Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“It is when the name calling starts, lying and/or exaggerating about the plans, and simply saying it is a bad idea and can’t be done with no alternative solution, that is when I start to get annoyed.”

I think the majority of America feels this way also Dawn, as evident by kerry losing and the way he ran his campaign.

Your right about TK also. He’s the poster boy for term-limits.

you two are funny.

Ted Kennedy is THE poster boy for term limits? John Kerry ran on hatespeak? You know, we can have this conversasion, but only if you guys agree to operate within the confines of reality. We can either make this thread a list of the nasty things that people, important people, on both sides have said, or we can have an actual conversation.

Justin. Hear, hear. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

“I think the majority of America feels this way also Dawn, as evident by kerry losing and the way he ran his campaign.”

Are you serious? Bush set a new milestone for running a negative campaign. Incumbents generally run on their record, but instead Bush ran this campaign as he ran his first one - by doing everything in his (or Rove’s) power to hurt the reputation of his opponent. Are you actually implying that George ‘flip-flop’ Bush ran a less negative campaign than Kerry? Kerry’s campaign was no lovefest, but Bush is definitely not a saint (although he seems to have convinced many otherwise through his relentless propaganda).

What’s ‘funny’ is that both sides claim the other side ran their Presidential Campaign on Hatespeak.
BOTH sides admit they were involved in the bashing, but of course, BOTH sides say the other was worse.

BOTH sides can agree their was much hate involved in the campaigns. It just depends on one’s perspective who was worse.

BOTH sides admit they were involved in the bashing, but of course, BOTH sides say the other was worse.

Two kids were arguing over the last piece of cake. Al wants all of it. Bob thinks they should split it 50-50. A grownup comes by and says, “Ok, let’s compromise. To be fair, we’ll split it 75-25.”

BOTH sides could say the same thing, but it could still be that only ONE side is right. The Democrats hardly talked about Bush at their convention - by design. The Red Convention was a festival of Kerry-bashing. For example.

Bush ran on a platform of “Kerry’s a flip-flopper” and started negative ads in the spring. This platform, just like the Swift Boat ads that benefitted Bush so much - and which he never explicitly spoke out against - were lies. Basically, just character assassination. Every nonpartisan site that looked at those issues concluded that.

Finally, after 6 months of being hammered with distortions of his record, Kerry starts to speak out against Bush, and suddenly the Blue Team is called … is … I’m speechless. How can someone see so little of the flaws in their own, and so much of the flaws in others? From Willie Horton to the “wolf” ad, the Reds have always led the way and pushed the envelope in political brutality (btw check out http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ if it’s still up!)

If it was really true that it’s not “‘acceptable’ to me for any Political Party to call names, exaggerate, and lie about another just to try and gain points with their voters” you would have left the Republican party long, long ago, Dawn.

I actually like old Ted Kennedy these days. Now that his kind are passing from the scene we should treasure that last of them. Sort of like an endangered species. Nobody really takes him seriously anymore. He performs a useful function in setting out the parameters of what the Democrats want, but don’t expect to get.

Two Teddy stories.

1.More people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuclear accidents in the U.S.
2.If Teddy had been driving a Volkswagen (they float) he would have been president of the U.S.

They are old jokes, like Kennedy himself. Let him be.

Dawn, I don’t see the hate in what TK has been talking about, nor do I see where he is lying or exaggerating about anything.
Maybe rather than talk about hate-speak, we should discuss Dubya’s strange tendency to engage in False Crisis-speak.

Here are the facts:
Social Security is not in crisis. Saying that there is a crisis is a LIE intended to bring on radical changes. Even under the most conservative forecasts, problems with SS will not happen until 2042. And even then, SS will have 70 percent of the needed funds. At that time, the shortfall will still be even smaller than the amount that was needed in 1983 - the last time we overhauled SS.
They want to raise the SS retirement age to 70 - which is completely unfair to blue-collar Americans with physically hard jobs, and to African Americans and Latinos because they have lower life expectancies.
Phasing out SS to replace it with privatized accounts will mean massive cuts in monthly benefits for EVERYONE, because that will require diverting taxes being used to pay current benefits into privatized accounts that will invest in stocks (and as we all know, stocks are gambling). Without that money, SS benefits will eventually be cut - some of the proposals out there will even cut benefits of current retirees.
Privatization means people are going to be risking their retirement security by making it hang entirely on stock market gambles, as well as the fact that they will be gambling on whether they’ll outlive their savings at retirement. This doesn’t happen with SS.
Only Wall Street will actually benefit from this whole thing. Gigantic financial services firms have always wanted to take over SS because of the billions of dollars of profit they’ll make managing the privatized accounts - money that will come directly from your benefits.
And were you aware that Wall Street firms who stand to make billions off of this are also the ones helping Dubya with his PR campaign for Social Security Reform? According to some things I’ve been reading, so far they’ve raised up to $100 million for advertising. And he’s getting help from elsewhere, too.
This from USAToday:
“Bush’s public relations campaign will be aided by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which are expected to pitch in with ad campaigns. The Club for Growth and Free Enterprise Fund, groups that support limited government and lower taxes, hope to raise as much as $15 million each.
Progress for America Voter Fund, which supports conservative policies, has set aside $9 million to help Bush. It will begin airing TV ads soon on CNN and Fox.”
Full article

Dubya’s Social Security False Crisis-speak is an effort to create a feeling of impending doom - exactly like his claims of WMD in Iraq. But unlike we did before that quagmire of a war, this time America shouldn’t fall for his lies.

Adrienne

I will have to try this 70% thing. If I tell my mortgage company that I only want to pay off 70% of my loan, I can save 30% on my payments today.

There is no crisis of Social Security today. If we address the problem today, it will never become a crisis at all, but it gets harder to address with each passing year. President Bush has grabbed a hold of the third rail of American politics, yet he still stands. That is amazing. He could kick the can down the road. That is really what I thought it would do. I misunderestimated his courage and commitment to future generations.

Whether you like what he is doing or not, you have to give him credit for courage. Before we too quickly forget, SS was feared by politicians for decades. They talked about it in hushed tones. Bush addressed the issue when he didn’t have to.

Dawn,
I find it disturbing that with all the statesmen America has had in it’s past, that when America need a “LEADER” most, we got these two bozo’s.

After all how many of us mis-underestimated Mr. Bush.

It’s called politics! It’s been going on since the United States was founded. Has it gotten worse? When you consider we have 24 hour news channels I think it’s safe to say it hasn’t gotten worse only that it has more coverage. Doubt that name calling and character bashing has been around a while? Read up on the Hamilton-Burr duel. It’s been here and it will be here. As informed citizens we must look through the smoke and search for the truth. It is our duty before we cast a vote.

Tom,

“As informed citizens we must look through the smoke and search for the truth. It is our duty before we cast a vote.”

And I suppose this is the way it should be.

And I suppose it is wrong of me to want things to change.

We’ll continue to get these bozos in office as long as campaigning for president takes the form of a three ring circus! We’d all be better off if we could figure out how to attract the candidates who would actually be good at the job rather than just those who want the job.

“I will have to try this 70% thing. If I tell my mortgage company that I only want to pay off 70% of my loan, I can save 30% on my payments today.”

Oh we can raise a lot of money towards what we’ll need by 2042. How about we start with that 124 million Dubya’s raised for the PR campaign to destroy Social Security. Then, we have the federal government sue Halliburton for the money they stole from us taxpayers in Iraq. Next, we roll back the tax cuts on people who make more than 250,000 a year. And finally, we might leave the Iraqi people to their freedom, along with the earmarked reconstruction money they’ll need to rebuild their country, and bring our troops home - that ought to raise us quite a bit of cash, don’t you think?

“There is no crisis of Social Security today.

Yeah, he’s totally wrong - and this time I don’t think it has anything to do with “faulty intelligence”.

“If we address the problem today, it will never become a crisis at all, but it gets harder to address with each passing year.”

I think its a damn shame that America didn’t get to keep Clinton’s economic stability and Al Gore with his “lock-box”.

“President Bush has grabbed a hold of the third rail of American politics, yet he still stands. That is amazing.”

Nah, they’re in charge - they can do whatever they like now.

“I misunderestimated his courage and commitment to future generations.”

I hope that ‘misunderestimated’ is a joke, otherwise, you’ve been listening to Dubya for far too long.
What commitment to future generations? All I see is a commitment to make his friends a lot more money - and that doesn’t take courage, only an enormous amount of greed at the expense of Americans having a retirement fund they can count on.

“Whether you like what he is doing or not, you have to give him credit for courage.”

Um, I’d say BALLS, rather than courage. He doesn’t see any farther than what is in he and his friends upper-class best interest. I consider that kind of selfishness a very serious character flaw.

“Before we too quickly forget, SS was feared by politicians for decades.”

Because they were robbing it blind.

“They talked about it in hushed tones.”

Too bad those hushed tones weren’t reverential like they should’ve been - after all it is one of the best ideas an American president ever had.

“Bush addressed the issue when he didn’t have to.”

He addressed the issue as a crisis, which is a lie, and he did so just so he could make money for his friends. Sound familiar?
It does to me.

Am I the only who should mention the People dying in Iraq? Regardless of the Spin from both sides, Reality is a lot of people are getting hurt because of it. It is telling that there is virtually no talk about Iraq in ALL Rightwing Blogs as if it did not exist. There IS talk however of invading Syria and Iran…

I think calling debate and criticism in a democracy “Hate Speech” a missuse of the words.

Is it intentionally misleading? Hard to prove.

Did GW Bush lie to America about the Invasion of Iraq? He certainly influenced the agenda, tweaked the intelligence, and ignored the dissent. In a world of sophisticated men, I find it hard to not call it a lie.

Did John Kerry dissemble about his Vietnam record, or exxagerate the state of the economic downturn? I think those were lies.

Did Roosevelt lie or even manipulate events to draw us into WWII? I think he did. I think he lied to America.

To me the issue isn’t exactly about lies, or criticism or hate speech. It’s about leadership.
We are now watching Iraq devolve into civil war and become a haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now baloons are being floated about withdrawal. Vietnam II. Will we see another slaughter like Cambodia? Time will tell the story and set history. I hope those blinded by partisanship will at least learn something from this.

Social Security has relatively minor flaws that a give away to Wall Street will not cure. There are lies being told here. Lies about returns, profits and spending. Paul Krugman has a good editorial with a link to an analysis of the privatization in England that has been fraught with failure.

Paul Krugman

Adrienne et al

“By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security.”

Guess who said that. It wasn’t George Bush.

That’s right, it was Bill Clinton in 1998.

In September 1998, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security meeting congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — “Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis.” The others all agreed. After that, Democrats got sick of the problem and stopping talking so much about it. They never actually did anything at all.

So nothing was done to change the situation between then and now. Nothing. Zip. Nada. In fact, as you have told me, things have gotten worse because Bush cut taxes and the economy declined (not in that order).

So if there was a crisis in 1998 and nothing changed in the SS system. In fact things got worse. How is it that there is no problem now?

Adrienne,
If you think this is a joke, I, for one, am not laughing.

“The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.”—Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

“They misunderestimated me.”—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

“I’m honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.”—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.”—St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

Rocky

Those things are not as funny as they seem.

It is the executive branch’s job to execute the law, which requires that branch to interpret it. The judicial branch passes on a law’s constitutionality and intent. There is significant overlap. Any Federal executive or Federal executive agency is very much in the business of interpreting the law.

They do misunderestimate him. So he made up a word. Lack of facility with words does not necessarily mean lack of intelligence.

I saw the ceremony. The man had a prosthetic limb. He was shaking the man’s hand, just not his natural hand. Would it have been better for the President to call attention to the fake hand, maybe see if he could make it come off?

Social Security is obviously a Federal program, but it is insulated from day-to-day management by the executive. It is not controlled or managed like most Federal programs. In this statement, Bush is correct.

We all make mistakes and misstatements. My own statements and those of others on this blog provide ample evidence. Politicians are constantly on the record. Many of the famous words of past leaders have come to us through editing processes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a stirring phrase. It was originally, “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.” Much less stirring and very problematic. Sacred to whom? Undeniable? They had been denied. That was the whole reason for the Declaration.

“Adrienne,
If you think this is a joke, I, for one, am not laughing.”

The heavy sarcasm I sometimes bring to my posts is really just gallows humor, Rocky. I really don’t think the president’s inarticulate and dimwitted comments are a bit funny - because I feel he shames us all by proxy in the eyes of the world.

Dawn-
A person can say something with hate in their heart and yet be right. And vice versa, of course, which is why we need to focus on people’s facts more than their moods. The question is not whether Bush’s detractors are angry, or filled with hate, or whatever. The question is whether they’re right.

Yeah, everybody just loved Lincoln.

Hatespeak can be heard every morning on C-span’s call in Washington Journal program. In 3 hours, one will here about 1/4 to 1/3 of the callers exercising hatespeak. It is quite amazing to listen to. It comes from both sides of the spectrum. But, the most virulent comes mostly from the right, in the form of attacks of anti-americanism and unpatriotic accusations and the frequent, love your government or leave the nation argument.

What the right often fail to understand from the left is the left’s ability to distinguish between their nation founded on its founding documents and principles therein which they love, and the politicians and government which fail to serve those documents and live up to those principles.

What the left often fail to understand about the right, is that adamant adherence to loyalty to family, God, and country which for reasons of avoiding cognitive dissonance, results in loyalty to the government as well. Loyalty is an admirable quality, regardless of whether it is wrongly focused and targeted.

But, let’s make no mistake. The founding fathers with few exceptions, sided with the left in their love of country but, distrust of government and politicians of power. Their documents reflect this distrust and conditional loyalty toward those who hold and wield power. It is a lesson which the many on the right would do well to observe and learn from in order to protect their own interests.

“Lack of facility with words does not necessarily mean lack of intelligence.”

Jack,
You’re correct.
However, it does show a lack of attention to details. It also shows a lack of cognitive thinking. The man is not good on his feet.
Reagan got away with it because he was everyone’s dottering grandfather. Reagan, however, was also capable of making a speech that would move people to action, that would inspire people.

Bush just leaves me scratching my head, yearning for Dan Quayle.

Jack,
Please understand, the quotes I picked were the most coherent on the site I found, they actually made some sense, and there were page after page of Bush’s malaprops.

Look I’m not looking for a speaker like Douglas or FDR or Kennedy, but I would like someone a little better than Yogi Berra or Casey Stangel.

LBJ was said to be dumb as a post, but he was sharp as a tack and could get his point accross without notes or a teleprompter.

Stephen,
“A person can say something with hate in their heart and yet be right. And vice versa, of course, which is why we need to focus on people’s facts more than their moods.”

Yes. It’s the people who give no facts or alternatives and will accept nothing from the person suggesting them because they hate them and/or their party.

Sometimes it can be as bad as the choice of words. It may be the same solution but won’t be accepted because they didn’t say it ‘right’.
Petty.

David

Thanks for your explanations. They are good and fair to both sides. I believe in loyalty to the family and the government, but I am also skeptical of all power. The two are not incompatible. I think most of the founding fathers would agree.

What I don’t like is disrespect, which I find on both the left and the right, currently more on the left because they are out of office. Besides being rude, it is an ineffective strategy to convince others. When I see an article that refers to the president as Dubya or Rumsfeld as Rummy, I tend to pay a lot less attention to the next sentences. I assume partisan and am rarely disappointed.

The unique thing about leftist disrespect is the assumption that politicians are in it for the money. This might sometimes be true on the local level, but most people in public service are not craven or greedy. Much is made of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton wealth, but if his goal were to maximize his wealth, he would never have taken the VP job. Rumsfeld is old and very rich. He doesn’t need the job. Colin Powell is mostly a self-made man. He gave up a career making millions, to take a job making about $180,000, where he is not allowed to engage in outside speaking activities. It is a difficult personal choice. Do you take the easy money or do you opt for government service, where you get paid less, are on call twenty four hours a day – every day - and have to put up with more shit. People do that out of dedication to their country. They deserve respect for that reason alone.

Finally there is another reason to support and respect the Bush administration. It is my reason. You may disagree, but it is sincere.

Bush is doing a good job. He is not perfect and there are many things I would change, but overall it is a good and competent job. I voted for him and worked for the campaign because I was sure Bush and his team would do a better job than Kerry and his folks. I was not tricked into voting for Bush. I didn’t do it to make more money. I am not religious. I voted for Bush because he was the best man running.

Jack, thanks for the reply. Our opinions differ on things, but, your perspective and conclusion regarding supporting Bush is defensible and rational according to the criteria you put forth.

You said: “The two are not incompatible. I think most of the founding fathers would agree.”

Most, might, but, some significant ones didn’t. They subscribed to the experience and belief that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a recurrent theme in many of their personal writings.

I absolutely agree with you that Kerry would not have been necessarily a better President. His leadership and priorities would have been different, better than Bush in some ways, and worse in others. I will leave it to D’s and R’s to argue over those differences.

Bush’s rhetoric and his actions and policies appear contradictory to me far too often to support and give alleigance to his presidency. I believe he believes he is trying to do a great job for America. I also believe he has little educational and intellectual largesse of his own to bring to bear on policy, and our future. He is in my opinion, far, far too dependent upon advisors. Dependency on advisors is not necessarily a bad thing.

But, if your dependency is on political loyalty first, and expertise and dedication to America, educated and intellectual expertise in the appropriate areas somewhere way down on the rungs of priorities, your presidency will be potentially and seriously flawed.

What the Bush Presidency lacks for my support is any sense of bi-partisan and non-partisan leadership that could result in coming up with the best answers available for the American people. His absolute dependence upon Supply side economics regardless of reality and facts of current and future reality is a huge liability. (Making tax cuts permanent in light of our debts is idiotic allegiance to a doctrine, plain and simple.) Also, his pragmatism that chooses to ignore or work around Constitutional intent, is another one (some provisions of the Patriot Act and refuting applicability of the Geneva Conventions). And his pragmatism which fails to consider the perceptions and appearance of getting from A to B and the consequences of those perceptions to America and Americans, (invading Iraq virtually unilaterally) completely denies me the ability to support many, if not most of his policy initiatives for similar reasons.

Dawn-
If you want facts, here are some. If you come back to me and say you didn’t watch them, I will be greatly disappointed.

Frontline Episodes(online video)
Truth War and Consequences
A Report on how we got into the Iraq War. If you watch any of them, watch this one.

The War Behind Closed Doors
Find out why Colin Powell is leaving the State Department this month.

Missile Wars
Discover why millions of Americans like me were not surprised when the latest SDI test failed.

The Man Who Knew
How close did we come to preventing 9/11? Closer than you might think.

Rumsfeld’s War
Donald Rumsfeld is one of the most controversial figures in the Bush administration. This Episode examines just why that is.

Tou can just cruise over to the main site or the streaming video page.

You can also read the long line of books that came out describing what happened. I would say, from personal experience that much of my anger and frustration towards the administration stems from what I have learned. You can argue ad hominem that my sources are biased, but much of what has reported, over time, has been corroborated by other sources, and even confirmed by the Bush administration.

Stephen

Most racists stayed in the Democrat Party. Damon has shown the actual numbers and facts in a post above. The Republican take over of the South came in the 1980s and 1990s as the old line Democrats passed from the scene. and the Democrats are the only ones who consistently reelect a Senator who was an active member of the KKK.

Both parties have some racist past and some racist members, but neither party is the party of racism. The Bush cabinet is the most diverse in U.S. history. Before that, the Clinton cabinet was the most diverse. The whole nation is changing. This is not 1960 anymore.

Jack, Sen. Byrd renounced the KKK decades ago. That is not a valid argument. It is the same as arguing since the Republican Party dominates the south, Republicans are racists. Since, racism still exists in the south, (as well as east, north, and west). It is a non-argument.

david

My second correction in just a couple of minutes. My post above was an answer to a post on the other side. It does not make particular sense in the context of this discussion.

I am going to give up on all this for tonight. I can’t keep track of my own posts.

The Reds? So what are the Democrats? The Blues? The Greens?

Is this all a big baseball game between the parties?? Or is it the future of our country?

I don’t care which party wins. Sometimes the better candidate is Republican and sometimes they’re Democrats. Who cares what they call themselves??? What matter are the ISSUES!!!!

To all of you who vote straight party, WAKE UP!

No one polital party is right across the board and if you haven’t spent the time to consider an issue, you shouldn’t vote on it.

Get over you party-hate and consider the issues.

Not that our votes matter, anyway…

Racism is in the eye of the offended. If you ask anyone, anywhere in the country they will tell you they have seen the evidence. To blame either party is an exercise in arogance.

American politics has had a long history of mud-slinging and muck-raking.
I don’t see that the recent campaign has been any different.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Rose,

You are so right.

Frontline - now there’s unbiased reporting !

WOnder if they can talk about SS or my taxes?

Mr. Jones you started working when you were nine - deprived yourself of many things - studied many long hard hours - saved your money put yourself through college - worked countless hours to build a business - so you know what - now we will enslave you to work 6 months a year to pay for social programs to take care of people who have not worked a day in their lives -
oh Social Security - well see these guys who partied all their life and didnt save a penny while you diligently applied yourself and went without? Well they dont have anything now and that is not fair is it?!! So we will give them your money since you have some.

Welcome to the Democratic Party - People who want to make themselves look good by reaching into your pocket and spending your money like its theirs and they worked for it - scuse me while I vomit!

I feel that finger pointing towards an opposing political party or individual is something that isn’t helping our country, only hurting it and is something people need to take into consideration when talking about politics. People should realize that instead of being assholes towards one another, we should unite for the benefit of our country, we are only polarizing opposing ideas into completely confined categories. So with that said, why not combine ideas so they are executed in the most effective ways possible and are carried out in ways that will most benefit our country. Not only that but, we should also consider our ties with other countries as well, and if we piss off our allies, once again, we are only making it harder on our country in the future. Wake up, and consider where the opposing side is coming from as you consider your own. Not everything has to be so black and white, or divided exactly down the middle for things will work better when ideas are combined and problems solved using multiple angles.

Stephen,,

I have watched some of those shows. There is one being replayed this week called ‘Meeting Usama Bin Laden’.

As with any documentary or news report people tend to listen to what they want to hear.

What I heard was that the U.S. (during the 90’s) let this problem grow by thinking it could be handled in a way that made us look weak to our enemy.
Now I hear that the problem is growing because we used force.

We have people screaming about our going to war - they believe things could have been handled differently. Where were they? and where was the screaming to fix the problem years ago?

We had people on the ‘other side’ hollering about Clinton dropping bombs to distract from his other problems here at home - now we have people from the ‘other side’ screaming about Bush going to war in Iraq to distract from ‘losing’ Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

It’s just absurd to me that people ‘switch sides’ depending on which party is in office.
If there was a Dem in office it would be the same - only from the opposite side.

Dawn,

“We have people screaming about our going to war - they believe things could have been handled differently. Where were they? and where was the screaming to fix the problem years ago?”

Please tell me that you remember the massive protests here and abroad, before we went into Iraq. These protests were dismissed by Bush.

His comment was that he knew what he was doing.

Hate speech? You want hate speech? Go to the wingnut blogs and “news” sites, then, and read the comments. Then go to a left-wing site and read the articles and comments. Note how many of each you get that make you say, “wha?” If there are more truly hate-filled, “go back to XXX country, you commie faggot [fascist racist]” comments in one type of site than another, then you will see which are hate-filled and which are impassioned, but sane.

I bet that, in honesty, the left wins. Liberals are, for the most part, less hateful, less given to painting the other side in gory colors, not as likely to use some off-the-wall connection (like bringing in Clinton when the discussion isn’t about him), and so forth. My experience is that we liberals/moderates are more willing to discuss the actual actions of someone like George W. Bush than his personality (though much of his personality points to psychological problems, it wouldn’t matter so much but for what he does and has the power to do). The Kerry campaign, in fact, tended to answer labeling and psychologically-loaded rhetoric with recitations of facts, which is why they lost. The democrats were a lot like Harry Truman, who said, “I don’t give ‘em hell — I just tell the truth and they think they’re in hell.”

In politics today, the winners are those who can cast their opponents in the proper light, not those with the better ideas, the better program, or even the truth. We saw this in spades during this last election cycle.

To our great loss, I am much afraid.

Ed

Dawn,

On your original post … kudos for trying to wake up the rabid partisans. Your mistake was to use a specific example, which tends to set this crowd off.

Stephen,

Hmmm … alot of opinions disguised as facts in those pieces. To be honest, I get overwhelmed.