Democrats & Liberals Archives

In search of progressive divination

The lack of an articulated cohesive and common vision by the Democratic Party is something I’ve nibbled around the edges for awhile on my own blog.

The leaders at the national level (with the possible exception of Dean…who is frustratingly villified for taking often direct and no-nonsense stands) offer up an often confusing and muddled defensive stance. The electorate is very wary of putting a group into the seat of power that can’t articulate exactly where they want the country to go. Even as the Republicans find their Party leadership mired in scandal, the Democrats stand by seemingly hapless to step in to the potential vacuum.

Shakes Sis touches on the need for Dems to find a "spiritual leader" of sorts. A "Martin Luther King" style orator who's voice can echo throughout the landscape the left's vision of the American Dream. It's a reasonable idea. But it's putting the cart before the horse.

Before the Dems hire a high TV-Q spokesmodel to carry forth their vision, they actually have to find a vision.

Hunter suggests a three pronged, sound byte approach:

Strong Families. Strong Communities. Strong Nation.

If it sounds "Republican", it shouldn't. It represents the three core principles of the Democratic message. And it's easy to explain.

Strong, viable families build strong communities. Strong communities build strong economies, and strong states, and support the basic framework of American resilience, competitiveness, and high quality of life. Those, in turn, build a strong, prosperous, well protected, well respected nation.

I have no problem with a simple, stylized message like this. But frankly...where's the beef? Hunter's ideas for strong family are education (which gets a cursory mention), health care and gay marriage. While I'm a big believer in these ideas..there's a whole lot more to "strong families" than that. While Hunter's bare bones idea seems workable..I doubt the rank and file of the American electorate is going to rush to pull the "D" lever on this basis.

Families need the basics, first. They need to be able to feed and clothe themselves. They need to be able to provide shelter for themselves. They need good jobs with good wages and benefits. They need to have enough income to support themselves and drive the economy. Democrats need to articulate how they will support families by using government to get this to happen. Next, education must warrant much more than a cursory sound byte. It's the building block for families and communities.

In the end though..the Democrats have to present themselves as the alternative to the Republicans, rather than Republican-lite. There are those who call for the Democrats to "move to the center". I submit that they've been in the center for years...and that's why they keep losing.

Hunter suggests three prongs (or categories) as the basis for launching the vision: strong families, strong communities, strong nation.

What specific ideas should the Democrats articulate under each category?

Posted by Carla Ryan at October 3, 2005 1:00 PM
Comments
Comment #83245

Carla,

The Democraic party needs to make the decision of who they want to run in 08 ASAP. They need to put this person out there to gain exposure. They need to avoid the mistakes Kerry made. He came off as weak and unsure of himself.
We need to avoid using Republican smear tactics and focus on exposing them for doing so. The candidate needs to stick to the real issues and not get dragged into a hot-button topic like gay marriage that has nothing to do with the course of the United States.
The Democrats should set the tone of future campaigns by addressing campaign finance during the upcoming elections. Focus on Republican short-comings and not let them off the hook for all of the failures that have plagued them recently. Not allow Republicans to hide behind “Partisan” excuse anymore.
I for one do not think they can or will.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 3, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #83250

“I submit that they’ve been in the center for years…and that’s why they keep losing”

The lefts failure to see that it has, without a doubt, become to liberal, is the main reason they have been losing elections.
All of the socialists will support the Democrats, but not all of the Democrats will continue to support the socialists.
The recent elections have highlighted that but yet the left still refuses to believe its their message. Instead they blame religion, dumb ol rednecks and money.
Instead of trying to make people accept your message, maybe you should listen to their message and incorporate it into your platform.
I for one, would be very happy if the Democrats went back to being Democrats.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #83252
[Democrats] need to avoid using Republican smear tactics and focus on exposing them for doing so.

I submit that “Republican smear tactics” are precisely why the Republicans won the last presidential election. I firmly believe that Kerry would have been elected had it not been for the Swift Boat lies (and the publicity that went with it) put out by some right-wingers.

It’s bizarre that the candidate who was a genuine war hero could be painted as the softie of security, while the one who avoided the war, presided over the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl harbor, and got our army bogged down in an unwinnable war in the Middle East comes across as “strong” on security. It’s all in how you smear.

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #83258

Steve,

That is why the Democrats need to address those types of “lie” ads and hold the Republicans accountable when they use those tactics. I am not subjected to the smear ads because I live in New York and neither party does much campaigning here because we are considered a state that the Democratic party has in the bag.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 3, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #83259

Steve,

Your comments (back-handed smear laden with emotive rhetoric) are a good example of what NOT to say when trying to win anything by the left. If you want to continue, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when the results continue to be the same.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 3:22 PM
Comment #83265
Your comments (back-handed smear laden with emotive rhetoric) are a good example of what NOT to say when trying to win anything by the left. If you want to continue, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when the results continue to be the same.

is that your way of saying it’s OK when Republicans do it?

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #83268

Andre,
Steve is right. The high road sounds great but it won’t win over the masses.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 3, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #83273

Schwamp,

It will if the Democrats point out the fact that they are taking the high road and that the Republicans are not.

People are beginning to see the Republican party and most politicians as they really are. Money grubbing,power hungry manipulators who look out for their business associates first and their constituants last.
I believe that the people of the United States are fed up with scandal in politics. The media does it’s best to under-report those people who have been arrested and or are under investigation but they hear enough to know it’s becoming rampant.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 3, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #83274
is that your way of saying it’s OK when Republicans do it?

Is it? I don’t remember saying anything about republicans at all in what I wrote. Why can’t you just deal what I said about what you said?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #83279
Is it? I don’t remember saying anything about republicans at all in what I wrote. Why can’t you just deal what I said about what you said?

I didn’t say you said any such thing about the right (i.e., Republicans). But you did say the LEFT should NOT do that. My original post was that the right does do that — and won the last election with it.

Personally, I’m 100% against slime, sleeze, looking into politicians ’ personal lives, and all that other nonsense that says nothing about who should be the next president but manages to sway voters.

Personally, I’d prefer a presidential election where all the candidates did was engage in one-on-one debate, every day from the nomination until election day. No TV ads, no “issues” ads, nothing but the two candidiates talking in the same room to the same public, challenging the other’s policies (and character if he wants). But that ain’t gonna happen, so we are stuck with slime, sleeze, and “back-handed smear laden with emotive rhetoric” from BOTH sides as the way to get elected.

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 4:37 PM
Comment #83280

Sometimes a lie is necessary for change. If I were a Democrat (assuming for the moment that a viable 3rd party candidate/movement has not become a viable option in the next election), I would lie, beg, cheat and steal to get back the control of the White House that I have been crying and whining about for years. Then, I would proceed to accomplish all things good and great that I said I could and would.

This would also give me a chance to hone my defensive debating skills since I have been in attack mode for so long.

At the end of the day, the means would have justified the end.

Posted by: steve smith at October 3, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #83288
I didn’t say you said any such thing about the right (i.e., Republicans). But you did say the LEFT should NOT do that. My original post was that the right does do that — and won the last election with it.

So, if both parties do X and one of them also does Y but the other does not, perhaps that’s why the other one keeps losing?

Ie, both parties are involved in smear and rhetoric. However, the republicans are also presenting ideals and vision while the democrats are just relying upon being against whatever the rebpulicans are for, I would say that is why…

So yes, if the democrats want to win they need to either present ideals and vision (as the post suggested) or cut the smear and rhetoric.

I was just dealing with the post and the left. If I was trying to help the right I would have posted so. The real failing is that people are all too willing to say left or right and not dealing in ideals and vision.

Personally, I’m 100% against slime, sleeze, looking into politicians ’ personal lives, and all that other nonsense that says nothing about who should be the next president but manages to sway voters.

Except when you do it. Which was my real point. It’s the hypocrisy that people hate even more than smear and rhetoric.

Personally, I’d prefer a presidential election where all the candidates did was engage in one-on-one debate, every day from the nomination until election day.

What about one-on-one-on-one-on-one… debate? Why are we limited to two choices that gives itself to letting people just smear the other candidate and not address their own ideals? Oh wait, it’s political power!

When people are open to supporting more than the two-party system that locks many out and quit using the tactics themselves while decrying their use by the other side, I would start to take their complaints and indignation a bit more seriously.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #83290

1) Never sacrifice American’s and America’s needs for those of other nations.

2) End shifting fiscal responsibility to future generations.

3) Pragmatic solutions for America’s infrastructure problems from roads to education.

4) Unifying solutions to America’s social value problems.

5) Never ignore the present for the future, nor future for the present. Every decision must be made for expedience today without sacrificing the future of those to follow.

It’s a platform America desperately needs. Democrats can adopt and provide it or continue to lose.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 5:13 PM
Comment #83292

P.S., and above all, police the actions of one’s own party members where legality and ethical behavior are concerned. That has to be chief among priorities for any governing party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 5:17 PM
Comment #83294
Ie, both parties are involved in smear and rhetoric. However, the republicans are also presenting ideals and vision while the democrats are just relying upon being against whatever the rebpulicans are for, I would say that is why…

Number one, I AM against the slime and sleeze from both sides — Democrats and Republicans. Bring up a case where the Democrats did it & I’ll agree with you.

Number Two, democrats present “ideals and vision” too. True, they have a bad track record on that lately. But Clinton pressed for universal health insurance. Clinton proposed using the budget surplus to fully fund the long-term social Security shortfall. Like many other Democrats, I had my problems with Gore and Kerry (and Clinton too), but found their policies a lot more reasonable than the Republicans. Bush seems interested in nothing but cutting taxes for wealthy Americans to the point where government can’t function anymore. I see that as “anti-vision.”

The point here is not whose vision is “right” but that we see the vision thing differently based on our own political biases

When people are open to supporting more than the two-party system that locks many out and quit using the tactics themselves while decrying their use by the other side, I would start to take their complaints and indignation a bit more seriously.

If you’re advocating establishing a multi-party parliamentary system, I’m all for it as well. Too bad our constitution makes that next to impossible.

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #83303
Never sacrifice American’s and America’s needs for those of other nations.

So, our involvement in WWI and WWII were big no-no’s?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 5:51 PM
Comment #83313
Number one, I AM against the slime and sleeze from both sides — Democrats and Republicans. Bring up a case where the Democrats did it & I’ll agree with you.

*blink*

Well, I can easily point to YOUR POST just a few above… But I’ll do one better. :)

Let’s see, there were the falsified documents handed to Dan Rather, Michael Moore’s nice work of fiction (and his subsequent seat of honor at the DNC), constantly calling a sitting president a liar when he did not lie (as has been pointed out very nicely by Factcheck.org recently), Dean saying “It’s pretty much a white Christian party. The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people”, NARAL attack ads against Roberts (starting with the bombing of an abortion clinic?), etc…

Err, should I go on?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 6:18 PM
Comment #83328

Rhinehold, get a grip, man! The Japanese attacked us therefore winning WWII was an American need. WW1 is so ancient and the world is so different today, as to make that analogy useless.

Putting American needs first does not preclude considering and aiding other nations. It simply guides us toward not putting other nation’s interests before ours to our own detriment, which Iraq is dong in spades. Katrina response suffered as a result of Iraq, our national debt is suffering enormously as a result of Iraq, and our military recruitments and readiness are suffering as a result of Iraq. Iraq, regardless of intent, is costing America far more than America will ever gain from the effort and costs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #83344

David,

Japan, yes. Why did we get involved with the war in Europe (even before we were attacked) in both WWI and WWII?

And yes, I supported both WWI and WWII. That’s not the point.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #83348

Ever heard of the axis of powers? Check out a history book, you will find the details spelled out there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 8:04 PM
Comment #83349

*sigh*

David.

We entered into WWII through the lend lease program before we were attacked by Japan. We also were involved we now know in WWI through shipping arms to Europe before the Lucitania was attacked (it turns out the Germans were right about the US having arms on it).

Now, before these events, before we knew what we know now, before we were attacked, why were we involved?

I know the answer. I support the action. But I would tend to think that it goes against your rule #1

1) Never sacrifice American’s and America’s needs for those of other nations.

Also, does this include foreign aid and support? This puts an end to a lot of that, am I right?

Maybe you could clear up my confusion then, since it appears that I am misreading what you are suggesting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 8:13 PM
Comment #83351

Rhinehold, I thought it was obvious: “Never sacrifice American’s and America’s needs for those of other nations.”

As in, don’t spend billions on foreign nation’s infrastructure development while more than half our own bridges are unsafe, while our building codes and insurance are not sustainable for inevitable natural disasters, while our national debt threatens the well being of our children’s future.

As in, taking war overseas while claiming a lack of affordability of protecting our borders here at home. Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

As in, spending millions for Aids vaccines in Africa while failing to budget and provide adequate flu vaccines for Americans here at home.

My maxim does not preclude money or effort going overseas, it does however dictate that we take care of American needs either first or concurrently. This kind of clear headed prioritization has been severely lacking in D.C. by both major parties.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 8:39 PM
Comment #83358

kctim,

I like how you work the word socialist into your conversation about liberals and Democrats. Smooth.

Could you define ‘socialist’ please.

I hereby suggest that from now on all liberals and Democrats work the words Nazis, facists, greedy, and power-hungry into conversations regarding conservatives and Republicans. You don’t have to call Republicans and conservatives those things, just work ‘em in and let the readers form subconscious connections.

I know I’m going to hear a rational sounding explanation of how you weren’t calling liberals socialists or how socialism is just the definition of … blah, blah, blah…

It was used as a red flag since so many connect socialism with Communist regimes of the past.

So much for honest dialog.

Regarding the state of the Democratic Party, I will never, ever, never, at any time, ever, did I mention NEVER, vote for a Republican again. Yes, I said again. However, if the best the Democratic Party can do is a John Kerry, I’ll pass on voting for them, too. Perhaps the world needs MORE of George Bush and Cheney and Rove so we can see how ugly it will get as their policies take place. If the Democrats win back the House or the White House, all troubles will be placed on their doorstep by the Republicans. I say let’s elect a Republican House, Senate, and President again.

I gave money the last election because I truly worried about our nation under Cheney and Rove, uh, and Bush II (pun, get it?). Don’t call me this year, or next, or next, or next, Democrats.

All I see now is parties winning for the sake of saying our side won.

Is there a party out there that wants to fix what’s going wrong in our nation????

Posted by: Rick at October 3, 2005 9:11 PM
Comment #83390

While we were helping Europe during the lend-lease program, the US was still anemic and not recovering well from the Great Depression.

By your Rule #1 we should not have gotten involved in WWII before we were attacked. Indeed, had we not gotten involved, we might not have been attacked…

I just think that we need to evaluate every instance as it occurs, not have a blanket rules to say no never…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 10:45 PM
Comment #83392

Rick,

Yes, several.

Except you won’t hear about them because they have been deemed ‘unviable’ and ignored by the media and newly formed ‘keep the third parties out of the debate’ organization.

Sorry, but it looks like those in power want to keep it!

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 10:50 PM
Comment #83409

Carla:

In the end though..the Democrats have to present themselves as the alternative to the Republicans, rather than Republican-lite. There are those who call for the Democrats to “move to the center”. I submit that they’ve been in the center for years…and that’s why they keep losing.

I disagree. I think liberals loose presidential elections when either they put forward a candidate from a blue state, or a candidate from a red state that can’t carry their home state.

I also do not believe the democratic party should “move the the middle”, as in liberals becoming moderates. I think the democratic party should be more tolerant of more moderate people and create a bigger tent. For some reason right many moderates are more comfortable aligning with conservatives than with liberals. Liberals should be saying to moderates “we have more to offer you than conservatives”.

If you want to lead you support for families by being for gay marriage then you wont win. That is a big turn off for most of the electoriate. If you want to “promote diversity, and treat all people with dignity and respect” then you might attract some moderates.

Many moderates believe gays should have the right to form civil unions. Both moderates and liberals want to increase the rights of gay couples. I hope this isn’t too big of a generalization but I think that only conservatives are against both civil unions and gay marriage. Can liberals “tolerate” (join forces) with those who support civil unions in order to “build strong families in a diverse community?” Is that a move to the middle? On average it is, but really it is simply increasing the size of the tent.

If the gay part of the democratic party insists that the tent has to be small, and only those who are for gay marriage are “allowed” in good graces, and the rest are just “wrong”, then by all means keep loosing.

A key question would be, what causes those who support civil unions and are republican, stay republican? How can we attract them to vote democrat?

The same is true of pro public education republicans. And on and on and on through the various issues.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 4, 2005 12:10 AM
Comment #83427

I’m not going to offer any advice to the Liberals. All I will say is I hope you keep doing things the same way you have been doing them.

Posted by: tomd at October 4, 2005 4:40 AM
Comment #83438

Carla, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Democrats have a coherent vision. It’s on our party leader’s website: The American Promise, A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #83445

“I know I’m going to hear a rational sounding explanation of how you weren’t calling liberals socialists or how socialism is just the definition of … blah, blah, blah…”

Wrong. Liberals ARE socialists who are intent on doing away with all parts of the US Constitution that do not support THEIR beliefs.
They know whats best for me, I know nothing.

“It was used as a red flag since so many connect socialism with Communist regimes of the past”

The belief in total govt control and dependency speaks for itself.

“So much for honest dialog”

I agree.

“Regarding the state of the Democratic Party, I will never, ever, never, at any time, ever, did I mention NEVER, vote for a Republican again. Yes, I said again.”

Well, I can proudly say I have never and will never vote for a liberal, I love America too much. But unlike you, I know there is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal and I have voted for a Democrat and will probably do so again if that person deserves my vote.

“Perhaps the world needs MORE of George Bush and Cheney and Rove so we can see how ugly it will get as their policies take place.”

I don’t care what the world needs, America needs a president who cares about the people.

“If the Democrats win back the House or the White House, all troubles will be placed on their doorstep by the Republicans.”

And vice-versa. Just like in 2000.

“I say let’s elect a Republican House, Senate, and President again.”

Would be nice to see a Republican run again and it sure as hell would be better for the country than liberalism.

“I gave money the last election because I truly worried about our nation under Cheney and Rove, uh, and Bush II (pun, get it?). Don’t call me this year, or next, or next, or next, Democrats.”

I gave money too, liberalism scares the hell out of me.

“All I see now is parties winning for the sake of saying our side won.”

I see them trying to win for the sake of gaining control so they can push their personal agenda and get rid of the US Constitution.

“Is there a party out there that wants to fix what’s going wrong in our nation????”

Nope. The liberals and conservatives have succeeded in dividing us so much that the only answer will be a revolution.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #83464

kctim, I don’t know where you live exactly, but in most places Democrats and Republicans co-exist peacefully. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 11:14 AM
Comment #83491

But liberals and conservatives do not.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #83730

I guess I just haven’t seen the conservative/liberal arms buildup reported in the paper. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at October 5, 2005 9:15 AM
Comment #83733

Actually AP, the arms buildup has dwindled some, but we both know as soon as a another liberal is elected president, ALL of those on the right will be saying what the left are now.
clinton brought the militia numbers to all time highs and it will happen again.
The Right wing extreme does not sit back, whine and do nothing when they get pissed, it will be a scary thing to see.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2005 9:28 AM
Comment #83739

…And then they end up dead, like Koresh and the Weavers. Or the Whiskey Rebels or the Bonus Army. There’s no way any US government — conservative or liberal — is going to put up with active armed militias within our borders.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 5, 2005 9:43 AM
Comment #83752

Very interesting AP.
If that is the case, then the American people are going to keep losing their rights, no matter which party is in power and should just sit back and do nothing.
Divided we will fall.

It is naive to lump Koresh and Weaver with the militia. Koresh led a cult and Weaver was sepertist/racist.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2005 10:20 AM
Comment #83771

The comments made about the Democratic party as being anti- constitution are humorous at best. I don’t remember the democrats trying to undo the constitution for their own purposes. I do however, remember the republicans introducing numerous amendments to alter the makeup of the constituion. As far as the democrats being socialists,when you form policies that are aimed at helping the majority of Americans then I guess you could call that socialist.So what? I, for one, would rather see more socialist programs than the facist type government I am seeing nowdays.

Posted by: Mark Marcotte at October 5, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #83776

“I don’t remember the democrats trying to undo the constitution for their own purposes”

Democrats? No. liberals? Yes.
I guess its only about which part of the Constitution and our rights that you are concerned with.
You should be concerned with ALL of our rights, not just the ones you agree with.

“As far as the democrats being socialists,when you form policies that are aimed at helping the majority of Americans then I guess you could call that socialist”

Even if those feel-good policies ignore individual rights and try to force a certain belief onto others?

“So what? I, for one, would rather see more socialist programs than the facist type government I am seeing nowdays”

We know, govt is the answer to all lifes problems. That is as long as it supports your personal opinions and views and funds them so you wont have to but still feel good about yourself.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #83783
Let’s see, there were the falsified documents handed to Dan Rather, Michael Moore’s nice work of fiction (and his subsequent seat of honor at the DNC), constantly calling a sitting president a liar when he did not lie (as has been pointed out very nicely by Factcheck.org recently), Dean saying “It’s pretty much a white Christian party. The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people”, NARAL attack ads against Roberts (starting with the bombing of an abortion clinic?), etc…

Sorry for the delay in responding Rhinehold, but yesterday was holiday for some of us…

1. Falsified documented. Agreed, that was sleeze, but we still don’t know who created them.

2. Michael Moore. Agreed. In much of his work, he errs on the side of sleeze.

3. “calling a sitting president a liar when he did not lie.” Disagree. I believe he lied (and continues to). I suppose it depends on how you define “lie.” Not everything that has to stand up in a court of law has to constitute a lie.

4. Dean’s Comment. Yeah — overboard. But is it wrong? Given the close relationship between the Republican party and those who believe that if you’re not a Christian who worships the way they do you’ll burn in Heck makes me wonder.

5. NARAL Ad. Yes, sleeze.

So you see: Democrats and Liberals do see their own “sleeze.”

Posted by: steve at October 5, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #83825

“So you see: Democrats and Liberals do see their own “sleeze.””

Then is it not hypocritical to criticize the Republicans and Conservatives for the same sleeze?

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #83911
It is naive to lump Koresh and Weaver with the militia. Koresh led a cult and Weaver was sepertist/racist.

Sure. I lumped ‘em in with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Bonus Army too, but you know what I mean. :)

If that is the case, then the American people are going to keep losing their rights

I’m not aware of having lost any of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. I own a gun, I speak out against the government, I worship however I want, I vote, etc.

The only thing that really bugs me is getting searched when I fly, but I suppose I agree to that in the fine print on my ticket… I should check… Anyhow, I’m not worried about losing rights yet, but steadily losing my privacy worries me.

Then is it not hypocritical to criticize the Republicans and Conservatives for the same sleeze?

No, kctim. Denying your party’s sleeze would be hypocritical, criticizing your opponent’s party’s sleeze is always in order. It’s a grand tradition. ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at October 6, 2005 2:37 AM
Post a comment