Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I am no doubt going to be accused of being a hypocrite, so here is nonpartisan stance on these kinds of comments: Saying the president and/or the government is terrible is not treason. Calling for or hinting at armed action (as Liddy and Helms did) at least borders on treason. So, no, most of the guys quoted above aren’t being treasonous, just irresponsible jerks.

With all of the righties pointing fingers and yelling “Traitor!” these days, I often wonder if they really have forgotten the Clinton years or are faking it.

I think you meant “lefties.” Good thing I caught that. Your mistake nearly negated the whole point of your article: that the democrats must get out of their own “payback” mode and stop acting like the republicans of the 90’s.
Glad to see a democrat who understands that labeling the president a traitor and a liar for political purposes (just like the republicans did to Clinton)is not only hurting their party, but the country. You are saying that the democrats must finally stop acting like whiney children and take the high ground, be the “better man” so to speak.
Um, that was your point wasn’t it?

I don’t see a lot of Democrats throwing around the word “traitor” these days. That is what the party in power does. My point is that you don’t have to be a traitor or “hate America” to have strong feelings against the current administration. If Republicans find this hard to accept, they can look back at their own words during the nineties.

Actually it is really distasteful to read Democrat’s accusation against the President. For Christ sake, he is elected by the majority of the people! Many Democrat I know cheered Mr. Bush for his decisive actions after 911. Now they just turn away and take advantage of the unfortunate casualty of our troops. Hence I totally cannot believe Democrat has the ability to run this great country any more. Democrats are as sick as that Joseph Edward Duncan!

Woody,

I think Liddy was responding to waco, when janet reno murdered all those women and children.
That worked out great huh? Kinda like ruby ridge.

Rudy was correct, that little boy never should have been sent back to cuba, that worked out great too, nothing smarter, politically, than angering the Cubans in Fla. Just before the election?

Ian,

Thank you for illustrating my point. First you accuse Democrats of irresponsible rhetortic, then you compare them to a perverted killer. Good show!

Beagle,

That was Clinton, principle above politics… ;)

Rather you agree with the decision about Gonzalez, there is nothing extraordinary about law enforcement going to seize a child. It literally happens every day. They were just more armed than usual because there was an angry mob in the way. If Rudy thought they were “stormtroopers”, then what about the people doing the same thing in NY?

Woody,

I guess I missed the news when a swat team was sent into NY to seize a child that was in no danger ? Do you have a link for that?

Clinton put principal over politics?
That explains the Monica deal I guess, nothing to gain politicaly, and a broad view of principals.

Beagle,

If you cross out “swat team” and put “police”, I’m sure that happens all of the time in divorce cases. If the noncustodial parent had a mob of his friends show up to keep the police and social workers from taking his kid, I imagine Rudy (or whoever had to make the decision) would send overwhelming force. Otherwise we have mob rule.

Woody,

It wasn’t a divorse case, it wasn’t local police, they were Reno’s thugs,The so-called mob wasn’t armed or violent, and had more media than angry friends and neighbors.

I respectfully disagree on this one.

In the 90’s, the left sat by and defended the same actions they are complaining about today, that is what is hypocritical.
The right doesn’t deserve a break either, for they are asleep today.

I remember the Dick Armey comments and the criticism he received from both left and right. I also recall that the exchange took place in a partisan discussion with Democrats. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but he meant it in the context a Democratic (your) president. Just you someone might say that the words of a Republican president have little credibility on a particular subject. Many conservatives criticized Armey at the time, anyway.

Liddy is a known weird guy. He is not a Senator speaking from the Senate floor (like Durbin) nor is he the chairman of the Republican National Committee (analogous to Dean).

In fact none of these statements or their sources compare to the barrage we are getting from Democrats. By bringing them up, you are actually illustrating how far the dialogue has declined (and it was bad already in the 1990s)

I am a reasonable (although partisan) person. I can take and give partisan attacks, but I have to say that I find the remarks Durbin made truly ignorant and offensive. Dean just makes himself and anyone near him look insane and hateful. They are not traitors, just stupid. I don’t think they speak for all Democrats, but they hurt your reputation.

Republicans say stupid things too, but there are consequences. Trent Lott lost his job as majority leader because of his statements. The Dems should do the same to Durbin. I don’t know what to say about Dean. Republican partisans are happy to have him in the position. Like Michael Moore, he is so unattractive to those who are not already true believers that he creates gets votes for Republicans.

One more thing – I can say without qualification that the statements you quote were stupid. The person saying them chose his words poorly at best. With the exception of Armey, who I think was just taken out of context, I won’t nuance any of them They were stupid statements. Who among the Democrats will make a similar blanket statement about Durbin, Dean and Kennedy?

The article made several excellent points.

The responses from the people who consider themselves on the “Right”,give proof that the article was right on.

Every time someone points out an issue we have with this president or the government, that is based on fact, they come out swinging with rhetoric.

There are many problems that plague both the Republicans and the Democrats. That is a fact. Those of us who do not approve of this administration do so strictly based on this administrations actions and not the Republican party.

We just don’t get how this administration receives the unwavering loyalty of, as you say, “The Right”.(Based solely on the actions of this administration)

Andre,

“We just don’t get how this administration receives the unwavering loyalty of, as you say, “The Right”.(Based solely on the actions of this administration)”

I agree with you there, you just dont get it.

I think more people voted for President Bush in 2004, than any President in history.

If all those people are (so called by some) far right wackos, things are worse for the left than even I had thought.

The Republican Party has a double standard, in my opinion. We Democrats jump on our own quite quickly when they make asinine statements. Republicans on the other hand are just as quick to to defend and rationalize everything said, often with remarks that are fairly offensive. Too many call it being outspoken, and call any effort to condemn what they say political correctness.

Jimmie,

I havn’t seen you scolded by the WB MGR.

Perhaps its a problem with your ISP?
Try contacting the site management for help.

Beagle,

Also true is that more (over 60 million) people voted against Bush than any other President in history.
As far as all Bushies being far right wacko, I wouldn’t go that far.

Jimmie,

editor@watchblog.com

Did you try sending an e-mail to that addy?

Dave,

I agree many voted “against” bush, how many of those really wanted Kerry?

Judging from the polls of possibles for Dem.’s to run in 2008, my guess would be not many.

In fairness, many Bush votes were “against” Kerry , rather than for Bush.

The only one that could have done worse than Kerry would have been Dean or Hillary.

2008 will be the test, If Hillary is nominated, its..game,set,match…the party is over.

A Note From the WatchBlog Owner: I have discussed this issue with David Remer, the Managing Editor and we have agreed that jimmie needs to be banned. After repeated warnings that his posts were out-of-line, he continued to call people names, told them to “shut the f*ck up” and behaved in other less-than-appropriate ways.

Rather than moderating each of jimmie’s posts individually, David just deleted them all - realizing that the only way to stop jimmie from disrupting a civil discussion is to ban him outright and deny him ANY voice in this forum.

I support this decision. My years of running online communities has taught me that sometimes the only way to make the trolls and miscreants go away is to take drastic measures. For more about what guides my thinking about online community participation and management, please read this essay.

WB Owner/David,

I apoligise if I did something wrong by refering him to contact Management.
I saw so many of his complaints posted that I thought it was time for someone to direct him to the proper forum to resolve those issues.

I won’t do that again.

” I think more people voted for President Bush in 2004, than any President in history.”

Yes, but Kerry comes in #2 in that respect — he got more votes than Ronald Reagan ever did!

Percentage-wise, Bush didn’t do so well. He won the election, but he certainly didn’t win a mandate from the people.

“In fairness, many Bush votes were “against” Kerry, rather than for Bush.”

I would wager that MOST Bush votes were really anti-Kerry votes, and MOST Kerry votes were really anti-Bush. I know very few people who, when asked why they voted for their candidate, talk about his good points. Instead, they all talk about the bad points of the ‘other guy’. In reality, they’re all voting for what they see as the lesser of two evils.

Does the WB Owner’s recent actions reflect a strict interpretation or loose interpretation of the “Critique” clause? Does this qualify as the actions of an activist moderator? As a community, should we allow such ‘legislating from the keyboard’ to continue?

(Note to readers: In case you can’t tell, the comment above is a joke. So is the comment below.)

(Note to self: Don’t insult David Remer.)

:-)

…and, for the record, I fully support the Owner’s decision.

Rob, you can insult me all you want in email, or here at WB provided you do so without violating the policy stated in the headers of each column.

Beagle, your action was appropriate. No harm done on your part.

Rob you said,

“Percentage-wise, Bush didn’t do so well. He won the election, but he certainly didn’t win a mandate from the people.”

How far back in history would you have to go to find a Democrat that won with a larger % ?

( try FDR…hint hint)

Re supporting President Bush

There are some things I don’t like about George Bush. I don’t like his rhetoric style. I didn’t like his steel tariffs etc. But generally I support his policy direction.

I didn’t vote against Kerry; I voted for Bush. It makes no sense to make a hypothetical argument that I might have voted for someone other than Kerry. It is true that Kerry was a poor candidates, and I liked some of the other candidates better, but there were no Democrats running who I would have voted for over Bush.

I don’t know why it seems so hard for some people to understand that many Americans support George Bush. That doesn’t mean we think he is perfect. It doesn’t mean we don’t disagree with many things he does. It does mean that we like the total package that we get with him compared with other real world possibilities. I would vote the same way today as I did in November.

I am very impressed with the Bush foreign policy since Condoleezza Rice came on board. It is much better than I anticipated and I don’t see how it can be much improved except in the details. I am least in favor of the Bush environmental policy, although I think it is at least as good (in practical terms) as that of Bill Clinton.

Beagle,

Back to previous comments. I agree with you on Waco, but disagree on Elian Gonzales. The family he was staying with in Miami had a pretty bad criminal history. His father did not. When a mother dies, the child should live with his father, not with his criminal relatives. (If that’s what the choice is between)

Jack,

I have consistentlly condemned the kind of talk exhibited by Durbin, and others. However, I do have to say that I think the origin of all of this nastiness started with the rise of Rush Limbaugh. The right has had a corner on the hate-talk market (and by that, I mean that the right has had profitable commercial hate-talk programs from quite some time, as opposed to the left.) Now I feel that Michael Moore and Air America are joining in (If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em). Hopefully this will burn out in the next few years as we all get increasingly tired of the vitriol.

I don’t think there are much consequences for Repubs or Dems for hateful speaking. Trent Lott was an exception, not the rule. And his loss of power, I know for a fact, had more to do with Bush never having liked him than anything else. Bush was looking for a good reason to replace him. Trent’s mouth provided the excuse.

What I find disappointing is that there is no strong bi-partisan leadership. No one is focusing on compromise.

Anyway, one of my favorite quotes is “The only consistent feature of all of your disatissifying relationships is you”

These quote, of course, applies to everybody. Instead of saying “Why is YOUR PARTY so hard to work with?” Start concentrating on “Why is MY PARTY so hard to work with?”

Beagle-
It’s important whether he won a mandate because he’s claiming one. As for your innuendo about folks voting against Bush rather than for Kerry, it would do you well to remember that whatever their motivation, they were more willing to have Kerry in office than they were to have Bush. So, regardless of their motivations, Kerry was the choice of about 48 percent of Americans.

As for a Hillary candidacy, She has a primary to win, and the Republicans have a candidate to offer, and whoever gets the Republican candidacy must deal with the political aftermath of this troubled administration.

The 2008 elections will not be a shoo-in for either party.

cx,

Maybe her patience with Bill’s extra-marital affairs is an indication that she is willing to deal with tough issues, and instead of bailing out when it gets hard, she works on rebuilding trust and communicating.

However, my current favorite is Biden.

Julia

Good and reasonable points.

But I think there is a difference depending on who says what and where. I listen to Rush Limbaugh when I do cross country driving, because he tends to be available everywhere. I don’t believe a lot of what he says and I don’t buy into his more extreme dislikes. I always liked Bill Clinton, for example.

Rush is a radio personality. He makes his money by being provocative. Whether you like Rush or not, he gets your attention. Al Franken is a dim counterpart on the left. He doesn’t upset me much because he is so deadly boring. I figure Franken is not only dull himself, but he inspires dullness in others. That is why Air America needs the subsidies of rich lefties to stay on the air. It will never be a commercial success.

The difference is that Durbin, Kennedy and Dean are legitimate members of the leadership of the Democratic Party. They are not entertainers. Presumably they don’t say what they do to be provocative. The other difference is that Rush says what he says on AM radio. You hear it as you pass cornfields and swine housing. Kennedy and Durbin spit out their vitriol on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am a little more forgiving of Dean, since it is his job to be outlandish to some extent. He has to energize people who might really buy what he is selling. He just goes a bit too far with his howling.

Julia,

If the people Elion was staying with wern’t fit to care for him,I’m quite sure there were other fine Cuban familys that would have. If someone excapes from Cuba, and reaches American soil, they get to stay. The fact that his mother gave her life to get him here has some meaning to most that care about opressed people. That case was WRONG!

Stephen,
I wasn’t Dem bashing, just giving my political opinion of what the outcome will be if Hillary wins the nomination in 08. I also think the “coatails” effect of that will trash the Dem. party. Just my opinion. PS: Stephen, what % would one need for a mandate?

Jack, I also voted FOR President Bush, I supported him before he won his first nomination.
There have been things I didn’t care for, but when that happens I let him know my feeling on it.
I wish he could run for a third term.

On Elian-
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of abductors. Like it or not, he father was Cuban, and staying over there, and the precedent set by taking the child would have been a bad one. Put another way, how many of you agreed with the father in Not Without My Daughter? Elian Gonzalez would have set just such a precedent. With the Religious unrest in Saudi Arabia, that would have been a bad idea.

As for percentages, I would say sixties or better. Bush’s trials in getting his agenda across should demonstrate why a bare majority is not a mandate. A person with a mandate would not need to be doing the constant, desperate sales job Bush is doing, and he wouldn’t be failing on so many fronts, not with the popular will behind him.

Jack-
Bull. Karl Rove is not a performer. Dick Cheney is not a performer. President Bush is not a performer. Zell Miller might have been channeling Darth Sidious by way of Wyatt Earp, but he wasn’t a performer.

Your people have been playing negative for some time now, talking about Massachussetts liberals, tax and spend Democrats, the Left the rest of the country has left behind, blaming the decay of society on secular humanists.

Don’t tell me you guys aren’t guilty of bashing us. That has not been true for some time now.

In fact none of these statements or their sources compare to the barrage we are getting from Democrats. By bringing them up, you are actually illustrating how far the dialogue has declined (and it was bad already in the 1990s)

Jack,

You’ve got to be kidding me! Jesse Helms isn’t a good source? Rudy Giuliani? Dick Armey? These are icons of the GOP. And look at what Helms said again. Can you imagine the furor if Ted Kennedy told Bush not to let the sun go down on him in Massachusetts?! People on your side would be wanting to put him in jail and outlaw the Democratic party. If you have an example of a well-known Democratic congressman threatening Bush with bodily harm, I’ll be impressed.

I’m not sure what your point is about Dick Armey. Of course he was being “partisan”…

I don’t know what you have in mind with Dean or Kennedy. I don’t think there is anything wrong with what Durbin said, aside from using some dicey historical analogies. He was disappointed because his country wasn’t living up to its stated ideals. We all exagarrate sometimes to make a point.

Maybe her patience with Bill’s extra-marital affairs is an indication that she is willing to deal with tough issues, and instead of bailing out when it gets hard, she works on rebuilding trust and communicating.

Option 2
Hilary is such a doormat that she was unwilling to stand up to an obvious betrayal of the marrage.

Option 3
Hilary is so power hungry, that she didn’t want to rock the boat

Option 4
Hilary was so used to it that it didn’t even come close to bothering her.

Option 5
Their marriage is just a poltical partnership (including the drudgery of having a daughter) and their private lives have nothing to do with each other.

What ever reason she put up with his frequent infindelity, it doesn’t make her a good canidate for president.

My personnel opinion is she is a slap in the face of every woman that would not put up with that type of betrayal.

The 2008 elections will not be a shoo-in for either party.

I agree. Consider that the last time a president won a second term, in 1996. Dole only got 159 electoral votes, compared to 252 for Kerry this time. The GOP bounced back, though, and Bush almost won in 2000.

On Elian- He seems happy now. His father loves him, he’s taken care of, has many girlfriends, studys the things that interest him. His community loves him, and loves his father. That’s priceless anywhere.

On Hillary - I wouldn’t nominate her, because I think she’s too divisive. As for how she handles her personal life, I don’t judge women that way. There are plenty of women who stay with their husbands who have cheated. No one said marraige was easy. Many Christians believe it’s a sin to divorce, no matter what the reason. At the end of the day, people’s relationships with one another are their business. I didn’t judge the Reagan’s relationship, and I’m certainly not going to start with the Clinton’s.

Jack,

I second Woody and Daugherty. Republican leadership is at the BARE MINIMUM as mouthy as Democratic leadership. I think, however, that hate talk seems more mainstream with the Republicans than Democrats. It’s become part of their popular culture, and been a part of that culture for far longer.

I take it as a point of pride that Al Franken has to be subsidized. I’ve heard much worse than him, but those hate-talking liberals don’t draw much of a crowd, and I hold that as a badge of honor. The biggest “liberal” popular figure these days is Jon Stewart, and he’s not really a hate talker. He’s sarcastic. And he picks on liberals too, so he’s not even a good partisan.

Michael Moore is a close second, however, and I don’t like that at all. But Michael Moore has been around just as long as Rush Limbaugh, and he has only recently become ascendent.

I wandered over to the GOP site, the Democrat site, and then over to the Canadian political websites. I have to say, the Canadians seem far more mature. And I don’t know of any Canadian hate-talk hero. It makes me wonder what a Canadian version of watchblog would be like.

Having met David Koresh once, I can say that he was a psycho who really thought he was Jesus. It was he, and not the rightly hated Reno, that murdered all those sheeple that stayed with him. He ordered the fires started. Janet Reno should have never been put in any position of power, as proved by her actions.

Hillary does NOT give a cent what Bill does as long as he keeps his grubby hands off of her. She is a powermad socialist (re: closet communist) who, also, should never be allowed into a position of power.

Bill Clinton used Monica as a cover-up to distract the public from the very real crime of high treason! One of his first actions was to invite the communist Chinese leaders(?), scientists, and spies to our White House for a big palm greasing. In return, he gave them unlimited access to our top secret missile facilities to see, borrow and steal the technology to drop a missile on our heads. (The Russians wouldn’t even let the Chinese have that knowledge!) The adoring media helped him cover this up by blowing Lewinski into the public’s eyes. This is all true. Now watch some brain damaged liberal try to deny this.