Democrats & Liberals Archives

Swiftboating

In my last post, I stated that I thought Republicans in the midterm elections would attack Democrats as soft on security. Democrats are ready for this. However, screaming about security is one prong of a double-prong strategy masterminded by the evil genius Karl Rove. The second prong is lying about, smearing, demonizing and assassinating the character of specific Democratic candidates - swiftboating.

At this very minute, the Senate is considering detainee legislation. If - or should I say, when - it passes, it will do nothing to increase our security. However, Republicans will tout it in the fall campaign as their victory over the Democrats to make us safe. This is not the way Democrats see it. Nor is it the way good, patriotic Americans who love their country and its great Constitution, see it. According to the Washington Post:

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

It's a sad day when Republicans rip our Constitution to shreds. They favor punishing those who burn the flag, but not those who tear the Constitution apart. Republicans know that this legislation that allows torture and removes the great protection of habeas corpus, this smut, will not be approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they do not care. The Supreme Court may consider it next year or the year after - safely beyond this fall's elections.

This legislation is for the Republican campaign, not for security.

As terrible as this Republican strategy is, the swiftboating will be worse. Rove learned many of his dirty tricks from Lee Atwater, the guy who gave us the unAmerican Willie Horton ad that brought W's father to the presidency. Lee Atwater repented and apologized to those he had mercilessly attacked shortly before he died. Would Rove repent?

Not any time soon. Rove has been teaching his "heirs" how to attack. On the "official" level, keep it negative, very negative, and keep it up until election day. You can see Republican political operatives already doing this in many specific campaigns. Attack, smear, distort. On the "unofficial" level, you get together some swiftboaters to spread lies and innuendo about your Democratic opponent. It's best to do this in the last few weeks of the campaign to make it hard for your Democratic opponent to defend himself or herself.

There is only one way to answer swiftboaters. Retort immediately, debunk immediately and retort and debunk strongly. John Kerry did not do it, so he lost. Democrats, those running and those voting, cannot allow this to happen again.

Democrats must be ready to sink the Republican swiftboaters.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 28, 2006 6:52 PM
Comments
Comment #184901

John Kerry could not do it because it was true. He could not dispute it because he had no evidence to refute what they were saying.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #184903

John Kerry could not do it because it was true. He could not dispute it because he had no evidence to refute what they were saying.

Posted by: Keith at September 28, 2006 07:25 PM

——————-
That’s BS,

Kerry had several crew members refute everything teh Swift boaters were saying. They were paid shills by Bob Perry and everything they said was a load of crap.

Posted by: Dennis at September 28, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #184908

Keith, Keith, Keith,

The Swift Boat liars have been long discredited. Kerry’s evidence? How about a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. It’s shameful that the President of the US stood by and let them smear a war hero.

But Paul is right, expect more of it. The GOP brought you WIlly Horton, the Swift Boat liars, and now, despite the findings in the non-partisna 9/11 Commission Report “Clinton let bin Laden run free.” Another attempted Swift Boating.

But, the recent attacks on Clinton were handled by him the way Kerry should have handled the Swift Boat liars; stand up, tell the facts, don’t accept the smear tactics, don’t be shouted over, and force them to shown as the partisan liars they are.

The Dems just need to get the truth out to win in November. Incredibly almost half of all Americans still think that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and that he had WMDs in 2003! The right wing incumbency media machine is powerful. But it is easily defeated if those lied about or told lies to just stand up and say, “Show me you facts, not rhetoric, not smears, facts.”

So now we have 16 intelligence agencies telling us that Bush’s Iraq war had made terrorism worse. Expect the right to smear the Dems as weak on terror and lie about this report. The answer for the Dems is simple - ask them to prove it. Ah, sweet checkmate.

Posted by: Boomer at September 28, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #184910

Keith-
Let’s see. One guy has a commendation for a Bronze star that mentions gunfire he hotly denies. One charge that Kerry put a fake medal on his record rests on a typo which wasn’t even written by him. Likewise, another supposedly doctored document, an report that lead to his silver star commendation, was supposedly done by him because of the initials on the form. They weren’t even his.

A number of the Swiftboaters supported Kerry in past campaigns. The head of the organization is a known shill who once debated him long ago as a rival on the Dick Cavett show. He was the leader of a Veterans group that Richard Nixon astroturfed to face Kerry’s popular anti-war organization.

The accusations that Kerry accused soldiers of actions ignores the fact that he was relating their willingly given testimony, their confessions. Moreover, it ignores the fact that he does not vilify the soldiers, and in fact puts himself in their shoes, listing the things he was doing that he later learned were against the rules of war. It ignores the fact that he lays blame for this at the feet of the commanders and the politicians who were procrastinating on bringing the war that even they acknowledged was a mistake to an end.

Claims that he used his testimony for political gain neglect the fact that he could have easily kept his mouth shut and run as a veteran, rather than bring the controversy of the war into things.

Why is Kerry targeted? Because he’s liberal, and Republicans are convinced they’re in some kind of culture war. Never mind how many fragments they pound America’s consensus into in order to gain or keep power. The defeat of the liberals take precedence over everything else.

The question is when Republicans are going to start fighting the real enemies, and treating the Democrats like the fellow Americans they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #184911

My fellow Democrats-

Get over it. Quit complaining about the way the game is played. You can’t change it. Aceept it, get out there, and win.

Every tirade about Karl Rove and swiftboating is one that isn’t about health care, Iraq or some other issue that may actually influence a voter. The real genious of Karl Rove is that he got us to take our eye off the ball.

Posted by: David S at September 28, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #184917

Paul,

I believe that the essence of your post was to identify Republican campaign strategy and suggest a method and proceedure for neutralizing that strategy.

But I found this one section compelling and want to discuss it some more:

“At this very minute, the Senate is considering detainee legislation. If - or should I say, when - it passes, it will do nothing to increase our security. However, Republicans will tout it in the fall campaign as their victory over the Democrats to make us safe. This is not the way Democrats see it. Nor is it the way good, patriotic Americans who love their country and its great Constitution, see it. According to the Washington Post:

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that’s just for starters.
It’s a sad day when Republicans rip our Constitution to shreds. They favor punishing those who burn the flag, but not those who tear the Constitution apart. Republicans know that this legislation that allows torture and removes the great protection of habeas corpus, this smut, will not be approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they do not care. The Supreme Court may consider it next year or the year after - safely beyond this fall’s elections.

This legislation is for the Republican campaign, not for security.”

You use this example to show one of the ways the Republicans will attack Democratic candidates. I’ve found a couple of items here very interesting as I watched the Republicans completely politically out-manuever the Democrats, whether the Republicans did this on purpose or just blind luck is up for debate.

However, it seemed clear to me that the Democratic leadership in both the house and senate sat back on this issue while it was being debated, essentially backed McCain, then stood like a deer looking in the headlights when the Whitehouse and the McCain cabal came to a consensus over the legislation.

And because the Democratic party leaders had not actively engaged in the debate but tacitly supported the Republican Senators leading the quote “revolution” from the Whitehouse party line they’ve been left to be steam rolled.

I was incredibly saddened to see the Democrats take that road and even expressed that dismay here on the forum at the time. Be that as it may, I think the best campaign strategy for the Democratic candidates is to engage in the business of running the country rather than looking solely at the opposition arguing amongst themselves.

Swiftboating will occur on both sides of the political spectrum, some succeed and some fail (just ask Dan Rather).

But legislation that you fail to actively voice an opinion on then get caught holding the bag is just in-excusable, and frankly in this case bad for the country. The U.S.A. would have been much better served if this legislation hand been debated and handle statesmen-like by both parties…

So you’re conclusion that this legistlation was all about a Republican strategy may be correct (probably not though, but I’m not as pessimistic about the motives of either the Republicans nor Democrats as many are), but the Democrats bought into it. The failure here was a failure for our country and frankly someone should pay for that with their jobs. Putting politics above good legislation is always a mistake.

Just my .02
Tom

Posted by: TMU at September 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #184920

Paul,

I believe that the essence of your post was to identify Republican campaign strategy and suggest a method and proceedure for neutralizing that strategy.

But I found this one section compelling and want to discuss it some more:

“At this very minute, the Senate is considering detainee legislation. If - or should I say, when - it passes, it will do nothing to increase our security. However, Republicans will tout it in the fall campaign as their victory over the Democrats to make us safe. This is not the way Democrats see it. Nor is it the way good, patriotic Americans who love their country and its great Constitution, see it. According to the Washington Post:

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that’s just for starters.
It’s a sad day when Republicans rip our Constitution to shreds. They favor punishing those who burn the flag, but not those who tear the Constitution apart. Republicans know that this legislation that allows torture and removes the great protection of habeas corpus, this smut, will not be approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they do not care. The Supreme Court may consider it next year or the year after - safely beyond this fall’s elections.

This legislation is for the Republican campaign, not for security.”

You use this example to show one of the ways the Republicans will attack Democratic candidates. I’ve found a couple of items here very interesting as I watched the Republicans completely politically out-manuever the Democrats, whether the Republicans did this on purpose or just blind luck is up for debate.

However, it seemed clear to me that the Democratic leadership in both the house and senate sat back on this issue while it was being debated, essentially backed McCain, then stood like a deer looking in the headlights when the Whitehouse and the McCain cabal came to a consensus over the legislation.

And because the Democratic party leaders had not actively engaged in the debate but tacitly supported the Republican Senators leading the quote “revolution” from the Whitehouse party line they’ve been left to be steam rolled.

I was incredibly saddened to see the Democrats take that road and even expressed that dismay here on the forum at the time. Be that as it may, I think the best campaign strategy for the Democratic candidates is to engage in the business of running the country rather than looking solely at the opposition arguing amongst themselves.

Swiftboating will occur on both sides of the political spectrum, some succeed and some fail (just ask Dan Rather). That being said I personally think that neither side should engage is such negative personal attacks. The attacks just polarize the electorate and I agree with you that if any candidate is so attacked they should aggressively and immediately clear their good names.

But legislation that you fail to actively voice an opinion on then get caught holding the bag is just in-excusable, and frankly in this case bad for the country. The U.S.A. would have been much better served if this legislation had been debated and handled by both parties…

So you’re conclusion that this legistlation was all about a Republican strategy may be correct (probably not though, but I’m not as pessimistic about the motives of either the Republicans nor Democrats as many are), but the Democrats bought into it. The failure here was a failure for our country and frankly someone should pay for that with their jobs. Putting politics above good legislation is always a mistake.

Just my .02
Tom

Posted by: TMU at September 28, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #184922

I’m not normally a revolutionary, but enough is enough!

Our forefathers revolted against King George for less.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #184926

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #184927

lmao. keep it up guys - Republicans will win if for no other reason than the American public doesn’t like living in the past - especially hyped-up all bad news no good news past. Come up with some GOOD that the Dems have done and you might have a chance. The only other advice I have is to come up with solutions (not the finger-pointing, blame game, kindergarten playground tactics so prevalent in these posts) that actually sound like grown ups are involved. heheheheheh - can’t wait for November!

Posted by: Ilsa at September 28, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #184932

Well, hot off the presses—Dems fold again on Senate bill 3930; the detention/torture bill passes 65-34, with a whopping 12 Democratic senators voting for this torch to the Constitution.

This is the type of thing that infuriates me about the Democratic Party. WHERE WAS THE FILIBUSTER on this??!

If they want my vote, they’re going to have to do better than this.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #184936
Democrats must be ready to sink the Republican swiftboaters.

What are they going to do about the Democratic swiftboaters?

You know, the ones pulling the race card as elections close (George Allen) or leaking court protected tapes and suggesting that your opponent broke the law with no evidence to that end (Jeanine Pirro)?

There is one lesson I learned a long time ago about this type of thing.

Usually when one partner in a relationship accuses the other of ‘cheating’ on them, it’s usually them who has cheated or is wanting to. The same is true here. The Democrats are the ones constantly accusing their opponents of ‘dirty tricks’ and while does go on occasionally you usually find that the Dems are doing it just as often (or more often) when an honest examination is taken.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #184938

Molly Ivins on this torture bill that just passed the Senate.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #184937

Carper (D-DE)Landrieu (D-LA)Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)Johnson (D-SD)Menendez (D-NJ)


There as good as gone in my book

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #184939

They are, I meant

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #184940

Btw, the left constantly uses the Swift Boaters as a group that the Reps got together just before the election to take down Kerry.

The FACTS are that the leader of the group and several members have been saying the same things for decades. There was no doubt to anyone who knew Kerry and his political history (and why he would never win) knew that they were going to come up during the election.

That some republicans gave them money is a red herring, of course they did. Just like dems gave Moore and MoveOn money. The unbelievable rabid dog insistence that that was some sort of conspiracy is just showing everyone information you probably don’t want out there…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #184941

Even the NYT isn’t happy.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-27.htm

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #184943

Any veteran of any US armed force that supports a sitting president who allowed the shameless slandering of Kerry’s service should be ashamed. Any american that supports this president should be ashamed. Any american that supports the party that supports this president should be…well you see where this is going. Nobody wants to coddle guilty pows or hug terrorists but lets let someone thats actually done some battle decide how to treat these suspects.

Posted by: American Idiot at September 28, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #184944

I feel that now, with the Senate caving in on the great and noble principle of habeas corpus, that I have lost my America. The Congress will pass this legislation, and we will leave the company of civilized nations, and probably very few in our country will even understand the gravity of the betrayal. Until secret police start coming for them. And then it will be way too late. It is only a small step from stripping legal residents of their habeas corpus rights to stripping citizens of theirs. All Bush has to do is point his finger at anybody—you, me, anybody—and say, “enemy supporter,” and there that person will be, shut up in a jail for the rest of his life without the right to get a court hearing. Bush can have people tortured because now he is the arbiter of what constitutes torture. How did this country get so perverted? By being yellow through and through, scared of our own shadows, ready to betray the great principles of our country so we can chew our popcorn in front of our TVs in safety.

It seems dramatic to say so, but this is the end of America as we knew it. We have a king now, a foolish and vengeful one, and the Congress has anointed him. We’ve lost what it took so many years to build. The world’s first democracy is no more.

Posted by: intelligentlife at September 28, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #184945

intelligentlife:

This is a scary day indeed. Your post captures my feelings exactly on this.

I don’t think even one third of the American people have any idea just how serious this is.

I have a very dark feeling about this, and it will not go away. That I have witnessed a house of Congress cede the backbone of human rights and freedoms to this president—I still can’t believe it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #184948

Loren I think you are wrong about Stabenow, I have seen just one ad from her challenger and I am not voting for him, Lieberman is now a Independent and last heard ahead in the polls.

Posted by: KT at September 28, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #184951

A synopsis of the torture/detainee bill just passed by our illustrious Senate from Talking Points Memo:

First class justice? Or fly coach?

I’m not sure that’s the best metaphor, but it cuts to the heart of what strikes me as the most significant part of the bill that Republicans are jamming through the Senate today. As others have noted in more detail, this law allows the president to detain any US citizen in the United States and hold him or her without trial forever.

All the president needs to do is find that you are an ‘enemy combatant’. And it’s entirely his call.

There’s so much in this legislation that I know it’s hard to say what’s ‘most significant’. And I’m not trying to devalue the torture provision. But this point seems to cross the biggest divide. In essence, it means that the entire criminal justice system in this country becomes discretionary in the hands of the president.

You have the protection of the courts and due process. Until that gets too sticky, in which case the president can pull you out of the court system and detain you forever with no recourse to anything but the president’s mercy.

Basically, getting arrested, prosecuted and thrown in the slammer the old-fashioned way becomes a privilege that can simply be revoked. Like I said, first class justice, up in the comfy seats.

Josh Marshall

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 28, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #184963

KT

Here’s the roll call. You’ll find Stabenow under the yeas
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #184966

What’s wrong with the links? they are going to domain.com.

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #184968

I’ll try again

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #184969

Here is the roll call

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

Posted by: Loren at September 28, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #184971

and if Bush refuses to leave office in 2008 then ALL of us, including Dems in the gov’t, who want to throw him out will be prey, as we will surely be labeled “enemy combatants”. It is a dark day, indeed.

Posted by: kay fooce at September 28, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #184972

Reading through these posts, it’s clear that any hysterical, off-base or actually false comment will be praised to the heavens (and certainly never be questioned) by any Democrat as long as it contains an accusation against George Bush or some dark insinuation about the fight against terrorism. The crazier the better.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is totally full of it. Too bad, because the man is not a complete idiot.

This bill has NOTHING to do with Americans in America, and it doesn’t even effect Americans who are captured overseas. This bill does nothing in relation to that part of the Hamden decision, which still stands. Anybody who tells you different is a liar.

Americans cannot even be held in Guantanomo, cannot be denied hearings or lawyers, and will still get the same access to the courts as any other American citizen.

This Chicken Little stuff may get the far left base riled up, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 28, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #184973

Pilsner:

Not according to what I heard on C-span today.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 28, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #184975

Womanmarine, who said what on C-span? If you heard differently, you heard somebody who hasn’t been paying attention or is lying.

Even somebody in Guantanomo Bay who has been labeled an enemy combatant—a non American—will still have their designation as an enemy combatant reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this bill.

In other words, non-Americans, even non-Americans picked up on the battlefield, will still have access to and have their status reviewed by American courts.

Nobody at all, and certainly no Americans (see the Hamden ruling if you’re in any doubt) can just be held indefinitely without judical review on the president’s say-so.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 28, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #184977

And on the subject of “Swift-Boating.”

Isn’t it interesting that John Kerry STILL, after all this time, does not allow anyone who asks permission to review his military records? That although it’s in his power to FULLY release all records, he still refuses to do so? That he’s only allowed two journalists who are sympathic to John Kerry access to those records? Aren’t you just a little bit curious about why?

What would you say if George Bush only let Fox News and Rush Limbaugh look at his military records? Be honest.

I don’t care about his military record one way or another, and wouldn’t (and didn’t) vote for or against him on that basis, but if the Swift-vets really are “liars,” it would be good to know this once and for all.

Or at least it would be nice to see what John Kerry refuses to let us see.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 28, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #184978

intelligent life:
“I feel that now, with the Senate caving in on the great and noble principle of habeas corpus, that I have lost my America.”

Only now? I’ve felt that I’ve been losing my America since the Supreme Court unconstitutionally decided who would be the president in 2000. Everything since then has been of a piece, has it not? Since then, we’ve all been watching our America be hacked away at, piece by piece — as they began their relentless attack on our Constitution, committed treasonous acts (like starting a war on lies, or outting intelligence people for political gain, etc.), rigged and stole elections, constantly tried to bury the truth, demonize all who spoke out against them, broke international law at will, and a whole assload of other godawful and terrible things.
And worst of all, a lot of “Democrats” have helped, and are still helping them.
Of course, Feingold didn’t. Instead, he had a few choice words for what was being done today.

But yes, now that habeas corpus is a thing of the past, it’s probably a good idea for every liberal to buy themselves a gun. Now that our Supreme Leader’s word is the law, you don’t want to to go down without a fight when they start rounding us up, do you?
I know I’m not going quietly. I fully intend to take a few Brownshirts with me if, or when, Liberalnacht rolls around.
I’m only slightly joking here.

Have any of you read this? The fascistic ramblings of our Supreme Leader on the entire Democratic Party?

And have you heard about what Bob Woodward has been telling 60 Minutes? Here’s a quote from the article: Bush Misleads On Iraq:

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward. The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

So, perhaps this is a bit of what’s gone missing from that well-groomed little NIE report? Seems very likely.
“Support Our Troops?”
T’is just a nice little bit of Newspeak, my fellow Oceanians.

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.”
— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Posted by: Adrienne at September 28, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #184980
I’ve felt that I’ve been losing my America since the Supreme Court unconstitutionally decided who would be the president in 2000.

Get over it Adrienne, the Supreme Court did not decide who would be president, it only addressed a legal case brought by Gore to violate the constitution, which even HE can not do.

And we found out in 2001 that if the Supreme Court HAD stayed out of it that he still would have lost, everything he asked for in the lawsuit would have not gained him enough votes to win, in fact it would have lost him some. And the the Republicans could have sued because a portion of Florida was told that Gore won before the polls were closed in their area, as well as having many votes by Forida military thrown out by the Democrats (who claimed they only wanted all votes counted, right).

The only thing Gore accomplished was tarnish his reputation, the reputation of the Democratic Party and prevented a good turnover of information from the Clinton adminstration to the Bush administration.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #184982
it’s probably a good idea for every liberal to buy themselves a gun. Now that our Supreme Leader’s word is the law, you don’t want to to go down without a fight when they start rounding us up, do you? I know I’m not going quietly. I fully intend to take a few Brownshirts with me if, or when, Liberalnacht rolls around. I’m only slightly joking here.

Now I believe that you ARE joking, because if you actually believed one iota of that nonsense you know you wouldn’t be able recite the most hysterical anti-administration talking points you can find without a care or worry in the world.

Also, if you haven’t got the stomach to stand up to terrorists or have others do it in your name, I doubt you’ll have the stomach to start shooting law enforcement officers.

But how many of your liberal friends have really been hauled off in the dead of night, I wonder?

How is Michael Moore doing this days? Sunning his belly on a Carribean beach?

Hopefully he’s invested some of the millions he’s made heroicially risking his life by spoon-feeding anti-Administration stories to liberals in the Bush stock-market, which seems poised to break all records.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 28, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #184986

I don’t mean to be rude here, but I’m actually not interested in arguing with either of you Rhinehold or Pilsner. I honestly no longer believe that there is any use in arguing with those who still support this President, his administration, or the Congress that automatically does their bidding.
Besides, you both posted so quickly, I know you didn’t even look at any of the links I put up — that means your responses are knee-jerk, rather than considered. So, while no offense is intended, I’d prefer it if you just thought of my post as being addressed to the Liberals in the Blue Column. Thanks.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 28, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #184987

Pilsner,

I suppose you don’t remember the witch hunt the republicans led during the Clinton administration. Can you people get over it already and stop blaming clinton for everything bush has f’d up. please… open you eyes, stop getting all your information from Fox news.

Posted by: tony CO at September 28, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #184989

Come on Adrienne….don’t let them get to you…follow your own advice about ignoring the trolls. These guys just lurk in the shadows waiting for a new release, then they cut and paste their mindless, rhetorical BS for us to have to endure. Three-card Monte at its’ Rovian best….. stay cool !!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 29, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #184990

I’m sorry to hear, Adrienne, that you’re not comfortable expressing your opinions unless everybody agrees with them. Those who are wrong often feel that way.

To it’s credit, this is not one of those sites like the Daily Kos which are mere echo chambers where only one side gets to speak.

Do not respond to my posts if you don’t wish to. That’s your choice, but I will continue to point out errors and mistakes for the benefit of others who may be more open-minded and interested in facts rather than talking points.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 29, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #184994

Paul,

I’ll expect an immediate follow-up to this story about Allen and the “N” word claims of yester-decade. He’s been in MANY elections so I assume Dems just wait until a person is near presidential candidacy before a smear & lies campaign?

By the way, are you calling all of the many guys who served with Kerry “liars”? Kerry served with distinction but these guys are scum? Sounds like a reach to me. I thought Dems like the idea of everyone having their opinion … or do free opinions only exist left of center?

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #184997

Pilsner, you have no facts.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #184998

Sandra:
“Come on Adrienne….don’t let them get to you”

I’m not Sandra, really. The righties can think whatever they like about the info I just brought to share with you guys in this column. I’m just not interested in arguing with them about that info, or over the opinions I have.

“stay cool !!”

As a cucumber! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #185000
Even somebody in Guantanomo Bay who has been labeled an enemy combatant—a non American—will still have their designation as an enemy combatant reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this bill.

Interesting. I’ve read pretty much the whole bill and I don’t see that part. Please Enlighten me. And BTW, if you happen to be a naturalized American citizen, and haven’t renounced your former citizenship, you can still be classified as an alien. My wife and daughter have dual citizenship, so it matters to me.

What would you say if George Bush only let Fox News and Rush Limbaugh look at his military records?

I’d be happy if we actually got to see the undoctored military record of GW.

I will continue to point out errors and mistakes for the benefit of others who may be more open-minded and interested in facts rather than talking points.

Open-mindedness should go both ways, but I doubt you have the capacity. BTW I haven’t seen any links to facts on your posts. But, like our President, I guess we should just trust you, you know what’s best…

Posted by: Loren at September 29, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #185002

Adrienne:

“…I’m actually not interested in arguing with either of you Rhinehold or Pilsner. I honestly no longer believe that there is any use in arguing with those who still support this President, his administration, or the Congress that automatically does their bidding.”

Gee, that about sums it up for me as well.

I, for one, appreciate your integrity, Adrienne.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 29, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #185007

Adrienne,

Let’s do something positive. Who do you think gave the best speech against the torture bill. My vote is for Obama, but i’m open to other opinions.

Posted by: Loren at September 29, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #185009

Loren:
“Let’s do something positive. Who do you think gave the best speech against the torture bill. My vote is for Obama, but i’m open to other opinions.”

Loren, I thought Obama’s was an excellent piece of oratory, too. I liked Feingold’s because it spelled out to America all of the ways that this is a travesty. Whoever who took the time to listen, got a speech that was chock-full of detailed information — the kind that every American needed to know. I also thought that Kerry’s was a very good speech.

Tim Crow:
“I, for one, appreciate your integrity, Adrienne.”

Thank you very much!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #185011

Many years ago while I was still in high school I read a novel by Sinclair Lewis entitled It Can’t Happen Here. I believe it was written in the 30’s or 40’s when it looked as if fascism would overrun all of Europe. The premise of the book was that it could happen here. One line of the book has stayed with me all these years. “When fascism comes to America it will wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Posted by: trublu at September 29, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #185014

ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO DEBATE THE SUBJECT OR ARE YOU GOING TO JUST SLAP EACH OTHER AROUND ALL NIGHT?

1. Take three deep breaths.
2. Count to 10.
3. Stretch.
4. Tell yourself to Relax!


With Love,
The Psychiatrist

Posted by: ThePsychiatrist at September 29, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #185021

Good bye all-


I joined this blog, and one from the other side, with the idea of engaging in thoughtful, reasoned, civil discourse about the problems our country faces and possible solutions. Instead, I have found juvenile, mindless, pitiful fingerpointing, knee jerk reactions to any disagreement, and an inability to write more than three or four sentences without descending into the gutter.

Folks, these tactics, from both sides, will not solve our problems. Our problems will be solved by intelligence, good sense, and a determination to identify the best solutions possible.

Most of the submissions do not even come close. The Blue side can only repeat the mantra: “Bush is bad, Bush is evil, Karl Rove is Satan incarnate, all conservatives are horrible”, etc. The Red side has it’s mantra: “Liberals are trying to destroy the country, Liberals are soft on terror, Bill Clinton is Satan incarnate”, etc.

Nothing of what I have read here in any way affects who I will vote for in November or 2008. I get the impression that the Democrats are only interested in regaining power and the Republicans are only interested in keeping power. These are not good reasons to vote for anyone!

So, it has been an educational experience these past few months. It has shown me the depths to which we have fallen. For the sake of the country, I hope and pray that someday soon, we can get back to debating issues and answers, but I won’t hold my breath.

So long folks.

Posted by: John Back at September 29, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #185023

The man is right. While we whine and bitch like a bunch of kids, our enemies plot our destruction.

Posted by: trublu at September 29, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #185029

Adrienne,

Wasn’t that the definition of “doublethink”?
BTW, It’s good to hear someone else quote 1984. The similarities between BushCo and the Party are mind numbing.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 29, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #185032

Relax people, chill, alles ist gut. I can hear the rousing tones of the Horst Wessel begin to crescendo from a distance, indeed, music to my ears. Der Fuhrer ist alive again, and ve march on ze untermensch, so as to vinally impose ze vill of ze aryan master race upon the subhuman cattle. I can’t vait to dust off my old uniform und insignia from ze vaffen SS. Those who dare oppose us are clearly filthy communist jewish scum. Ve vill eliminate zem gut zis time. Herr Doktor Goebbels has been resurrected again, und ze people are unter his spell. Alles ist in place. Alles ist gut. Don’t worry. Sleep. Sleep, your eyes are feeling sooooooooooooooo heavy……… fades offs with the heavenly notes of Deutschland Uber Alles transfixing the mind und soul to ecstasy…….

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 29, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #185038

Ignore facts which do not support your argument.
Parrot party-line rhetoric.
See only one side of issues.
Ignore others who disagree with you.

Glad to see posters at WatchBlog have decided to help keep us a divided country.

John Back, you sir, have made the best point I have read here in a long time.

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #185040

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Neimoller

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 29, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #185044

kctim:
“Ignore facts which do not support your argument.”

No one brought any facts for me to ignore. Only opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

“Parrot party-line rhetoric.”

I also faulted Democrats in my first post to this thread.

“See only one side of issues.”

I make it a habit to read news articles, opinion pieces and editorials from both the left and the right. And then, I make up my mind according to what seems to make the most sense, and seems to contain the most truth.

“Ignore others who disagree with you.”

Only those who seem to automatically disagree without any true consideration of what knowledge or thoughts I may bring to a discussion.
There are too many trolls in Watchblog lately for my taste. I don’t having mind an honest argument, but too many are not providing one.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #185053

The libs on this Blog have turned into a comedy act. Case in point is at the bottom of this post. My one question is “What intelligent discourse are you talking about pray tell?” I guess “intelligent discourse” in your mind includes phrases like “bovine chitt” and “let’s never engage them” and “Let’s kick them to the curb like the droppings they are.”

I mean that’s really funny … Eddie Murphy funny!

By the way, I don’t think I’ve agreed with anything she’s said but the person’s name is “Adrienne” … got it Balboa?

—————————————

Aderian,

I’m with you on this. For months I’ve seen Rindhardt and Pilsner entertain them selves by posting over here where they don’t belong and spouting their bovine chitt. All they seem to want to do is disrupt intelligent discourse and keep them selves entertained.

I say if we can’t boot them lets just never respond to or engage them. I’d bet niether of them is much welcomed on the other side so why should we play their little game?

I’m not aginst honest debate and discussion with the other side, but these two are just trying to make sport of us. (ed. note: people like to do easy things sometimes)

Lets kick them to the curb like the droppings they are.

Posted by: Gedunk at September 29, 2006 10:12 AM

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #185084

I think it more than a little curious that all this “unpleasantness” being discussed has essentially taken the spotlight off of this atrocious torture bill.

The entire edifice of US jurisprudence now exists at the whim and discretion of a spoiled little frat boy and his assorted henchmen. It’s like all the grown-ups in a high school have been ordered out, and the school is now being run by sadistic jocks. Only it isn’t. It’s our country we’re talking about.

And the Democrats…what can I say that is printable? Evidently, they decided they would forgo a fillibuster by putting all their marbles on a ammendment attempt to water down the more insane aspects—that is, having the president deciding who’s a combatant etc. It seems the Dems are not only NOT to be counted upon to defend some very hard-fought human rights and liberties that have stood the test of time, they are unable to count, either. This entire excercise was lost on a party-line vote for an ammendment, instead of taking the whole putrid mess and take no chances—filibuster it!!

But, the Dems weren’t to be caught in the Rove meat-grinder this close to an election they have the appearance of possibly doing well in—and the Republicans haven’t missed a chance to crucify a donkey on the horns of a dilema: “Weak on terrorism, Weak on Terrorism, WEAK ON TERRORISM!!”

You would never have known that this country faced down a truly dangerous threat of nuclear annihilation for over forty years with the Soviets. We are now, in a fit of terror over terrorism, busily dismantling a edifice of laws and customs that has taken almost ten generations to build. On the scurrilous say-so of a group of chickenhawks that have never smelled the smoke of battle.

This was sheer political theatrics—the Republicans, desperate to hold on to power, are pulling out all the stops. The Dems, afraid of Rove’s shadow, and afraid of their own shadows, fumbled a simple parlimentary technique to hide once more. You don’t go to the floor of the Senate, with something like habeous corpus and due process of law riding on it, without the votes. If you don’t have the votes, you filibuster.

The thought made them break out in a collective sweat—a filibuster on the eve of a critical election? No, no, no, can’t do that. We wouldn’t be able to explain to the folks that we were defending the Constitution and the Magna Carta.

And so, within 24 hours, the major cornerstone of individual liberty against the insidious power of the State has been jettisoned for political expediency. This Congress has forever lost it’s historical label of a “do-nothing” Congress—it has done something so horrific, as to defy rational thought.

And the country has changed, changed utterly. A terrible beauty is born.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 29, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #185085

That’s right. Ignore em’ and they’ll go away.

Sometimes you gotta just run the troublemakers outa Jonestown so the rest of us can get back to being ourselves.

Posted by: glowworm at September 29, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #185112

Like many of you, I’m saddened that some Democrats went along with the right-to-torture bill. Terrible! Unconscionable!

However, most Democrats voted against it, whereas almost all Republicans voted for it. We don’t have a good score but it is a lot better than the Republicans’ score.

I still say, the bill is not for security but for the Republican campaign. Shameful!

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 29, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #185113

Another insight from Talking Points Memo about this “Military Commissions Act”, the flagrant assault on institutional freedoms in this country that just passed the Senate yesterday (and the House the day before):

Court Challenge to New Detainee Law May Come In “Days”
By Justin Rood - September 29, 2006, 1:02 PM

With President Bush poised to sign the White House-backed detainee treatment bill into law, groups are promising to challenge it in court “in days.”

“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in ‘H’ that this will be found constitutional,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Congressional Quarterly (sub. req.). CCR represents a number of Guantanamo prisoners.

Strangely, some senators who voted for the bill weren’t convinced of its constitutionality. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal “patently unconstitutional on its face,” The Washington Post reported. When CQ asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who negotiated with the White House to win minor concessions on the legislation, if the bill was constitutional, he responded “I think so.”

I love McCain’s comment.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 29, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #185116

Paul:

While I sympathize with your constant defense of a compromised party, and indeed, more Dems voted against it than Republicans, these “shades of integrity” arguments are starting to wear a little thin.

Where do the Dems draw the line? What is non-negotiable? The only thing that comes readily to mind is Social Security—there are probably others, and I’m sure someone here will chime in. This “bill” screamed for a filibuster, whether politically discomforting or not. There are some things that cannot be contemplated, or we cease being the country we claim to be.

I don’t expect anything from the neo-cons anymore. But this expedient collapse of principles by the Senate Dems is… beyond words.

I’m very glad I left the party, after witnessing this debacle.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 29, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #185123

Tim Crow and Paul Siegel,

“The right to torture” bill? Really? Or are you pressing for Miranda rights for terrorists? Should they get a london broil and a nice chianti even if they know about the next terrorist act potentially killing one of your friends or family? What’s your definition of torture? Some menial sleep deprivation, anything more than 74 degrees or less than 69 degrees? If so, wow, I guess I was tortured as a former Marine … tortured all the time!!

Who can I sue?! Where’s John Edwards when you need him?

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #185124

Ken:

If there were any substance to your post, I’d respond. But alas….

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 29, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #185128

Ken, you make an excellent point. In fact, there’s nothing permitted here which some members of our military aren’t subjected—albeit more harshly- as part of training.

Special ops for example get “resistance training” where they’re subjected to the same thing: sleep deprivation, confinement, and the like. And their interregoters are held to the same standard: they can try to extract information, but no permanent physical injury is allowed.

Our soldiers are actually treated more harshly than our prisoners, however, because everybody knows they’re not going to sue and get lawyers and try to make things look worse than they are for purposed of Anti-American propaganda.

This bill does NOT allow breaking bones, drawing blood, rape, murder, or anything of the kind. In fact, it expressly forbids it. It does allow attempting to break down psychological resistance by use of other means. Calling this “torture” is an insult to those like John McCain who know something about what torture really is.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 29, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #185132

“Ken, you make an excellent point. In fact, there’s nothing permitted here which some members of our military aren’t subjected—albeit more harshly- as part of training.”

We subject our soldiers to “waterboarding” and “restraint positions”?
No wonder were having recruiting problems.

Posted by: Observer at September 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #185137

Yes indeed.

In fact, when Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 9-11 mastermind, was “waterboarded,” the CIA officials who did it were reportedly impressed by him because he lasted almost two minutes before caving in while most of them said they lasted about 14 seconds when they experienced the same thing.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 29, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #185138

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry’s War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry “lied” to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree — and so do Navy records.

Pilsner check the link above regarding Kerry’s record and the Republicans that funded the “Swift Boat Veterans” attack ads.

By the way George W. Bush and his staff were cowards for not serving in the military. George W. Bush is a bigger coward for attacking Clinton by proxy.

The RNC’s got you working overtime these last few weeks on this blog.

Posted by: Pat at September 29, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #185147
By the way George W. Bush and his staff were cowards for not serving in the military. George W. Bush is a bigger coward for attacking Clinton by proxy.

And Clinton is not a coward for using his connections to get out of the draft and to go Oxford?

*shrug* I wouldn’t call any of them cowards but then again I don’t particularly find calling someone names easy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #185148

BTW, Adrienne, you can claim the ‘high road’ all you want, but you opened with ‘the supreme court chose the president’ nonsense, I just countered the obvious innacuracies. I would have responded further to your links and statements after that but after getting called names and accused of being a Republican Troll (when you know I’m not) I just lost any desire to be honest.

I kind of thought that the blog had rules for participation but after reading many of the posts here, mainly by the left who is complaining that there is no more civility in politics and we are a divided nation (and then find someone else to blame for it).

The good news is I don’t really find being called names too hurtful, and it does provide a useful baromoter of the mindset of those doing the calling, but I’m just worried with the run up to the election, the NEW ‘most important election in history’ and the pulling out of the typical liberal attack tactics that it is just going to get worse. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #185149

Is the Texas Air National Guard not the military?

Pat needs to get his/her facts straight here.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 29, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #185152
For months I’ve seen Rindhardt and Pilsner entertain them selves by posting over here where they don’t belong and spouting their bovine chitt.

Why don’t I belong here again? I’m seriously curious why you don’t think I belong here, it is my decades of working for the Democratic party and getting fed up with it being hijacked by self-rightous progressives until I finally became a Libertarian, or the fact that I’m a disabled veteran, or the fact that I just want ONE of the two major parties in this country to figure out that having a principled stance on personal liberty means that you shouldn’t do some of the things you would like to see done when it is unconstitutional without addressing that part of it just because it would be messy and hard…?

I’m really not being cute or ‘trollish’ here, I do want to know why you think I don’t ‘belong’. And I’m further curious if that precise attitude might be why the Democrats have lost so many elections lately…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #185161

Still waiting for some conservative republican neocon volunteers to undergo a few days of sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and loud music before being waterboarded. Then maybe they could tell us how that is coddling terrorists.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #185180

Cliff,

While I agree that we should have been out of Iraq by now, I do take exception to one of your statements in your “press release”.

This mistake lead to the atrocity of Al Qaqaa. Iraqi insurgents stole hundreds of tons of high explosives to be used as weaponry.

“These are the explosives being used by Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda to perpetuate the war in Iraq.”

I don’t think this is a true statement, if memory serves we don’t know what happened to the explosives and have no proof at all that they are being used by the insurgents on US soldiers. It is conjecture by some but unless you have some proof that I haven’t seen yet (and would like to see if you do) then you might want to remove that from the release.

It doesn’t help your cause to do the things that you are accusing your opponent of doing, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #185185

jlagace, how is anyone supposed to give your comments credibility when you say Gov’t can’t create a single job, when the Federal gov’t. alone employs over 2 million, 600 thousand people.

I try to think and research things before I say them. I highly recommend the practice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #185199
And Im further curious if that precise attitude might be why the Democrats have lost so many elections lately…

Theres a difference between losing elections and having them stolen. If you don’t know what I mean then speak to Katherine Harris or Ken Blackwell, they’ll explain it to you.

Posted by: Pat at September 29, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #185201

Rhinehold:
BTW, Adrienne, you can claim the ‘high road’ all you want, but you opened with ‘the supreme court chose the president’ nonsense, I just countered the obvious innacuracies.

You want to talk nonsense and obvious innacuracies Rhinehold?
This is what you wrote in response:

“the Supreme Court did not decide who would be president, it only addressed a legal case brought by Gore to violate the constitution,”

Let’s go through exactly how wrong and innacurate you are here so that maybe you will understand why I am so very tired of arguing with people who throw around a lot of attitude, even when they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about:

1. Because of how close the count was in that election, Florida law MANDATED a statewide recount.
2. Gore made an additional request to the Florida Supreme Court to have votes in three counties be recounted by hand — which Florida state law allowed for (at that time, it no longer does).
3. They then went ahead and began this recount. You recall that gaggle of Republican operatives that flew in from all over the country for the purpose of rioting in their suits? That was during this time.
4. It was the BUSH campaign, not the Gore campaign that sued to stop the recounts that the Florida Supreme Court had allowed to go forward.
5. Because BUSH decided to sue, the case then went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 along strict party lines to stop the recount, and this is what allowed Secretary of State, Krazy Krooked Katherine Harris, to certify the results — for Bush.
6. Seven out of the nine SC justices said that because their had been no unified standards in counting the votes, this violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, but 5 of them thought that there was insufficient time to impose any one standard before the cut off date would arrive, and that this is why the recounts had to be stopped.
7. This was unconstitutional bullsh*t, because the reason there had been insufficient time was due to the fact that so many of the various branches and levels of the judiciary had been involved in what had occurred. The court could have declared that an arbitrary deadline was not as important as having American voters choose their president, rather than themselves. Btw, when the recounts were stopped, Bush was ahead by only 327 votes.
8. Every one of those five justices KNEW this decision was unconstitutional — which was why in a complete departure of the stare decisis principle of American law the majority opinion read:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Al Gore was denied equal protection under the law, so that the majority of Republicans on the Supreme Court could choose the Republican president they wanted. Period.

And yes, that’s the highroad, because those are the real facts.

“And we found out in 2001 that if the Supreme Court HAD stayed out of it that he still would have lost,”

You on the right (and yes, I know you’re a Libertarian — of the right) are always saying things like this, but then you never provide a link to back up your claims. Such intellectual laziness is another reason why I’ve become so tired of trying to have an intelligent debate with so many of you.
But this time you’re in luck, because I know exactly what you’re referring to — and that study wasn’t based on all of the ballots being recounted. However, in Febuary 2003, The American Statistical Association, (the nations professional association of statisticians) reported in their quarterly publication that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had been conducted.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #185202

Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer! Sieg Heil!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 29, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #185210

The DeVos campaign in Michigan is from the dark side.
His wife, rins All Children Matter, who are running a visceral smear campaign in Wisconsin, and other states.
It’s just disgusting, is full of lies- which every Wisconsinite knows to be false, but still supports the GOP candidate who was forced to give back Tom DeLay money and is now….
SUING THE STATE HE WANTS TO BE GOVERNOR OF!!!
…to keep more illegal money, in violation of McCain-Feingold Act…that he voted for!

Don’t piss off a cheeshead at the polls.

Posted by: Joe at September 29, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #185221

Adrienne,

Yes, let us have this discussion, I shall do my best to explain why you are wrong.

1. Because of how close the count was in that election, Florida law MANDATED a statewide recount.

Yes, I remember and that recount also stated that George Bush won the election.

2. Gore made an additional request to the Florida Supreme Court to have votes in three counties be recounted by hand — which Florida state law allowed for (at that time, it no longer does).

Right, which is where he made his error. And the reason it is not allowed any longer is because it was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

3. They then went ahead and began this recount. You recall that gaggle of Republican operatives that flew in from all over the country for the purpose of rioting in their suits? That was during this time.

Yes, I also recall the discussions of the hanging chads, the changing of the definition of what is a vote and what is not and applying seprate standards of determining what a vote is than the law allowed on three different occasions. By the afternoon they were going to have to start over again completely because they had went from the hanging chad test to the 3 corners test to the ‘light’ test, to the dimple test. This continual changing of what is and isn’t a ‘vote’, when anything other than a clear punch through was all that could be legally called a vote, is what threw the Republicans at the time into a frenzy. You see, they didn’t want the election stolen, they had won a count and a recount already.

4. It was the BUSH campaign, not the Gore campaign that sued to stop the recounts that the Florida Supreme Court had allowed to go forward.

Yes, because they were changing the definition of a vote and applying separate standards, hence the violation of constitutional law requiring equal treatment. Why was somoene from this country allowed to have his vote counted if it was dimpled but in another county it had to be a complete punch through? Or even in the same county but different districts? Depending on who was handcounting them and what time of day it was and which standard they were using. If you can’t see the problem with that then I am obviously flabbergasted.

5. Because BUSH decided to sue, the case then went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 along strict party lines to stop the recount, and this is what allowed Secretary of State, Krazy Krooked Katherine Harris, to certify the results — for Bush.

There are no ‘party’ lines on the Supreme Court. Each justice has a way of interpreting the law, this is one of my pet peeves with people who try to politicize the court time and time again. And trust me, I disagree with many of their decisions but never say it’s the ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’ but ‘the court’ that made the decision.

And why does it somehow ‘invalidate’ the determinations made by the court if the vote was 5-4? I’m confused.

And beyond that, Harris had the power to certify the results at any time, it was Gore suing to block her from doing so that ended up putting us in the Supreme Court.

6. Seven out of the nine SC justices said that because their had been no unified standards in counting the votes, this violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, but 5 of them thought that there was insufficient time to impose any one standard before the cut off date would arrive, and that this is why the recounts had to be stopped.

Yup

7. This was unconstitutional bullsh*t, because the reason there had been insufficient time was due to the fact that so many of the various branches and levels of the judiciary had been involved in what had occurred. The court could have declared that an arbitrary deadline was not as important as having American voters choose their president, rather than themselves. Btw, when the recounts were stopped, Bush was ahead by only 327 votes.

What the current count at the time was is MEANINGLESS and you should understand that. As for the ‘arbitrary’ timeline, you are wrong, it was not arbitrary. The Electoral College voted on a specific day and the innaguration was to take place on a specific day. As it was there was almost no time for the Clinton administration to pass along information to the incoming administration. Unless you mean we should have delayed when the next administration took office, which would have been worse, IMO than missing a few votes, all for the sum effect of Bush STILL BEING ELECTED because had the recounts continued we know that he would have won since the only way Gore could have ‘found’ enough votes to win would have been through a statewide recount with specific tally standards.

It was unconstitutional to attempt to apply differing standards to the ballots, the Supreme Court found this and I agree with them.

8. Every one of those five justices KNEW this decision was unconstitutional — which was why in a complete departure of the stare decisis principle of American law the majority opinion read:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Al Gore was denied equal protection under the law, so that the majority of Republicans on the Supreme Court could choose the Republican president they wanted. Period.

How was gore denied equal protection? What was someone getting that Gore wasn’t getting under the law? I’m confused how you are applying this to a single individual.

And yes, that’s the highroad, because those are the real facts.

Sorry, you went from timeline and fact to OPINION and supposition. I could say that Gore was trying to manipulate the system on this end, just wanting ‘every vote counted’ while attempting to deny votes from servicemen serving abroad and taking advantage of a large section of the state being told that Gore won the state before their polls closed. Nevermind the underhanded tactics that the democrats used as well.

The simple fact was that the court had to make a decision and sided on the side of the voter over the nominee. He had lost the initial count and the automatic recount. The ballots were being handled in a way to try to ‘create’ votes that didn’t exist and it was becoming pandamonium.

“And we found out in 2001 that if the Supreme Court HAD stayed out of it that he still would have lost,”

You on the right (and yes, I know you’re a Libertarian — of the right)

Actually, I’m not, but you would have to actually listen to what I am saying to understand that I suppose. In fact, I’m a classic Liberal, what the democratic party USE to be before the crazy progressives took it over. :/

are always saying things like this, but then you never provide a link to back up your claims.

Actually, that’s not true either, I provided the links to this for months and could never get anyone to talk about it, they just tell me I was making it up, etc.

Such intellectual laziness is another reason why I’ve become so tired of trying to have an intelligent debate with so many of you.
Intellectual laziness? Do you really want me to put the full force of my intellect behind this specific position, cause I could make that my next article if you like.
But this time you’re in luck, because I know exactly what you’re referring to — and that study wasn’t based on all of the ballots being recounted.

Nope, that’s not the study I am talking about.

However, in Febuary 2003, The American Statistical Association, (the nations professional association of statisticians) reported in their quarterly publication that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had been conducted.However, in Febuary 2003, The American Statistical Association, (the nations professional association of statisticians) reported in their quarterly publication that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had been conducted.However, in Febuary 2003, The American Statistical Association, (the nations professional association of statisticians) reported in their quarterly publication that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had been conducted.However, in Febuary 2003, The American Statistical Association, (the nations professional association of statisticians) reported in their quarterly publication that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had been conducted.

THAT is the study I’m talking about. I like how you mention that Gore would have won a statewide recount, which by this study was true, but he NEVER ASKED FOR THAT. Had he done so he might have not run into an issue with the Surpreme Court about equal protection, I’m not a legal expert but that’s my opinion. But he did not do that because he knew that was a big gamble. So he picked 3 counties that leaned heavily democratic hoping to find the votes he needed to win while helping prevent the possibility that Bush would counter those votes in another county.

So what did this same study find that you DIDN’T mention?

Florida Supreme Court Mandate (using complex methodology) Bush by between 323 and 547

Florida Supreme Court Mandate (using simple methodology) Bush by between 369 and 430

Gore Request Bush by 212 and 225.

Only a statewide recount could have ‘found’ Gore enough votes to win, depending on how the votes were examined, but this doesn’t take into account the other factors I mentioned as well which would have swung the elction by far in Bush’s favor. If you were actually concerned about ‘counting every vote’ you would agree that Bush won Florida, but you can’t seem to even accept that it was really close and no one stole anything.

And to be honest, you KNOW that had it gone the other way and the Republicans had tried to do what Gore had done you would have tarred and feathered them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #185235

As long as you act like traitors, you will never be back in power.

Posted by: Peter Venkman at September 29, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #185240

Rhinehold, I’m sure you’ll stick to your little fantasy, but most people fully understand that what the Supreme Court did was nothing less than a judicial hijacking of democracy — and the fact that they had to depart from stare decisis is the PROOF.

This catastrophy of justice made a mockery of the “judicial restraint” that conservatives bleat on about constantly. But who cares about that since they needed to win, right?
It had no grounds in “originalism” or “textualism” — aren’t those favored conservative ideas too? Yes, but not in this case.
So what if the decision constituted a direct assault on both “federalism” and the “separation of powers” — sure, conservatives claim to cling to those, but who cares when were talking about their need for power, right?
And who cares about all the usurping that had to occur? You know: usurping the role of the Florida Supreme Court in interpreting their state law, usurping the counting of ballots in a presidential election, and usurping Congress’ ability to accept or reject the states electoral college votes. Who cares as long as you can all say “Bush won, get over it” to Liberals, right?

You talk about what I didn’t mention, but what you didn’t mention is that the SC had to reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s order that the undervotes be counted in order to effectively deliver the presidency to Bush.
But who cares as long as all of you can talk down to us? We’re all a bunch of idiots and whiners for claiming that EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ELECTION SEEMED WRONG, aren’t we?

And it doesn’t matter that 96% of the 94,000 disenfranchised voters who were illegally purged on Florida’s voter rolls (authorised by Katherine Harris) were overwhelmingly Democratic and that they comprised 3% of the states black population. No, that doesn’t matter at all.
It’s all in our confused little liberal minds.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #185245

Adrienne,

The Supreme Court has one function, to ensure that laws and court decisions are constitutional. What the Florida Supreme Court based their decision on was Florida Constitutionality. However, their decision was unconstitutional federally, which takes precedence. That is why the US Constitution is suppose to be limiting.

There’s a small issue of the 14th amendment which was violated by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. And you continue to ignore that if they HAD allowed for the undervotes then Bush STILL WOULD HAVE WON.

As for what you ascribe to me as my motivations and feelings, they’re laughable. I agree with you about the purging of the roles and I’ll say it again I’m NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I am a classic liberal.

As for ‘confused little liberal minds’, no I don’t think you’re confused at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #185266

Paul in Euroland,

Thanks for the Pastor Martin Neimoller quote.

As much as we’ve disagreed over Israel’s right to defend herself I do respect your opinion. As a matter of fact I must say that Israel lost this last confrontation with Hezbollah. They only served to strengthen the resolve of Hezbollah and drive more moderate Lebanese to embrace Hezbollah.

I still support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation, but something must give and I’m certainly not smart enough to figure it out. I do think it’s reasonable to say that military intervention alone is not sufficient to solve the problem.

As is true in Iraq, and Iran, and …………!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #185268

Rhinehold:
“The Supreme Court has one function, to ensure that laws and court decisions are constitutional. What the Florida Supreme Court based their decision on was Florida Constitutionality. However, their decision was unconstitutional federally, which takes precedence.”

Uh… I guess you’re really missing the irony here aren’t you? You see, the Supreme Court would never have been involved at all if the Bush campaign hadn’t gotten them involved. In fact, they made an emergency appeal to them. This emergency was that the Florida Supreme Court had decided to allow votes cast for Gore to be counted — votes that had NEVER been touched or counted at all, simply because there had been a problem reading them on machines or optical scanners. It was to be a manual recount of 42,858 undervotes from 58 Florida counties.
This is when the Supreme Court stepped in and voted 5-4 to stop the recount, allowing Bush to “win” the state by only 537 votes.
Gore was robbed of his presidency, and if people truly care to be honest, they will admit this.

And really, what’s it going to change at this point to do so? Nothing whatsoever. But people still won’t look at what happened and admit that what the Supreme Court did was wrong. And that’s ridiculous, because the moment the Justices declared that the case could never be used as a precedent, they were admitting themselves that what they were doing was very wrong.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #185270

“these “shades of integrity” arguments are starting to wear a little thin.”

Damn thin! It amounts to one hog being covered with less mud than another. Personally I’d rather see us Dems lose than to compromise on a BS peice of legislation.

I guess that’s the result of the electoral equivalent of torture:

“oh no, no, if I can’t win the election I’ll vote your way, please, please don’t threaten me with the loss of an election again, I’ll be nice”!

Shameful indeed.

KansasDem

PS: VOID or it’s our own damn fault!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #185271

Adrienne

You just don’t get it do you. Who started the court proceedings? Who ran to the courts first? Was Bush supposed to sit back and let Al Gore and his scores of lawyers manipulate the courts or fight back. What would you have done? Let Al Gore steal the election or counter his play?

Posted by: Keith at September 30, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #185272

“The best way to retort swiftboaters, Sir, is get on offense and stay on offense!”

Thanks Hillary Kerry, but No Thanks!

I prefer to fight a fair fight no matter how dirty the opposition gets. Although I sometimes let anger interfer with my ideals.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2006 2:12 AM
Comment #185301

KansasDem,

Thanks for your comments. I know this subject is off topic here, but I too agree that Israel has a right to exist, inside internationally agreed borders. And I never suggested that Israel does not have the right to defend herself. The root of the conflict at least since 67, has been Israeli agression and expansionism through illegal settlement. There is a solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, and it is already formulated in international law. Israel continues to ignore international law by illegally settling Palestinian land in the occupied territories. They treat palestinians in the territories like subhumans, with little in the way of rights, rights that we take for granted in our countries, like freedom of movement, property rights, right to education, rights to water and many more.

Closer to the topic in this thread, it was your current administation which acted as cheerleader in chief, close adviser, personal coach and equipper in chief for the most recent idiocy in Lebanon. Despite the propaganda, it is absurd to suggest that Israels survival is threatened. It is a military giant in the region, and there is no power of combination of powers that has the capacity to seriously threaten its survival, particularly given the US implicit guarantee to Israel. No, the real reason the neo cons wanted to see Israel defeat Hizbollah was to further their aganda in the mid east, of which Iraq is a major part. They have a theory of how the mid east should and can be, and where the facts get in the way of the theory, they simply ignore the facts. The reality is that Iraq, as most liberals/Democrats will readily accept is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the so called war on terror. This was something that was contemplated by the neo cons since this regime in Washington took power. The agenda was and is to control this region for the benefit of the neo con agenda, like the imperialists of old, regardless of the interests of the people of the region. Except we have long since left behind the age of (overt) imperialism. There have been too many independence struggles around the world in the last century to provide models for those seeking to resist. And that is why the US got such a short honeymoon period in Iraq. That and the fact that Saddams (conventional) weapons were left carelessly strewn about for anyone to pick up and use by the DoD becuase of its blinkered planning of the so called war in Iraq. What is happening there, and finally to bring this back on topic, is that the neo cons have a particular world view that has little to do with reality or law, as most civilised people understand it, yet they insist on pursuing it anyway. It’s like trying to push a square peg into a round hole. Sanity demands that when something isn’t working, that you try something else. But when your whole philosophy and ideology is on the line, sometimes you are not prepared to acknowledge reality, because to do so would cause your whole rationale and world view to crumble before your eyes. And some people cannot face that possibliity. Much preferable to hide behind your illusions, at least until your world finally begins to crumble.

Whatever you may think, you are one of the contributors to this blog for whom I have great respect. We won’t always agree on everything, but I think the values we share greatly surpass any differences we have, not least our respect for the legal traditions and roots both of our countries share, and which the current criminal junta in Washington is clearly determined to smash. It is all very reminiscent of the rise of the Nazis, and it fills me with repugnance. I do not fear the US for me, because with all of its power, it cannot subdue a ragtag in Iraq, but I fear it is destroying itself as a moral force in the world, mocking the huge respect it had hitherto earned across many administrations, around the globe. These vile nazi propagandists running your country now have very deliberately divided your people. In my lifetime, short as it is so far, I have never known the level of alienation between americans as exists now. And it seems that the US, in common with many other western countries, has so much material comfort now that too many of its people have retreated into self absorbtion, celebrity worship and refusal to think. A dark shadow is looming over the western world, it is retreating into decadence and decay, and there are no leaders any more, only three card trick men and women in politics, no you see it, now you don’t. Where are the Dems when you need them? Spineless time servers.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #185304

Ken Strong Rhinehold Pilsener

So you guys all served in the military? You have all done an honorable thing. Thank you.


I support our troops. Many of my students have entered the military, and it has allowed them to get their lives together. They have become responsible adult American citizens. Every time I see them, I tell them that I support them and they are in my prayers. I always say goodbye with please stay alive and come back to see me.

I fear that they are royally screwed by the new torture bill. I see them dying for a lie in Iraq. I see them coming home to fewer and fewer veteran’s benefits.

Have any of the 3 of you ever felt like lower than pawns. Have you ever thought that GW and co. don’t support you as well as they should? I don’t think they have.

Posted by: Loren at September 30, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #185311

Paul

You have no idea what you’re talking about. International law says nothing about territory taken during defense of your country. Israel has given back 94% of the territory is occupied after the 67 war. If you really think that this would all stop if they gave back the other 6% you’re more naive than thought. When the “Palestinians” say they want to stop the occupaion, they are not talking about the West Bank they are talking about Israel.

The real issue here is whether the “Palestinians” have the gonads to actually create a state. They have yet to show that they are capable. The international comunity keeps dumbing billions of dollars into the territories, but still after 40 years their people are still living in “refugee” camps.

If Israel said tomorrow that they would not support any violence in the next year. Would there be peace or would they just get hit more? If the Palestionians said the same thing, peace would break out.

Posted by: Keith at September 30, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #185345

Adrienne…..I see your frustration so clearly, and feel it as well. Guess one thing I want to do, is to thank you for having the fortitude and patience to keep trying to get these guys to a level of comprehension (that won’t be achieved, no matter what..nature of the beast, you know). They still fight the valiant fight, all while the GOP is imploding and fighting to exist at any cost. The mire and slop gets deeper, wherever they tread, as time goes on. Getting damned near impossible to catch a breath of clean air any more…. Don’t wear yourself out trying to turn a brick wall into an open mind.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 30, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #185377

Keith, check out the Fourth Geneva Convention. For you convenience I attach a link to the relevant section;
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the last line of this section:-

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (Part 111 Section 111. Article 49.)

It’s not me who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. UNSCR 242 calls for Israel to leave the occupied territories as part of the settlement. How are they going to leave when the West Bank is settled, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, with tens of thousands of Isreali settlers, who think that God gave them this land? I mean, what makes them any different from the fanatical Muslims? You talk of Israel saying tomorrow that there would be no violence in the next year, that the Palestinians would not respect that. In fact,During numerous ceasefires, while the Palestinians quieted their weapons, the Israeli continued their targeted assassinations by firing missiles from AH64’s and Cobras, killing non combatants in the process. But then, these aren’t really people, just regrettable collateral damage. I don’t really know why I’m going into this with you Keith, because I believe that you really don’t want the facts, as they might upset your prejudice. I wonder why you are unwilling to challenge your own beliefs? Perhaps you’re a rapture Christian, or Zionist, or you just hold on to your cowboys and indians view of plucky little israel, circling its wagons to fight off the circling savages.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #185378

Adrienne:

I would like to second what Sandra said. Much of the discussion about the 2000 presidential election needs to be vented and explored, again and again. It’s frustrating work, and I for one am not always up to it. I pick and choose my battles here at Watchblog—I think it important to do so, or burnout and a throw-your-hands-up, walk-away approach would be the result.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes, I truly get the feeling that there are certain people that are delighted to frustrate and mute the liberal voice. They consider it a personal victory to ‘eliminate’ voices of reason. They sing the praises of free speech and American freedoms, then support a Congress and president that have put into place an omminous and despicable faux justice in the name of fear.

Your discussion of the 2000 election is extremely important. It “shows the flag” to the Right, it points out facts and figures to newcomers, it refreshes memories and reinforces thinking discussion for people (like myself) who know that justice was not only denied, but was concocted around a sinister partisan agenda. (By the way, I couldn’t access the American Statistical Society PDF you linked to the other day. I went to the site and poked around and couldn’t find that particular article you cited. Do you have any other similar info from a different site?)

I realize that we seem to have a mutual admiration society, you and I. But beyond that, I truly believe you are one of the pillars of the Lib/dem column, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. You are also known by your enemies.

It may not seem like it, on your dark nights of the soul, but you are doing important work here. The way in which you argue your points, provide facts, allow for differences of opinion without getting nasty—these are important character traits that do well in any kind of political weather. And the weather is, and has been turning very cold and nasty.

I don’t research very well—I am not very facile with a computer, and I don’t really have the temperment to research in the back stacks. I’m an idea man (and a third-rate one at that), which limits me in what I can argue here. I marvel at people like gergle, and Tony, Paul Stephen D., ph8x, observer, womanmarine, mark, KansasDem and others that can access facts and tranfer them here at the drop of a hat. All of these people make important contributions—as do you.

I suppose what I’m trying to say, in my usual round-about way is, we are all teachers for each other. This is as true for the regular contributors from the Right as for the Blue column. But some are, more than others. You have a particular curse—you are a born leader.

So when you speak, you aren’t just giving personal views, or even acceptable facts. You are showing by you very essence how to argue rationally, how to conduct a well-thought-out argument, and how to do those things without denying your humanity, or the humanity of the person you are having a discussion with.

All of the people I mentioned, and many more who have slipped my feeble memory, are why I come here—not so much for the political arguments, as for the human discussion; who will shine a light on a human strength that will unite us today? Jack? Joebagodonuts? David R? American Pundit? You?

You, and they, are what keeps me coming back here.

I truly believe that there will be some serious challenges ahead for the United States and the world in the coming years. There always is. We can’t afford to ghetto-ize ideas and different thinking, much less people. In the end, the challenges are going to melt the differences away. We will need each other—and perhaps that’s the way it should be, eh?

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 30, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #185388

Paul in Euroland, you do point out a significant problem with the Geneva Conventions:

The way in which most of the world craps on them unless they can find something in the fine print to accuse Israel of.

We could be here all day talking about the thousands of violations of the Geneva Conventions committed by Israel’s enemies who violate their borders, attempt invasions, murder civilians, take hostages, hide amidst civilians, etc.

And then we have also all those Arab states, and some states of Euroland, who happily supply illegal arms, material support and intelligence to militant organizations.

Also, I’m wondering when all the European countries who took and kept territory from Germany after WWII are going to give it back? France, your move.

Instead of “The Geneva Conventions,” the world should call it what it’s actually being used for. “The Final Solution” sounds about right.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 30, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #185397

Pilsner, do you mean like the US is proposing to crap on the Geneva Conventions?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #185398

Again Pilsner, you make extraordinary allegations. Perehaps you would do us the honour of corroborating them?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #185399

It’s interesting pilsner, how you make so light with the fine print of the law. Or perhaps not, as a cheerleader for the gangsters in washington, it’s not really surprising that you feel that the the fine print of the law, for example in the US constitution, is an inconvenience that should be ignored.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #185421

You know, reflecting on US claims to be the home of liberty and freedom and democracy, my thoughts turn to my own little country, hanging off the edge of Europe. I don’t make any extravagant claims for the quality of the freedoms we enjoy here. However, in my country, our Presidents role is largely cermonial. There are nevertehless, a couple of powers that the President can exercise, in his or her own absolute discretion. One of these powers which has been exercised a number of times, is the right to refer Bills to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality. No delay, no confusion, no leeway. Instead of signing Bills into law, they can be first tested to ensure they do not breach the Constitution. How long will it take for the Bush administrations travesty to be struck down? Think about that when you boast about American democracy.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #185470

Paul, I don’t know what little country hanging off the edge of Europe you’re referring to, but not having a strong chief executive probably has a lot more to do with that country’s history and current role in the world than whatever freedom or democracy its citizens may enjoy.

In the US we have a relatively strong executive (whose powers in most matters are checked by other branches) because, for one reason, conducting international relations is anything but a mere, ceremonial role for the US.

The citizens of a great many countries look more to the United States than even their own governments to solve problems—even their own problems, whether we’re talking about defense, the economy, or the environment. The natural outgrowth of this the US also gets BLAMED for everything, real or imagined, while very rarely getting credit for anything.

This is why many citizens of countries with absolutely terribe human rights records (the Muslim world), or who are in the habit of doing absolutely nothing about them elsewhere (most or Euorope), are completely obsessed with finding fault with the actions of the US.

In the same way that a religious fundamentalist will often use the tenents of his religion to pass judgement on everybody but himself, a great percentage of the world selectively uses the concepts of “international law” or “human rights” as a cudgel and propaganda tool against Israel or the United States. To the point where even the word of accused terrorists or their lawyers is automatically believed and the word of Americans is automatically dismissed.

Meanwhile abuses on a much more massive scale commited by others are routinely minimized, covered up, or ignored altogether.

Europeans pride themselves on being far more diplomatic, peaceful, and careful. But too often, as the great English poet William Blake said, “Prudence is a rich, ugly, old maid courted by incapacity.”

Posted by: Pilsner at September 30, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #185489

Pilsner, you make great sweeping allegations, none of which you document with even a few for instances. Anyone can do that, it’s not very convincing.

As for finding fault with the US and Israel, well, pardon me, but both of those countries parade themselves as democracies, and in the case of the US, it promotes itself as the “shining city on a hill”, to borrow a phrase from Ronnie Regan. What is expected from such shining paragons is considerably more that one expects from rag tag regimes around the world. Your criticisms of Europe are offered without, as usual for you, any proofs whatever. As for your poetic allusions, how about Alfred Lord Tennyson:-

II

`Forward, the Light Brigade!’
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Some one had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

III

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Bit like the bible really, you can find what you want in poetry. Don’t you agree tho’, the above is reminiscent of US forces in Iraq?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #185491

PS Pilsner, you say that “a great percentage of the world selectively uses the concepts of “international law” or “human rights” as a cudgel and propaganda tool against Israel or the United States” But how could that possibly happen, if both of those contries were in compliance with international law, which you strangely describe as a concept, or human rights, which the US throughout my lifetime has criticised many countries around the world for their lack of respect for same, rightly as it happens. But it can hardly criticise others when it is not prepared to live up to its own obligations. Pilsner, I’m not going to debate with you anymore. You are clearly too attached to your predjudices to consider that you may be wrong. You make spurious allegations for which you offer no evidence. I believe there is no communicating with such a mindset, so what’s the point?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 30, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #185494

Paul, I would agree that in some ways that poem is reminiscent of the US Forces in Iraq. Especially the end, which you so cleverly cut out—the part which has to do with honor, glory, and nobility of sacrifice. Concepts which still have great meaning to our armed forces.

6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

I looked at my earlier post, and I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that I’m making “sweeping allegation, none of which I document with even a few instances.”

You actually didn’t know that Israel siezed those territories after multiple Arab invasions? You’re unaware that Israel’s enemies kidnap and murder civilians—that they launch attacks from among civilians in their own territories? That all of this is prohibted by the Geneva Conventions? You want me to document this???? You’ve never heard any of this before???

Honestly, the BBC, Le Monde, The Guardian, whoever it is you get your information from, need to do a much better job of educating you all over there in “Euroland.”

Posted by: Pilsner at September 30, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #185503
Uh… I guess you’re really missing the irony here aren’t you? You see, the Supreme Court would never have been involved at all if the Bush campaign hadn’t gotten them involved.

Yes, Bush’s lawyers asked for an emergency stay of an unconstitutional act. The Supreme Court granted that stay.

You’ll never admit this but the made up on the spot recount process was blatantly unconstitutional.

Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

So while 7 of the justices agreed that the current recount violated the constitution, only 5 felt that there was not enough time to put together the apparatus to make the recount legal.

As a result, since the asked for recount could not be constitutionally completed in the required timeline the recounting stopped.

This emergency was that the Florida Supreme Court had decided to allow votes cast for Gore to be counted — votes that had NEVER been touched or counted at all, simply because there had been a problem reading them on machines or optical scanners. It was to be a manual recount of 42,858 undervotes from 58 Florida counties. This is when the Supreme Court stepped in and voted 5-4 to stop the recount, allowing Bush to “win” the state by only 537 votes.

No, the emergency was that the constitution was being violated by the method of recounting the votes and the different way the standards were being applied to them.

As for Bush ‘winning’, he won on the initial count and the automatic recount, but let’s continue with your thought.

Gore was robbed of his presidency, and if people truly care to be honest, they will admit this.

Except we KNOW by going back and doing that specific recounting, that Gore STILL WOULD HAVE LOST. Since you accuse me of not providing links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/11.asp

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493

And really, what’s it going to change at this point to do so? Nothing whatsoever.

So why do you continue to bring it up and make accusations that are false in your comments? That was the reason this all started, YOU stated that ‘bush stole the election’ but as I have shown he did not, he just prevent Gore from trying to steal it.

But people still won’t look at what happened and admit that what the Supreme Court did was wrong.

They were not wrong that the recounts taking place were unconstitutional. We can debate if they were wrong to not allow for more time for the problems in the recount process to be fixed before another one could begin, but I agree with the Supreme Court on this one, there was simply not the time necessary to go through this process as the country had already lost nearly a month of critical ‘turnover’ time between the two administrations.

And the fact that Gore would have still lost helps us realize that it was a good thing and makes us wonder if a longer handover period had taken place what effect it would have had on the first year of Bush’s presidency.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #185506

Paul


Here some information for you.

DISPUTED TERRITORIES:
Forgotten Facts About the West Bank
and Gaza Strip
February 2003


Introduction

In 1967, Israel fought a desperate war of self-defense and despite dire odds, won. As a result, the Jewish State not only survived, it also came into possession of additional lands, including territory that is of vital importance to its security.

The Six Day War and its consequences still affect the Middle East today. A clear understanding of how and why the territories came into Israels possession in 1967 and an awareness of Israel’s connection to these areas are essential components of any fair and balanced discussion of their current status. This information has taken on particular importance in light of the current situation and Palestinian attempts to reduce a complex conflict to a single issue - Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians and their supporters are attempting to promote their cause by channeling every event through the prism of the disputed territories. In doing so, they have succeeded in diverting the discussion away from the relevant facts, rewriting or ignoring history and reinventing international law to suit their aims. These facts must not be forgotten.

Facts

By focusing exclusively on “the occupation,” Palestinian spokespersons are obscuring some of the basic facts of the conflict. They never mention why Israel’s presence in the disputed territories began or the reasons for the continuation of the conflict, and ignore the historical and legal context of Israel’s presence there. Following are four key issues that the Palestinians deliberately and consistently try to conceal:

Disputed, not “Occupied”, Territory

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.

Legality of Israel’s Presence in the Territories

Despite persistent claims by the Palestinians and their supporters, occupation is not, in and of itself, illegal. It does not violate international law. Rather, international law attempts to regulate situations of occupation through the application of pertinent international conventions and agreements. Therefore, political motivations lie behind the claim that Israel’s presence in the territories is illegal. Israel’s presence in the territories is not illegal.

Israel’s presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the aggressive actions of Israel’s neighbors that forced Israel into a war of self-defense.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted following the Six Day War, places obligations on both sides (as does Resolution 338, adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War). 242 does not call for unilateral withdrawal from the territories. Despite this, the Palestinians focus exclusively on the call for an Israeli withdrawal, ignoring those clauses that place responsibilities on the other parties to the conflict.

Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories gained as a result of the 1967 war, as the Arab regimes claim. Instead, the resolution deliberately restricts itself to calling for Israel’s withdrawal “from territories” while recognizing the right to live within secure and recognized boundaries.

242: A Misrepresented Resolution

Since 1967, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has played a central role in the peace process. It may well be one of the most important UN resolutions regarding the conflict - however, it is also one of the most misrepresented.

The Palestinians often depict the resolution as a simple document whose principal goal is a unilateral and complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories as a precondition for ending the conflict. In reality, the resolution is a balanced and measured instrument whose goal is “the fulfillment of Charter principles” by the “establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

“Territories” vs. “The Territories”

As a rule, the Palestinians and their supporters misstate the resolution by claiming that 242 calls for Israel’s withdrawal from “all” the territories, although this is neither the language used in the resolution nor the intent of its framers.

Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw “from territories” occupied in the recent conflict”, not “from all the territories” or even “from the territories”. The use of the phrase “from territories” was deliberately chosen by the members of the Security Council after extensive study and months of consultations, this despite considerable pressure from the Arab States to include the word “all”. As then US Ambassador Arthur Goldberg would explain in 1973, these notable omissions “were not accidental…. the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal.”

Secure Borders According to 242

It should be noted that Resolution 242 recognizes the need, indeed the right, for “secure and recognized boundaries.” By declining to call upon Israel to withdraw to the pre-war lines, the Security Council recognized that the previous borders were indefensible, and that, at the very least, Israel would be justified in retaining those parts of the territories necessary to establish secure borders. As then UK Ambassador Lord Caradon would later state, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”

Posted by: Keith at October 1, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #185507

Sheesh,

I opened a nasty wound. Well, I guess that’s not true.

How many damn people must die because a guy named Abraham had two estranged sons! One he named Isaac, and the other he named Ishmael and centuries freakin’ later people are still killing each other in the name of God or Allah.

Maybe if they’d heard the Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village” speech these kids wouldn’t have eaten enough bad mushrooms, moldy bread, and undercooked meat to induce these hallucinations that are so well documented the mindless masses continue to consider their version of events as gospel.

The greatest evil ever known to man was, and still is, religion. Mankind will end only out of ignorance and evil. Blind religious belief breeds both. We’re creating our own damnation.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 1, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #185508

American Idiot,

It takes some real chutzpah to say “Any veteran of any US armed force that supports a sitting president who allowed the shameless slandering of Kerry’s service should be ashamed.” I would argue that as the defenders of the very freeedom you talk about, we have more right to say this than anyone. Furthermore, I can’t tell you how many false war stories I’ve heard in my time in the Army. If someone I served with tries to use stories about their service I know to be false, it is not only my right but my duty to refute him.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. Kerry attempted to use his service to contrast with Bush’s. Not surpising to me, this happened about the same time that Rather circulated those forged documents about Bush. By making his service a primary pillar of his campaign, he opened his service to scrutiny. Hell, he said his Christmas in Cambodia was a turning point of his life and now there’s significant doubt as to whether he was ever there. Again and again, Kerry opened himself up to scrutiny and he should have been aware of the implications.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 1, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #185509

One more thing. For those of you who want to claim that “swiftboating” is some new and radical downturn in American politics, remember the word it replaced…”Borking”

Posted by: 1LT B at October 1, 2006 3:47 AM
Comment #185510

Kansasdem

Do you truly believe the stuff you spew out here.

“The greatest evil ever known to man was, and still is, religion. Mankind will end only out of ignorance and evil. Blind religious belief breeds both. We’re creating our own damnation.”

Tell that to the millions killed by Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot.

Posted by: Keith at October 1, 2006 3:50 AM
Comment #185514

“Do you truly believe the stuff you spew out here.”

Absolutely!

Hitler and Stalin are a peice of cake so lets look at Pol Pot.

Pol Pot was originally a follower of the Theravada Buddhist faith. If you can call it a faith. If you really look into it the political aspect is not that far away from what the modern day Libertarian Party has become.

Read and become wise young man. Far too many of us have been brainwashed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada

And, even if I am just a complete wacko, is that still legal in your USA? May I please still go to “your” VA hospitals for treatment of PTSD?

If you think I should go to Gitmo would you please personally show up to escort me?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 1, 2006 4:58 AM
Comment #185515

Keith,

And everyone really, read this:

Marshall Thompson: How do the Troops Feel About the War?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-thompson/how-do-the-troops-feel-ab_b_30571.html

Then tell me if this Marshall Thompson is just another John Kerry.

And remind me one more time why we’re in Iraq.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 1, 2006 5:09 AM
Comment #185520

Paul in Euroland,

Sorry for getting side-tracked. My biggest problem with Israel in this recent conflict was due to their choice of weapons.

I actually bought the story that they were bombing civilian areas because Hezbollah had key infrastructure there. But they used bombs that had the maximum potential for collateral damage. Basically bombs that spit bombs.

IMO, the good guy can’t win a war by being as bad and nasty as the bad guy. You might win a battle that way but not the war.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 1, 2006 6:29 AM
Comment #185545

Kansasdem

Nice non sequitur, what does that have to do with my post?

Posted by: Keith at October 1, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #185547

KansasDem,

The question shouldn’t be why are we in Iraq, it should be why are we STILL in Iraq.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #185549

Lets Just focus on one John kerry Viet Nam lie. Christmas in Cambodia. The guys on John Kerrys boat said they NEVER went to cambodia…NEVER. Not one. Kerry never fought in Cambodia. In the end, his own campaign staff admitted that “Mr Kerry may not have been in Cambodia”. It was a tough day for Kerry.

Or take that first pruple heart where Kerry went to his commander and declared that the scratch on his arm was inflicted by the enemy. John Kerrys own diary indicated that it wasn’t until several days LATER that they came under enemy fire for the very first time. Kerry lied. And once again, during the campaign, his own staff came out and indicated that Mr. Kerrys first purple heart “may not have been inflicted by the enemy”.

Kerry lied, he lied to congress while good men were dying.

Kerry had many more lies he told congress. Why did the democratic party run a man whom they knew had lied, whom they know had offended deeply so many Viet Nam vets? It’s hard to tell. When you run someone like a Kerry or a Hillary who have lied to the public, they know they have to start by defending them night and day from their own lies.

Hillary lied to America about Travel Gate. No one denies that. She had those people fired so she could put in her own supporters…then she smeared their characters and lied to the American public claiming she had nothing to do with it.

Well, I guess if she every went to Jail should could always buy a pardon from her family?

And then there was that embarrassing little incident where she stole the WhiteHouse furniture!

The Monica lies. She had Monica evicted from the Whitehouse, put off the list, because of the affair with Bill. Then, when the affair went public….we now know Hillary’s “stand by her man” scene was a complete bold faced lie calculated to earn her the nations sympathy! If politicans need to be liars….Hillary is a good politician.

The Swift boat vets gave John Kerry what he had coming after years of lying. Hey Kerry, what are those medals on your wall? The one you claimed to have tossed away? Get it? Kerry told so many lies in those days, he was hated by his fellow vets. Did you notice his swift boat buddies were quickly put aside so they wouldn’t have to answer any questions like…..tell us about Cambodia?

Posted by: Stephen at October 1, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #185569

Sandra, and Tim Crow,
Thank you! I appreciated your comments a great deal. Tim, I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote about the folks here in WB, and feel very honored by your compliments. :^x

Rhinehold, I see we’re now revisting our arguments:
“So while 7 of the justices agreed that the current recount violated the constitution, only 5 felt that there was not enough time to put together the apparatus to make the recount legal.

As a result, since the asked for recount could not be constitutionally completed in the required timeline the recounting stopped.”

As I said before, this was an arbitrary decision. Because time had been lost due to all the judicial hoops that had been jumped through, they could just as easily have decided on one standard to be used to recount the votes, and set a new deadline. That would have been far better for Democracy, than for them to do all that unconstitutional usurping I mentioned earlier — and as a bonus, they needn’t have brought a decision that will stick out like a sore thumb for all time as a total miscarriage of American justice.
But the Republican majority of justices on the court didn’t care if they had to turn their backs on every single one of their supposed positions on judicial ideology, or on the voters of Florida, or on all sense of fair play — they simply decided it was more important to give the GOP what it wanted, so they handed the presidency to Bush. And wrongly so, since all the evidence suggests he didn’t actually get the majority of votes.
George Bush “won” Florida by 537 votes, even though not all the votes were counted, and even though 94,000 Floridians were illegally kept from voting due to the criminal actions of KKKatherine Harris, and even though the exit polls said he lost, and despite the fact that he was the first president in a hundred years who didn’t win the popular vote.
If he’d been a man — and a decent and fair minded American he wouldn’t have wanted to take office under all those conditions. But of course he is neither of those things, instead he’s the worst president the country has ever had, and one who went on to “win” (steal) another election under totally incredible and highly suspicious (but not really, now that we know all about the reliability of electronic voting machines and optical scanners) circumstances.

“Except we KNOW by going back and doing that specific recounting, that Gore STILL WOULD HAVE LOST. Since you accuse me of not providing links:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/11.asp”

So you provide links to an inconclusive 2001 study (indeed, the same one I had thought you’d been referring to before — and which you denied you were), rather than looking again at the link I provided — namely the pdf of the 2003 study that the American Statistical Association did — which was far more comprehensive than the NORC study, (even though they used some of NORC’s data) and came to the conclusion that Gore would have won if a full recount had been conducted.

Anyway, his argument is over. Our revisting our same points is the proof. Obviously you’re going to continue to think that everything happened just as it should have, and I (along with teeming hoards of Democrats) are always going to view what took place as utterly wrong and a complete travesty of justice.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #185571

Adrienne, keeping a Liberal out of office this way was poetic justice, lol how many times you gonna vote this year 10-20-30 lol?

Posted by: G.A. Phillips at October 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #185575

GA Phillips,
Yes, we all realize that you righties view the ends as justifying the entirely immoral means. You’ve really been working overtime in taking on the reputation of being the party of complete immorality for the last six years.
Why, just look what you’ve got in the news leading up to the midterm election: Torture Bill passes — waterboarding and other horrors are now the American way of gathering intelligence. Rep. Mark Foley the Pedophile and closeted, self-hating homosexual who stands to go to jail under the child protection laws he championed only to cover for his own perversion. Hastert and others knowing about Foley’s perversion for a year, yet doing nothing about it, allowing him to endanger other teenaged pages in DC. The revelations that Abramoff had been visiting the White House and having meetings with people like Rove and Mehlman, despite the fact that when the scandal first broke, Bush said “I don’t know him” yet that was a lie, because clearly all of the Neocons knew him very well.
Yes, quite the sterling reputation and good old fashioned “family values” the GOP is now known for. You must be so damn proud of it all.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #185580

Adrienne,

Who appointed you the morality police? You throw around accusations like about people on the right like a new Elmer Gantry.

I’ll match my morality and compassion against anybody on the left.

You read one article in the MSM and believe it to be gospel. There is no evidence that Hastert had any idea the level of depravity that Foley was engaged in. It appears that he was informed that Foley had sent “overly-friendly” emails to an underage page, but that the boys parents did not want to persue it any further.

Not one Republican anywhere is the country has come out in support of Foley. Most of them feel the way I do that his activity was despicable and we are better off without him (even if it means losing the seat.)

I would like to know where you were when the following occured:

“Our younger readers may not be aware that House pages have figured in several scandals over the years. Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) had an affair with a teenage male page that, I believe, included sex within the precincts of the Capitol Building. Studds refused to admit that he had done anything wrong, and turned his back on the House when it censured him for this misconduct in 1983. The voters in Studds’s district didn’t seem to mind; they continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1996. He is remembered mainly as a pioneering crusader for gay rights.

Then there is Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House for using his Congressional office to intervene on behalf of his boyfriend, a homosexual prostitute, to dispose of at least 33 parking tickets. The boyfriend also ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s house. Today, Frank is one of the most powerful members of the Democrats’ House caucus”
(Courtesy of Powerlineblog)


Posted by: Keith at October 1, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #185583

Adrienne,

Do you happen to have a cheese to go with that wine? Jesus, that election was 5 years ago, your horse lost, get over it. Here’s another interesting tidbit. GORE LOST HIS HOME STATE!! He also lost Bill Clinton’s home state. Had he carried either, Florida wouldn’t have mattered, he would’ve won. If the people of his own state, who presumably knew him longer and better than the rest of America, didn’t trust him to be President, what does that say about the man? Christ, even McGovern won his own state! Gore was a colossal failure who couldn’t win on the coattails of a two-term president who left office with one of the highest approval ratings in modern history. Pathetic.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 1, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #185598

Keith, where do you get all this crap? An AIPAC disinformation resource? For all of those who want to know the real facts, here’s a link:-

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=10

Of course I know that Keith will just say that this is the work of a self hating Jew. There are none so blin as those who will not see.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 1, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #185600

califrep,

The difference between the parties is that it’s the REPUBLICANS who are hypocritically claiming to represent “family values” while trying to cover up a scandal.

And if the best you can do to defend the Republicans is point to something that happened 23 YEARS AGO to support your claim that “everybody does it”, then it’s no wonder the Republicans will - deservedly - lose the House and possibly the Senate.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 1, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #185609

califrep:
“as far as i know, that story just ran yesterday,if it was out before that, thats would be news to me.”
“i remember the story being they suspected he was a closet homosexual.”

No. We now know that the GOP has known since 2001 that Foley was pedophile that couldn’t be trusted around all the teenaged male pages.

“does being a homosexual automaticlally make you a pedophile?”

Of course not. I’m not that stupid. But of course this is an argument I’ve seen brought forward from righties in this blog many times before.

“once again nothing more than a partisan cheap shot.”

Your party lies and tries to bury everything, your party waves the Christian Cross, demonizes homosexuals and wants to deny them their civil rights, yet there are tons of self-hating homosexual Republicans, as well as sick creeps like Foley in your party who’ve gone along with all that crap. And then people like you tell us it’s a cheap shot — when once again it’s only the plain truth.

“whats your point?”

That your party is nothing more than a sham. That your party is full of powerful people who are no better than anyone, in fact some of them like Delay, and Cunningham, and Ney, and Libby, and Rove, and Abramoff, and Jeff Gannon, and Foley and whole assload of others, including the president and the vice president, are much, much worse. Despite all of their holier than thou rhetoric.

“you seem to believe the dem. party is as pure as the driven snow. it says volumes you never seem to find fault or corruption in your own party. and there’s plenty.”

Wrong. I face up to any and all problems with my party, in order not to become a hypocrite, or an apologist, or a sheep. I have no interest in closing my eyes to anything when it’s become obvious that the country is going down the f*cking toilet.

“why don’t you dispense with the partisan rhetoric, and name calling, and just make your points in a civil manner. you might find people will take you more seriously.”

Since I’m partisan against the Republicans, no I won’t dispense with saying whatever I feel is honest, and seems to need saying. As for being taken seriously, you don’t have to read or respond to anything I write.

“i could call you a left wing commie pinko, but that would be weak.”

Go ahead. Liberals have been lied about and called everything possible by you people, and most of us no longer give a flying sh*t.

“neo-cons and all your other catchy phrases only make look like an over the top leftist nutbag. save the angry rhetoric.”

The fact that you don’t realize that neocon stands for neo-conservative and that this is an actual designation and distinction that needs to be made, may indicate that you are either ignorant or stupid, or possibly only playing a game, and if my impatience with any of those possibilities shows, well, tough luck.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #185612

Keith:
“(Courtesy of Powerlineblog)”

Oh, well! A real reliable source there — NOT. You should take a look at all the articles being written about this story. It isn’t only one — it’s many. And it’s clear that Hastert and Bohner KNEW about Foley. Indeed, it looks like all the Republicans in Washington knew.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #185614

1LT B:
“Do you happen to have a cheese to go with that wine?”

You mean whine. And yes, a few slices of Irish cheddar and a nice glass of California pinot noir does sound yummy.

“Jesus, that election was 5 years ago,”

Yeah, but it’s never been forgotten, what with how rotten it all was. But Rhinehold wanted to argue about it — so I finally indulged him.

“your horse lost, get over it.”

It wasn’t a loss. It was stolen. 94,000 Florida voters who were mostly Democrats were illegally purged from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris.

“If the people of his own state, who presumably knew him longer and better than the rest of America, didn’t trust him to be President, what does that say about the man?”

It says he was a Democrat who hailed from a red state.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #185622
It wasn’t a loss. It was stolen. 94,000 Florida voters who were mostly Democrats were illegally purged from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris.

If we are going to bring this up we should also mention a good portion of the state being told that Gore had won while the polls were still open, the attempt by the democrats to invalidate thousands of servicemen’s votes who were stationed overseas, blocking access to polling places in heavily republican counties, etc.

The law was followed, the Supreme Court did it’s job in ensuring that the rights of those who DID vote didn’t get violated.

As for the PDF you linked to, I pointed to it earlier in our conversation. You aren’t paying attention to what I’m saying, just assuming what I’m saying and debating that.

As for Bush ‘being a man’ I assume you are going to say the same thing about JFK when similar issues resulted in Nixon, who was more of a gentleman than Gore, not going the lawyer route or asking for a 3rd counting of the votes…

You can’t have it one way without it being the other, you are cherrypicking the facts and refusing to accept that the proper result occured. The Supreme Court had no precident to act upon, there are dates in the constitution with regard to the electoral college that can’t be pushed back and Harris was within her rights to certify the results. Attepting to block her from doing so was unconstitutional based on the standards they were implementing and asking for.

But the worst part of the whole thing is that because of the 2000 election results so many on the left never gave Bush a chance, refused to acknowledge him as legitimate and refuse to openmindedly evaluate anything that is said or done by him. I don’t like him as a president and didn’t vote for him but I can at least see the election in a non-partisan light. It’s just like you said ‘teeming hoards of Democrats are always going to view what took place as utterly wrong and a complete travesty of justice.’

You can think that all you like, but don’t get upset if after 5 years anyone who starts a critique of the president as ‘the guy who stole the elction’, etc, is going to get hammered by right thinking individuals.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #185623

Oh, and referring to your pdf, you do realize that using statistics to determine the final results of an actual recounting really proves nothing, right? And as I pointed out before and you KEEP missing, even in your link if Gore had gotten what he had asked for or if the state supreme court, who had gotten it wrong twice, had been allowed to come up with a standard and someone to oversee the recounting that sill passed muster (I am suspicious if this would have been possible) Gore STILL WOULD HAVE LOST.

Only if a specific set of standards had been chosen and the moon aligned perfectly with mars would Gore have won, and you can bet that if that had happened there would have been more court challenges to the results. You don’t think it would have ended there, do you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #185627

Rhinehold,
Do you know what decision I think the Supreme Court should have handed down? They should have had Florida’s election results thrown out entirely, and a whole new election held.
Rather than go through any more recounting, and rather than deny 94,000 legal voters of their legal right to vote, and rather than write an unconstitutional decision that could hold no further precedent, and rather than usurp the Florida Supreme Court’s role in interpreting their state’s law, or the counting of ballots in a national presidential election, or Congress’ ability to accept or reject Florida’s electoral college votes, they might well have done this instead.

If they’d done that, perhaps we wouldn’t still be arguing over this after all these years.
And make no mistake, we will always argue over this — because having a presidential election rigged by the Secretary of State, and having the recount stopped in it’s tracks, and having the president appointed by the Supreme Court simply isn’t ever going to sit right with the voters whose votes were never counted in their state, or whose vote was denied entirely, or with any of the people who voted for the party who “lost”.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #185643
They should have had Florida’s election results thrown out entirely, and a whole new election held.

Adrienne, do you understand the issues related to the 14th amendment? Allowing a state to decide the presidential election after it was known that it would come down to that state, the issues with people who voted write-in, others who could not vote during the second election, the amount of money it would have cost, etc?

In every election the US has ever had there have been ‘disenfranchised voters’. We have never, EVER gotten it 100% right. The best we can do is come up with what constitutes a vote and what doesn’t and put time limits on the counting and recounting and legal maneuverings in order to accept there was a winner and move on.

The Supreme Court ended a blatantly unconstitutional action. They also determined that there was no way at that point in time to fix all of the problems associated with the manual recount requested by Gore in order to complete the recount before the election needed to be certified so the electoral electors could be picked and the college meet and cast their votes.

The Supreme Court did not ‘pick’ the president, the voters did. Bush won the initial count and the first recount. What you are upset about is that the legal maneuverings and tactics used by Gore to find the votes he needed to win while preventing Bush from picking up any more votes from overseas ballots and heavily republican states (which is why he did not ask for a statewide manual recount) from succeeding and giving you the outcome you wanted.

Basically, no matter what happened, just as with the 2004 election which many democrats say was stolen as well, if the outcome isn’t what you wanted you wouldn’t have been happy and would try to cherrypick the issues in order to make it seem right in your head that the outcome you wanted really happened but ‘someone’ took it away.

The same mentality comes in with sports, if your favorite team loses on a call near the end of the game you cry and scream that the game was stolen. Well, you do if you aren’t mature enough to understand the entirety of the situation and all of the events that go into it.

You’re never going to let it go or understand that there is another way to view it and that that view may be right. You’re never going to accept that Bush won the 2000 election because you don’t think it’s possible that he could have won, someone must have done something to prevent Gore from winning or annoint Bush to the presidency.

I just don’t know what else to say to help you through it other than Move On….

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 2, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #185647

Rhinehold:
“the issues with people who voted write-in, others who could not vote during the second election, the amount of money it would have cost, etc?”

They wouldn’t have needed to have write-in candidates re-vote at all, for obvious reasons. Those who didn’t bother to show up to vote for a second election would have no room to complain —unlike those who never got to vote at all because they’d been illegally scrubbed from the voter rolls. And as for the amount needed to conduct a second vote, it could have come from Federal funds — and it would have been money well spent.

“In every election the US has ever had there have been ‘disenfranchised voters’.”

But never 94,000 illegally purged from the rolls as far as I know.

“The Supreme Court did not ‘pick’ the president,”

Yes they did.

“the 2004 election which many democrats say was stolen as well,”

Yes, I am one such Democrat. Looking at all of the evidence makes it more than clear that it was.

“The same mentality comes in with sports, if your favorite team loses on a call near the end of the game you cry and scream that the game was stolen.”

This is no mere sports game. This is our democracy, or rather, the lack of democracy.
And who is crying and screaming? I am definitely stating it forcefully, but only because I have taken time to read and study the problem in order to come to these conclusions.
If you took the time to really look at this issue, you would see that I am not alone. There are computer experts and polling experts and many other people who have been saying what I am saying, and calling for election reform.

“You’re never going to let it go”

Nope. I see no reason to — especially since nothing that has been done to remedy the many problems that exist with our elections. We need people to focus on the problem and give us clear accountability, and nothing else will do.

“Move On…”

I have moved on. But I haven’t forgotten or forgiven what has happened. I can deal with the fact that Gore and Kerry were robbed of having a fair election, but I can’t hold that attitude when it comes to our need for true election reform now. Until this is dealt with and Americans can begin to trust our elections again, I feel that democracy should be considered dead.
Now, maybe you don’t care about this because you’ve been happy with the outcome of the elections, but I and many others want very much to see more transparency and accountability so that we may know with absolute certainty that the will of the people is the only factor that will decide who our leaders will be.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 2, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #185648

Adrienne, you seem to think there are just two sides to the issue, either you hate Bush and it was a travesty or you love Bush and nothing at all was wrong with the election.

You also seem to keep missing the point that I didn’t vote for Bush and am not his biggest fan. I didn’t want either of them to win and didn’t vote for either of them. So you see, I’m not emotionally vested in the outcome. I look at the issue from a non-partisan view.

I also understand BOTH parties have done things like you suggest. We could go into Wisconsin and New Mexico and the actions that Democrats took during those elections if you like, since you seem to be stuck in one gear on this issue.

Of course I would like to see voting reform. I think that we need a better way to maintain the lists of who can vote and who can’t. Including making sure illegal immigrants are not voting, dead people aren’t voting (ignoring 1960 aren’t you?) blocking polls and calling states who are still voting.

But, we have to have a process that has a finite ending or we will be here after every election nitpicking to the nth degree what constitutes a vote, and trying to determine what the person voting was doing or if the punch cards had been sent through the machines so many times that extra chads fell off, or if an indentation counts or not, or…

You want to focus on the minutia and say that the election was invalid because of it. I want to focus on the minutia and say ‘hey guys, next time let’s do better’.

And no, you haven’t ‘moved on’ because if you had you wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, would you? No, you’re still bitter, still angry and you obviously refuse to listen to reason about the issue.

Again, if the The Supreme Court had given the extra time to fix the GLARING unconstitutional issues involved, Gore still would have lost. Unless he then asked for another recount, and then another, with different definitions of what was a vote and what wasn’t, until he got the answer he wanted…

As for the overseas or write-in ballots, it’s not that obvious because the DEMS wanted to invalidate thousands of them because they did not have a postmark, even though they were received before the election the lack of a postmark made them technically ‘invalid’ and therefore…

Unfortunately, to the two major parties, it all HAS become a big game. And until major reform is enacted and (IMO) a requirement of 3 people on each ballot is met, we are going to become more and more divided and less and less reasonable.

But hey, what do I know, I still think Bush won the 2000 election.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 2, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #185649

Adrienne

“Oh, well! A real reliable source there — NOT”

Do you dispute the facts?

Posted by: Keith at October 2, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #185650

Adrienne,

Wasn’t sure how to phrase the whine/wine thing, it being a pun and all, at least you got it. As far as Gore being a Democrat from a Red state, let’s look at that. While he was a Senator, Gore was in the top 5 of Senators to both the National Right to Life Federation and the NRA. As VP, he switched out completely. If you can find two more polarizing domestic issues prior to 9/11 than abortion and gun control, I invite you to share them with this forum. The fact is that Gore either never had any values aside from the polls, or he sold them out in the hopes of being President. Either way, he reflects how completely poll-driven, spineless, and insincere Democratic candidates are. From Gore the flip-flopper who looked like 3 different men in each of his debates to Kerry who voted for it before he voted against it, the Democrats lack of any consistent message, coupled with a speaking style that most closely resembles a cross breeding experiment between a robot and a tree has left Democratic candidates for President looking like they have no firm beliefs except whatever is the flavor, trend, or fad of the week.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 2, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #185656

Rhinehold,

Of course I would like to see voting reform. I think that we need a better way to maintain the lists of who can vote and who can’t. Including making sure illegal immigrants are not voting, dead people aren’t voting (ignoring 1960 aren’t you?) blocking polls and calling states who are still voting.

Lets not leave out all those snowbirds that voted in 2 states in that list of reform issues. BTW that other state was a blue state. So we can all do the math here.

Great Job Rhinehold. Absolutely brilliant, methodical and completely accurate assessment of the 2000 election.

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 4:31 AM
Comment #185686

Rhinehold:
“Adrienne, you seem to think there are just two sides to the issue, either you hate Bush and it was a travesty or you love Bush and nothing at all was wrong with the election.”

You’ve overlooked every point I’ve made in this thread, to keep insisting that the 2000 election was just and fair. I disagree — strongly. And you think it’s about hating Bush, but that isn’t it, though I think he’s the worst president ever. But I realize this is a convienient thing for you to say, and it is what people on the left are told all the time, so it comes as no big surprise.

“You also seem to keep missing the point that I didn’t vote for Bush and am not his biggest fan. I didn’t want either of them to win and didn’t vote for either of them. So you see, I’m not emotionally vested in the outcome. I look at the issue from a non-partisan view.”

This is the biggest load of manure you’ve said yet. Everyone in this column knows that your modus operandi is to attack all liberals constantly. Doesn’t matter what we say, it’s always wrong, or lacking in facts according to you. You’re not fooling anyone, Rhinehold.

MAW:
“Great Job Rhinehold. Absolutely brilliant, methodical and completely accurate assessment of the 2000 election.”

Oh look, Rhinehold, you’ve got a rightwing cheerleader. I’m sure that makes your “unemotional” and “non-partisan” self very happy.

Keith:
“Do you dispute the facts?”

Powerline blog takes everything, including facts and twists them out of all recognition. They also make up lies out of whole cloth.

1LT B, re: those opinions you gave.
I don’t share them.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 2, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #185700

Adrienne,

Oh look, Rhinehold, you’ve got a rightwing cheerleader. I’m sure that makes your “unemotional” and “non-partisan” self very happy.

Name calling is extremely ineffective.

Posted by: MAW at October 2, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #185720
keep insisting that the 2000 election was just and fair

I don’t think I ever said it was ‘just and fair’. I said it was legal. I have also said that NO election has been 100% ‘just and fair’. You want to single this one and the 2004 elections out because they didn’t go your way and refuse to acknowledge the democratic violations and focus only on the republicans.

This is the biggest load of manure you’ve said yet. Everyone in this column knows that your modus operandi is to attack all liberals constantly. Doesn’t matter what we say, it’s always wrong, or lacking in facts according to you. You’re not fooling anyone, Rhinehold.

I am not a cheerleader so seldom will you see me saying ‘I agree’, etc. When I post it is usually because I am critical of something someone said. I have been critical of both democrats and republicans. Being a liberal myself I am more focused on their mistakes and innacuracies because I am as upset about the progressives taking over the democratic party as many are upset about the neocons taking over the republican party.

I would like to see the democratic party return to being concerned with personal liberty over progressive created rights.

In fact, let’s look at a quote I made the other day

Can’t wait to hear how Rhiney and Pilsner are going to defend rep (former rep) foley.
Defend him? Why on earth would I do that? He’s scum and I’m glad he’s gone. I also agree very much with Paul’s article, the current Republican congress was pathetic.

You like to label and accuse based on those labels, but you are wrong here. Again, blinded by partisanship is the only motive I can imagine, how dare I speak out against democrats when the republicans are so bad!?!? Of course, you could look at it as my acknowledgement that of the two major parites the dems are the only ones worth saving, but you’d rather just accuse me of being a republican hack so you can safely ignore the valid criticizisms of the party that you are defending.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 2, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #185729

“I would like to see the democratic party return to being concerned with personal liberty over progressive created rights”

Wouldn’t we all.

Posted by: kctim at October 2, 2006 3:26 PM
Post a comment