stupid thing.”

I know a Democrat is too intelligent to make a mistake. Tom Delay is not a Senator. He is a Congressman and part of the House of Representatives and not the Senate.

Zeek-

I’ve seen your idea of ‘help’, arrogance and inflammatory statements.

I’d say chill, but you’d probably bite my head off.

Blaine:

I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. If I were a Democrat, I would have gotten the free 50 IQ Points Boost and not have made the mistake.

AParker,

“I’ve seen your idea of ‘help’, arrogance and inflammatory statements.”

List an example. Or, if as I suspect, you cannot back-up your claims, stop talking about me; I’m not the subject of this blog.

The interesting thing about this memo is how it was used and who used it.

Few Republicans saw that memo and they did not use the contents. Whether or not you believe in the sentiments, any Republican to commit such things to paper is just stupid. They are inflammatory and much more use to the opposition. That is why the Democrats were eager to leak it.

You don’t have much of a smoking gun. You have some freelancing staffer who have not yet learned the art of politics.

The Democrats clearly used this instrumentally and their friends in the media helped. Republicans would have done the same, but they would have been unable to get the liberal media on board.

Remember when Republicans leaked a legitimate memo used by Democratic leadership (Kennedy and Durbin, not low staffers) on how they would block judge nominations for political gain. The press quickly moved from the content of the memo to the outrage of how the Republicans got a hold of it.

This Schiavo memo hubbub, compared to the one above and any reality standard, is at best an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It should not have gotten the press play it did, and had it been a Democratic memo, it would not have passed the press filters.

Zeek-

There is an example right underneath my claim. I guess it got lost in the length of my post.

AParker, how was that an example of help? Nik was being abrassive and leveling personal accusations against me so I responded accordingly; helping him was the farthest thing from my mind at that point.

Now, you too are leveling personal accusations at me. If you need to vent, feel free to e-mail me but stop wasting blog space.

Daniel said:

“…they’d better not get a judicial nominee through the system for the next several years in repayment for your obstructionism of the past four.”

What are you talking about… The Republicans “obstructed” EVERY one of Clintons nominations (that’s 60 if you keep count). The Democrats have only stopped 6 of Dubya’s. The way I see it, we could block 54 more JUST TO CALL IT EVEN.

However, Liberals seem to be more fair then the Republicans, and will only work to stop the most offensive of candidates.

Daniel said later:

“Maybe going to war in Iraq wasn’t a good idea, but I think it was an honest idea at the time”

Pre-emptive war is what drove Japan to attack Pearl Harbor- what that FAIR?

The Iraq war was a bad idea, based on bad information. Bad information that keeps coming up more and more as biased as more reports come forward. We know now that this war had nothing to do with honesty. No weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear armaments, no connection to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group. And now the Republican’s Senate committee are saying THEY WILL NOT INVESTIGAE the mismatch. This after they promised the report would be done after the election.

Bringing us to war based on bad information is what it is… Bad Leadership!

Sorry Patrick, the Iraq was was the right thing to do BEFORE any talk of WMD. I’ve time after time detailed out the myriad of reasons that Iraq should have had to deal with it’s transgressions to the international community and the US in specific. That you and your kind want to constantly ignore those reasons is amazing revisionism along the lines of saying that the Lewinsky scandal was ‘just about sex’.

The sad part is that moronic tv watching americans buy it.

The democrats aren’t ‘organized’? Please! Try and let the republicans get away with lying to a grand jury in a sexual harassment case by trying to sidestep a law that they signed into existence and see how far they get.

Oh, and why isn’t Sandy Berger doing 15 to 30 in Levenworth?

Do you really want this thread to be about listing out how bad the parties are? I am sure I can come up with over 20 specific instances over the past decade where both parties should have been put behind bars, yet we sill keep supporting and electing them, don’t we?

Rhinehold,

If “moronic tv watching Americans” believe it, it’s because that’s the President said that this is what the war was about! His address to the Nation on March 17, 2003 two days before starting the war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

These Opening remarks sum up his address

“My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.”

Another clue that this war was in fact over “weapons of mass destruction” could be the law that was passed- Public Law 107-243

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f%3Apubl243.107

This law is about “weapons of mass destruction”, and ensuring that Iraq DISARMS. Which they did before the war!

That’s why people believe it, because that was the rhetoric, but of course, as usual, it does not match with reality. I think that’s why some diehard Republicans think it was about something else. Read the Law!

Patrick,

My response can be read here at:http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001951.html

Basically, I find fault with the president on trying to expediate support by focusing on the single reason, proving his inability at using the mass media to market his views.

But, that does not mean we should not have deal with Iraq as was needed done long before Bush was in office but the previous holders of the office wouldn’t step to the plate. So I applaud Bush for stepping to the plate to deal with Iraq as they should have been dealt with and chastize him for making a horrible political error that will cause international problems for decades.

Zeek,

I do not see how the statements i made where anymore harsh or “abrassive” than your previous comments of:

“Aldous:
“Only people who believe Evolution does not exist and that the Earth is 6,000 years old would write such a stupid thing.”

“i only wish they would learn how to be back-handed and dishonest” -reffering to Dems.

“Rather than using words that are neutral or only slightly bent, why not just let the full fledged bull sh*t fly?”

“Perhaps your restricted mind can’t comprehend the idea of, “not taking sides,”

If i offended anyone with my- “Still, you surprise the hell out of me.”- comment, i do apologize. I do not think i was being bitter, only that i was stating the facts.
As you had said to AParker before- “List an example. Or, if as I suspect, you cannot back-up your claims, stop talking about me; I’m not the subject of this blog.”- i think this covers it.

AParker:

“Hey, AParker, I was just trying to help :P “
-Zeek

Red column-
Don’t any of the negative or problematic disclosure of the past year bother you any? It seems to me that Republicans are far to willing to take their party’s word for things. The Red column could do with a little more skepticism and self examination.

No Democrat is willing to retract the argument expressed by many here on this column and other places that Karl Rove created the forged CBS documents, to the point that some Democratic leaders in congress are calling for an investigation.

Rhinehold,

I cannot insist that such claims or suggestions may have been made in a WB Blue Column comment thread, but I challenge you to produce evidence that such assertions were made by those of us writing in this column!

The reason why the leading voices of the Right will not apologies (although I understand Ms. Malkin did come clean recently), is that they are further isolating themselves into their fully vetted, censored Conservative Echo Chamber. They are ‘predicting’ Tom DeLay’s demise, rather than demanding it. They are not bothered by the damage such hypocrisy does to their party, instead they mount a ‘everybody does it’ rationalization.

The one thing the Social Security rout, the Terri Shiavo debacle, Memogate II and the impending nuclear option fight have in common, is the Right’s refusal to accept no other version of reality, but their own!

Heh. You guys do know Bush is planning to attack Iran in June, right? This after it came out that the US has no idea about the state of Iran’s WMD!!!

I just wish George Bush would send his Twins into the Army. Lead by Example, eh? Oh wait… He IS leading by example. That’s why there are so few Conservatives enlisting to spread Freedom!!! They are staying home like Dear Leader.

Bert wrote:

I cannot insist that such claims or suggestions may have been made in a WB Blue Column comment thread, but I challenge you to produce evidence that such assertions were made by those of us writing in this column!

Ooookay. How about :

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/001564.html

Written by … you.

In which you say:

We now know, one of the very early (and quite well-informed) debunkers to raise suspicion of the Killian memos, has been revealed as a rather partisan, contract operative of the Republican Party. And, now comes the rumors of a certain Texas GOP operative, revealed (gasp!) in the New York Post. This has Karl Rove’s Aqua Velva soiled fingers, all over it!

Rhinehold,

I stand corrected. Well done! However, since the CBS Investigation report could not determine the authenticity of document or trace it to a source, my reckless conspiracy theory remains a possibility!

Jack:

Few Republicans saw that memo and they did not use the contents. Whether or not you believe in the sentiments, any Republican to commit such things to paper is just stupid. They are inflammatory and much more use to the opposition. That is why the Democrats were eager to leak it.

WTF? How do you know how many Congressional Reds saw the memo? and “they did not use the contents” in what sense, Jack? you think they didn’t try and exploit Schaivo for political purposes? I guess Santorum is a long-time family friend of the Schindler’s and just happened to be praying with them when the media stopped in?

and why do you think that for “any Republican to commit such things to paper is just stupid”? Stupider than, say, accepting a $100k trip without asking where the money came from (Delay - “I am shocked, shocked, to find out that foreign lobbyists were involved!”) Stupider than the leader of the US dissing its legal debts as a bunch of IOUs?

It’s not stupid, it’s just very, very arrogant. The Red leaders have shown over and over again that they don’t care much what Dems think, and Red followers have shown over and over again they don’t care much what their leaders do.

Fight amongst yourselves, I hope Mr. Dean has a plan. Sure we’ll always have different opinions, but at some point we need to get to the same page and agree on at least a sentence. Remember that Republicans as one want in every uterus and bedroom with their “be like us or die, Liberals!” agenda.

William

I wrote in a post re the case much earlier that I thought Republicans might use it for political purposes. I was opposed to that. The question is whether or not they needed this kind of memo to figure it out. I saw excerpts form the memo. It was not on letter head and it was simple minded. You don’t need a memo like that and I believe it was blown up in the media.

The contrast with the Dem memo on judges is interesting. In that case Senators Kennedy and Durbin certainly saw and acted on the memo. Nobody even bothered to deny it. The press went immediately ignored the contents and began to investigate how the Republicans got a hold of it and to condemn them for it. In this case, the authority of the memo is in question. Nobody seems to have acted on it and the press is interested only in the contents.

“Red column-
Don’t any of the negative or problematic disclosure of the past year bother you any? It seems to me that Republicans are far to willing to take their party’s word for things. The Red column could do with a little more skepticism and self examination.”

Stephen,
Just because republicans don’t have the same zest for attacking republicans as dems and indep’s do doesn’t mean they are thrilled and supportive about all that happens.
I don’t see much of what you call for in the other two columns either. Most of it is attacks on Republicans and some positive issues for others. I know the reason is that the Reds are the ones in power. I guess the others get to slide by in what they do right now. Maybe they prefer it that way??

Friend-
This isn’t about attacking. This is about disagreeing. This is about the Republican party being lead from the ground up, not the top down. On just about every issue, the Republican party has locked itself down to a single position- That ain’t natural!

The Republicans are in power, but at what cost? To satisfy one powerful group or another, it’s betraying it’s core principles, expanding entitlements, stepping all over state’s rights, spending out of control, and more. If the Republican want their power to maintain its hold on the government, the grassroots of the party have got to figure out where they stand for themselves. Otherwise, the party may fragment much more violently, like it did in the early nineties.

But then, maybe the Republican party was never meant to be permanent majority. Maybe our country can go only so far before it wants to take a new direction. Or maybe we’re too focused on the dualism of our political system, and not enough on the coalitions underneath.

You think we envy your position? Though we would prefer to win, we wouldn’t want to be in your position, trying to sit on the changes the Republican party can’t even bring itself to admit are taking place in the party. You can’t bury policy mistakes and political miscalculation forever. At some point, you pay a price for the distance you take yourself from the truth of where you really stand.

Stephen:
“But then, maybe the Republican party was never meant to be permanent majority. Maybe our country can go only so far before it wants to take a new direction.”

I like to think of political history as cosine/sine graphs. So, the equation of conservative power as time progresses would be

Y= cosine(X)

which of course would mean

Y= (-)cosine(X)

would represent liberals’ power as time progresses. Go ahead and graph it, it’s pretty accurate I think.

May I point out that democrats are paying now for there mistakes in the past and will continue to pay till they offer something of substance to the american people.

Actually Stephen I do think dems envy our position, that is exactly why dems have become so shrill! They can no longer state on the evening news “THAT”S THE WAY IT IS”. There is now competition and the willing accomplisses of the evening press are feeling the wieght of the american people. ie. (RATINGS)

Furthermore for anyone on this blog to say that dems are not as organized as republicans is insult the the inteligence of there own party.
Seeing as more dems voted in the last election than ever before. I find those comments juvenile and lacking credibility. Those who l;evel personal attacks on others simply because they don’t agree is showing of intolerance to a differing opinion. Wait don’t dems claim they own all the tolerance in this country. I think not!

“You can’t bury policy mistakes and political miscalculation forever.”
Stephen,
Just curious??? Do you have problems with any Blue issues? They can’t possibly be perfect in your eyes.

I didn’t say envy.
I mentioned that there is little negative talk about ANY dems right now, though there is alot about the party itself and exactly where it stands and where they are going.
If they (the blues) are going to let everyone know that Religion is and should not be important in political life, I would venture to guess that they are heading for many more losses at the polls considering where our country is at in it’s history right now.
They (blues) will show up at churches (like Kerry did) and try to get their votes BUT can they really be believed anymore when they claim how important religion and God are in their lives?
Any thoughts??

Stephen

The Republican Party has become a bigger tent than the Dems.

There are successful pro-choice Republicans. Some of them got to speak at the Republican convention. I didn’ notice any pro-life Democrats speaking at theirs. There are successful Republican pundits who support gay marriage. I don?t notice many Democratic pundits in opposition. There are successful Republicans who don?t favor school vouchers. Can you think of any Democrats who support them?

I have been “accused” of being a moderate on these blog pages. My Republican friends never have any trouble with what I say. Many agree; some don’t. We have a wide variety of opinions.

In elections, you stand by your candidate. You choose the package. It doesn’t mean you like all the positions, but it is the best on offer. I hope it is the same for Dems.

Chris-

May I point out that democrats are paying now for there mistakes in the past and will continue to pay till they offer something of substance to the american people.

Funny, that’s how I would describe the Republican’s position. I would expect your idea of substance to be closely related to your ideas of proper political ideology. The subtext of your remark clearly is: we Republicans know what’s in the minds and hearts of most Americans.

Why then can your president not get a majority of Americans to buy into your intervention for Terri Schiavo, even in your own party? Why then does the president continue to lose points on social security despite ad blitzes, astroturfing rallies, and the GOP punditocracy raining down the received truth from on high? The GOP can miscalculate, and has miscalculated the political mind of the American people.

The Democrats are not as regimented. As liberals, we are not all that keen on discouraging free thinking in our ranks. I think this may ultimately prove to be our way back into the majority. When people are tired of false certainties backing incompetent policy, they will come our way.

Besides, why else would you call us shrill, if you didn’t feel the insecurity in the face of our newly vigorous resistance?

Friend-
I don’t much like endless diplomacy. There should be a breaking point, so people know not to cross it, and that things will become serious if that happens. Peace at all costs is frustration at all times.

I don’t like that many of them voted yes on the Schiavo thing. They could have stood aside and kept themselves clear of that lit bag of constitutional dogcrap. I think they should have also kept themselves cleaner on the bankruptcy law changes and the other crap policies the Republicans have been pitching. It’s time to start standing up for ourselves.

That includes the subject of religion. I am an unapologetic Christian. It’s time the Republicans come to understand that the sword of God’s word cuts both ways, especially for those who fail to help the least, though they rank themselves the highest.

Jack-
The real question is, who’s setting the agenda? Parties naturally select for certain beliefs and sets of beliefs. The question is, how much freedom is allowed these people?

Stephen

Who is setting the Democratic agenda? Is hatful Howard Dean really the choice of the broad Democratic family? He is currently the party leader. If I have to protect and defend everything George Bush does (and usually I agree anyway) you guys have to take responsibilty for your little guy, who says he hates me and everthing I stand for.

That’s interesting Jack. I don’t remember McAuliffe being “the party leader”. He was an organizer and a fund raiser, not a policy maker. Why would you think Dean is the party leader? Dean doesn’t make Democratic policy. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is the party leader.

BTW, here’s the Democratic agenda. I stand behind this legislation 100%.

It is easy to write agendas when you don’t have to actually carry them out.

The goals the Dems mention are good. Few people would disagree. But there are some things they can’t have with the methods they propose. Just a quick look.

Under putting security first, Republican goals and promises would be very similar. Neither party will be able to fulfill them completely.

The Dems say that they will increase the military strength by 40,000 while enacting a guard and reserve bill or rights and providing health care. I have no quarrel with the goal, but how much will they need to increase the military budget to pay for these things? Yes, I know they will save money by running things better and getting out of Iraq faster. This is the triumph of hope of experience.

Targeting terrorists more effectively? This is the same thing the Republicans tell us. I could cut and paste this on to one of their sites without editing. The same is true of the section on veterans.

On the section on jobs, “encouratrongging” innovation? I guess the Dems could hire at least one more editor. That aside, what they are saying is that they will increase the cost of doing business in the U.S. by stricter overtime policy and then raise the prices of goods and service in the U.S. through protectionism.

Under quality education, I say good. Let’s see how they do it.

I read about a good proposal today that would just mandate that school systems spend 65% of their budget on actual education (as opposed to bureaucracy or overhead) That would be a better start.

On health care

So the Dems propose tax credits to small business for health care. They will also find the money for this from savings at the Pentagon, I assume.

Re-importation is just a chimera. It is not a bad idea, but it is not a solution. Countries like Canada are free riders on the drug development train. Firms recover their R&D costs in the U.S. market and then can offer cheaper drugs to others. The same happens with things like movies and television shows. Firms recover their costs in the U.S. and then sell them cheaper overseas. If we allow re-importation, the costs in the U.S. drop a little while the prices in Canada go up a lot until they are about the same. It mitigates the problem for awhile, but doesn’t solve it. And as the Canadians (and others) start to feel the pinch, they will make it more difficult.

Democracy begins at home

Good. I have read reports of several democrats charged with election fraud. I don’t recall any Republicans. We all want fair elections. The Dems are bigger offenders.

Jack-
You told me that the Republicans were setting up a bigger tent. I asked you the question because I want to know whether your bigger tent means your people simply tolerate those with different opinions, or whether your party actually involves them in making policy.

The President and his team make the decisions for the executive of the U.S. It seems to me that he is about as open to outside influences as any other chief executive.

The same is true of Republican governors. They seem to follow as wide a variety of policies as Democratic governors.

Republican Senators and Representatives seem to stray a little farther off their reservation than their Dem colleagues.

We are a more conservative group. The Republican Party includes many fundamentalist Christians, but I don’t believe they control the agenda. Republican leaders address their concerns, just as Dems address the concerns of their big interest groups. The teachers unions and civil rights establishment are at least as dictatorial in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also includes a lot of business oriented groups and members. In many ways their needs conflict with the fundamentalists. As with all parties, it is a balancing act.

I believe in most of the Republican core issues. I don’t believe government is the preferred solution to most problems. I believe in individual, not group rights. I believe that people would be happier if they pursued a more traditional lifestyle (i.e. two parents of the opposite sex and children) but I recognize that not everyone can achieve this goal. I believe in free trade under most conditions. I generally see more merit to the management side of a labor dispute. I generally support George Bush’s foreign policy.

The Democratic establishment usually annoyed me. Democratic rhetoric generally leaves me flat. Most of the Democrats I really admired have died. The last one to shuffle off this mortal coil was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I am not sure what else you want. Party leaders determine the party platform and goals, just as the Dems do. A wide variety of people have input.

But I see it as an interaction. It is like joining a club. I join the club that seems to give me most of what I want. I don’t join one where I disagree with the basic principles in the hope to changing them. Of course the club is always trying to appeal to me and others like me, so it does respond to our needs.

Jack, it was great reading just now all that you believe in. But since you also believe the media is all biased liberally, when things are pointed out to you that you don’t want to hear, how convenient is it to just dismiss it and blame the messenger? I used to disagree with you a lot but I also thought that you made sense almost all the time. Now, not so much.

Jack, regarding the legislation the Democrats are trying to pass, you say in several cases they’re the same goals the GOP has. The problem is, the Republicans aren’t getting the job done.

In general, I agree with alot of what you say you believe. Unfortunately for both of us, the Republican Party’s leadership doesn’t believe in those things anymore.

Ray

I work with the media. It is biased. The bias generally doesn’t bother me, since I don’t believe anyone can (or even should be) unbiased. When trying to understand anything, you have to ask yourself what is this person saying? That includes not only what his words say, but also what he has said in the past and how it played out.

The most reliable general media source in the world is “The Economist”. “The Wall Street Journal” is also good and so is “The Newshour” on PBS. I don’t know whether they are really good, or if they just reflect my bias, but I do believe that they have a fair amount of predictive power. That is the real test of information. If six months or a year from now, you still think the story was important and if the reporting in a media outlet has been consistent with the outcome, it was a good story and well reported.

The bias in much media is evident not in the facts they report, but what they choose to report about. The memo discussed in this post is a good example. It is not really important news, since it wasn’t sourced to anyone important. It doesn’t look like very many people read it and even fewer acted on it. Six months from now, nobody will remember of care about this case.

Great site, well done. I enjoy beeing here and i´ll come back soon. You do a great job. Many greetings.

I have to agree