...and let's not forget that the health care "crisis" is commensurate with the civil rights movement--and that those who oppose the "reform" the government is pushing are equivalent to those who didn't want ethnic minorities to have equal freedoms under the law. This--per our esteemed Senate Majority Leader.

So now, opposing health care reform is a sign of being racist, too.

It's my hope that this rhetoric will continue to illustrate to Americans with any sense whatsoever--just how far out of touch our current government is.

I find this to be entirely true, especially as far as it is concerned with the "Tea Parties" that were being held a while back. EVERY article I read painted the attendees as all white, racist, gun-toting, moronic rednecks. You know... the kind of people that inevitably get on the TV and describe what the tornado looked like. Even the TV reporters tended to pick out the guy in the ballcap who looked like he hadn't bathed in a week. Come to think of it, that's the way a lot of the Town Hall Meetings were portrayed, too.

But yet, what I read in the Letters to the Editor column seemed to go against that. They said that they were middle class schmoes who just wanted to voice their opinion without going through Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter to get their message heard(apparently, a lot of conservatives seem to have grown disenchanted with those two).

And yet, a few years ago, whenever I would read about the protests against the Iraq war, it was always painted as some heart-rending Kumbayah festival, filled with people who wouldn't raise their hand to swat a fly. My friend (who only went to two of these) said the exact opposite - that those people were more inclined to pick fights with ANYONE who opposed their view. She said it was actually kinda scary. She had expected it of the pro-war people, and yet those were the ones who more interested in debating, while the anti-war people were more likely to start shouting and screaming.

This has been my experience with strangers, too. And sometimes friends and coworkers, who tend to see it as some kind of personal competition instead of a discussion. So instead, I don't discuss politics with just about anyone (excepting two friends who like to debate without venom), unless its on the Internet, where being called a dumbass redneck doesn't sting quite as much.

Excuse the length of the post, please.

Faced with the infuriating complication of democratic dissent, advocates of greater government involvement in health care, including some federal officials, have unleashed a vicious campaign against a sizable political minority.

Minority? Not according to this series of polls, which as of last week shows 41% in favor of and 51% opposed to the health care reform proposals of President Obama and the Democratic members of Congress.

I'm not advocating this type of rhetoric because it prevents a reasonable debate on the topic. But it is hardly a progressive trait. It is a political trait designed to rile up support for whatever side you happen to be on.

Ignoring that this is the same type of thing you heard from the Bush administration with regards to war protesters, aren't there elements in the anti-reform movement that are just as guilty of this. Wasn't it rather recently that there were pictures of Dachau used to argue against health care reform? Pictures of the president as Hitler? Plans to burn congressmen in effigy?

How is this any different?

Senator Lieberman is getting bashed left and right for his stance on this bill too. There was a letter in today's local paper, signed by a boat load of clergy, calling for Lieberman to rethink his opposition on health care reform. They didn't say outright that he is "evil, stupid, insane, or all three.", but the implication was there.

I thought libs love diversity, free speech and free choice. Apparently only when you agree with their idealogy.

Sorry - I view pictures of Obama as Hitler as sheer payback, and enjoy every minute of them.

Bill

They said that they were middle class schmoes who just wanted to voice their opinion without going through Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter to get their message heard(apparently, a lot of conservatives seem to have grown disenchanted with those two).

Untrue. They want their opinions to be treated as "valid" by the drive-by media, and so they need to explicitly denounce Rush, Coulter, and any other "conservative" voice in order to be seen as valid.

I'm not advocating this type of rhetoric because it prevents a reasonable debate on the topic. But it is hardly a progressive trait. It is a political trait designed to rile up support for whatever side you happen to be on.

Not true. To a Conservative, a Progressive is misguided. To a Progressive, a Conservative is evil.

Ignoring that this is the same type of thing you heard from the Bush administration with regards to war protesters,

A lie. You certainly heard the protesters and the Progressives ACCUSING the Bush administration and Conservatives in general of saying such things.

aren't there elements in the anti-reform movement that are just as guilty of this. Wasn't it rather recently that there were pictures of Dachau used to argue against health care reform? Pictures of the president as Hitler? Plans to burn congressmen in effigy?

No. In fact all of those things that you speak of were Progressives who attended the Tea Parties with the intention of discrediting them by making them appear to be nothing but a bunch of uneducated racist hicks who only oppose government-run healthcare because they are too stupid to know what's good for them.

Unfortunately for the Proggs, they got caught on film, and the drive-by media can't enforce an embargo on the truth any longer.

Kind of like the Republican's "if you're not with us against the terrorists, you're against us," eh?

Demonizing the opposition is something that both sides do. In fact, I'd say that over the last 8 years the Republicans have been way better at it.

Levi, I've only ever heard of one of the things you mentioned (pix of Dachau, prez as Hilter, congressman in effigy) and I'd argue that any of those things are far, FAR from being widespread.

I also don't recall a lot of strong rhetoric coming from the Bush administration against the war protestors, etc. It seemed to me that there was an awareness of the unpopularity of many of the decisions and the execution happened anyway. The government did not demonstrate the widespread demonizing, name calling, and insulting of American citizens who opposed the Bush policies that you're seeing with this govt.

And as far as anyone being hung, burnt, etc. in effigy, there are countless more examples of Bush getting that kind of treatment than anyone in this administration.

Regardless of how you feel about Bush, anyone who doesn't see the clear double standard here is blind, IMO.

Kind of like the Republican's "if you're not with us against the terrorists, you're against us," eh?

That's not demonizing, it's a statement of fact. First, support for terrorism is a binary thing, either you want it wiped out or you don't. Second, the statement was aimed at nations, not individuals, which makes it even more correct.

Demonizing the opposition is something that both sides do. In fact, I'd say that over the last 8 years the Republicans have been way better at it.

Where have you been the last eight years? How many protests had any prominent Democrat derided as evil, as Hitler, as a vampire, hanged, burned in effigy, etc. How many assassination-fantasy films were written about any politician other than Bush in the last eight years?

Sorry, you're just way off base on this one.

This is, unfortunately, entirely normal: liberal and progressive people are amongst the most intolerant. Because they are idealists who "mean well", they believe that they hold the moral and ethical high ground. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is immoral and unethical.

Unfortunately, idealistic ideas are rarely practical. A single-payer system is the best...if the bureaucracy remains under control; if the agency regulating it keeps patient needs as its first priority. This will not happen. More and more resources will be dedicated to the bureaucracy itself, and ever fewer to the original mission (Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy).

Of course, we immoral, unethical practicalists will never convince those of pure heart. They will continue to tilt at windmills, and that is certainly their right. The best we can do is to keep their blind idealism from destroying our lives.

@Levi: Oh, and nice try at the sideways-snark demonization use of "anti-reform".

What's being proposed by the left is NOT A REFORM AT ALL. It is, in fact, the wholesale takeover of the most intimate details of every American life.

The Republicans have offered actual reform, but neither Pelosi nor Reid will allow them to be mentioned during actual debate.

Government by eight-year-olds is what we have in the present Democratic Party.

>>Unfortunately for the Proggs, they got caught on film, and the drive-by media can't enforce an embargo on the truth any longer.

I've been meaning to ask, brian.

Are you still reading Little Green Footballs these days?

Or do you no longer trust it to tell you the "truth" about the media:)

Link to LGF founder's statement:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

I stopped reading LGF when he went off the rails and started banning anyone who criticized him. When he became the "He-man creationist-haters club".

I mean, yeah, young-earth creationists are imbeciles, but do they really warrant 5 posts a day?

Do you really want me to fisk the living fuck out of his lie-ridden manifesto?

Including Pat Buchanan with "the right" is total bullshit. Nobody on the right takes him seriously. He's the go-to "conservative" when the leftist media wants something humiliating they can say "conservatives believe".

And how did Alex Jones (9/11 truther extraordinare) end up on the right?

Here's the best one though:

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

Those three names have jack shit to do with creationism, and it's looking more and more like "climate change" is bullshit on stilts like we've been saying for over a decade.

Charles has gone bull-goose looney. He was never a conservative, but he was at least sane. Until Obama got elected. Then he joined the Amen choir and went round the bend.

To comment further on the ""if you're not with us against the terrorists, you're against us," thing: Brian is right in that there are some things, and some people, who are just plain evil. Islamic terrorism, and the people who believe in it and support it, are in that category. How can one not be opposed to the idea of good, ethical people who are just trying to go about their daily lives, being blown out of the sky? What can you say about the people who are cool with that, other than that they're evil?

Now, liberals can come back with "well, we don't agree with how Bush went about it." Okay, that's a reasonable argument. I supported Bush in Iraq, but I can see how someone else, after careful consideration, could arrive at the opinion that it was the wrong move. But here's where the liberal argument always breaks down: They don't have any other ideas, except for falling back on the idea of appeasement, which (1) doesn't work, and (2) requires the appeasers to accept that they will be shamed and subjugated. And you know what? Most people, of any political stripe, don't like being shamed and subjugated.

So what happens is that the liberals try to base their stance on the notion that there simply isn't a problem: 9/11 either didn't happen, or if it did, it was a CIA inside job, or we deserved it. If effect, they wind up discounting the idea that evil exists in the world. That's a pretty fair ride on the crazy train in itself, but then what else do they do? They label their political opponents as evil! So evil doesn't exist, except when it does... people who love the idea of attacking and killing Americans at random aren't evil, but anyone who doesn't support the health care bill is! So no, nobody anywhere in the world is evil, except... Republicans! They are the only evil people in the entire world!

Needless to say, this looks insane to almost anyone who isn't in the belief system, including a lot of people who don't count themselves as Republicans. And this is the #1 reason why liberalism has lost the solid hold it once had on America. Yes, there are insane people and beliefs among conservatives too; birthers would be the top example right now. But on the left, insanity has become systemic, and that's the main difference between the Left and the Right today.

Re Joe Lieberman: People do realize that, when it comes to domestic issues, he's pretty liberal. But he has his head on straight about what's evil, what's insane and what's merely disagreement among reasonable people. And who is whipping him for it? It sure isn't the Right, even though Lieberman probably disagrees with the Right on more issues than he agrees with them on.

Amen, Cousin Davve. A-frakkin-men.

And also, Jody: Charles Johnson is being motivated, to a considerable extent, by personal problems with some of his former associates, regarding what went down with Pajamas Media and some other things he was involved in. He also has a serious resentment / jealousy problem with Pamela Gellar, which apparently led him to smear her and all of her associates as racists, totally without justification. Several perfectly respectable pundits, like Dan Riehl, found themselves in hot water with the blogosphere because of false racism accusations that Charles made against them, which they then had to disprove.

Yes, there are insane people and beliefs among conservatives too; birthers would be the top example right now.

Except that the "birther" movement (which is what turned Charles against the right, regardless what he says) was started by a Hillary-supporting lawyer with an axe to grind. His name is Philip Berg, and he's no conservative.

And then the looneys got in to it, and the media immediately called it a right-wing movement when it's not on any side - it's just a collection of insane and functionally-retarded individuals who harbor deep suspicion of the Man Who Unseated the Inevitable Hillary!

You are, of course, right about those who attack Lieberman. Jane Hamsher was the one posting pictures of him in blackface. Kos was the one pushing Lamont to unseat him for not hating Bush enough.

The left in this country has reverted to the historical form of all leftist movements throughout history: when victory by normal means eludes you, start slitting throats. It's a circular firing squad to be sure, but most of them have lousy aim, so there's bound to be a lot of collateral damage.

>>And also, Jody: Charles Johnson is being motivated, to a considerable extent, by personal problems with some of his former associates, regarding what went down with Pajamas Media and some other things he was involved in...

Fine, Cousin Dave (and brian).

But I reserve the infuriating privilege of raising an amused liberal eyebrow at your reaction:)

Be amused all you like, Jody. When someone is right, he's right. His political persuasion is irrelevant to his correctness.

And Johnson was right about Rathergate. And he was right about the threat of Islamists. And to a lesser extent about the attempted hijacking of the anti-Islamist movement by racist parties in Europe.

But once Obama got elected, suddenly Islamists dropped out of view, and he started using terms like "climate-change denier" with all the loaded meanings it carries, despite his railing against such loaded phrases in the past.

He was a long-haired liberal musician from California before he was an anti-Islamist from California. Once Obama got elected, either he figured that the problem of Islamism was solved, or he concluded that it wasn't going to be, and it was no use alienating all of his former friends out there fighting for something that the leadership of the country no longer believed in.

He was a long-haired liberal musician from California before he was an anti-Islamist from California.

That, brian, is quite an interesting comment.

It may be interesting, but it's the truth. He's a jazz musician, a cyclist, and a programmer. Prior to 9/11 (by his own admission) he didn't much care about politics but he leaned left.

He would have been perfectly fine if we had a hawkish Democratic party made up of Joe Liebermans instead of the Woolsey and MacDermott infested mess we have.

Since we didn't he hoped that he could get the Republicans to move socially more in a direction he was comfortable with.

I found entire genres of music I was unaware of thanks to Charles, for which I will be eternally grateful. But to have him go so far to attack people with such vigor and venom is something I can not stand. I won't tolerate it in my personal life, and I won't read it on the internet.

I find that people are sometimes amazed or horrified that I'll link to or reference somebody I don't generally agree with or even like because I find they've made sense on a particular issue. Ben Stein is an example of that. I linked to him the other day, even though I think he's a backward ass on creationism. And here's an Ann Coulter column somebody tweeted a link to. Read it. Think she's right on:

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=345

Why is this article presented as if liberals are the only ones who get hysterical over dissent? Anyone remember Bush's "You are either with us for with the terrorists"?

I was not "with Bush" on his means of dealing with terrorism, and it turns out I was correct not to be. This doesn't mean that I supported terrorism, which would be stupid, considering al Qaeda would just as soon kill me as any other American.

Let's be real and not try to present an inability to tolerate dissent as exclusively a liberal phenomenon. Liberals aren't neither the first nor the worst.

Amy - thanks for the link. It's obvious that when push comes to shove, liberals jettison their values at their own convenience. OTOH, that woman was aided by the general hysteria in the population.

Patrick - neither the first or the worst? I remember when liberals said Reagan was going to blow the world up with his calling the Soviet Union "the evil empire". You truly have no shame.

"Let's be real and not try to present an inability to tolerate dissent as exclusively a liberal phenomenon. Liberals aren't neither the first nor the worst."

No, of course not exclusively. But with few exceptions, they are extremely intolerant of any who disagree with them. All this, and they are supposedly the party of "tolerance."

the other beth - witness "speech codes" at universities that are really about suppressing any speech deemed offensive to PC-groups. I bet Patrick will deny those even exist.

"But I reserve the infuriating privilege of raising an amused liberal eyebrow at your reaction:) "

Doesn't bother me at all. I have never regarded being called unconventional, particularly in regard to my political views, as an insult. Quite the contrary; I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

"I was not "with Bush" on his means of dealing with terrorism, and it turns out I was correct not to be. "

How do you figure you were correct? Have many more 9/11s have we had? Looks to me like Bush's actions worked out at least moderately well.

What would you have done different? And note: "negotiate" is tantamount to "nothing", which I will not accept as a reasoned response.

the other Beth: No, of course not exclusively. But with few exceptions, they are extremely intolerant of any who disagree with them. All this, and they are supposedly the party of "tolerance."

I don't dispute this. But by the same token, it would be ridiculous to suggest that conservatives aren't just as bad. Gingrich, with the help of lickspittles such as Rush Limbaugh and later Ann Coulter, used the word "traitor" so often, the word became meaningless.

Think for a second about what a "traitor" truly is. Don't you think it's a little over-the-top to vilify dissent as something as serious as treason?

Like I said, they simply beat the word out of all meaning.

And thinking back to Bush's statement that I quoted earlier, don't you believe that accusing someone of supporting al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11 is a pretty serious charge to make? And for what? For refusing to uncritically agree with every stupid thing Bush ever did in the name of combating terrorism, including the idiotic idea that there could even be "a war on terror."

I will say that it does ring especially damnable when the party of tolerance proves itself to be intolerant. You don't have to explain to me how vicious liberals become when someone disagrees. On another message board, I pointed out (correctly) that Obama is a racist and that if liberals were truly the champions of tolerance they claimed, they would never support this man. In hindsight it was predictable, but I got branded a racist because I refused to support Obama, even though not a single one of them could point to a comment I made that stated any objection to Obama based on race. But I accused Obama of being a racist...and since "of course, Obama is not a racist..." (yeah, right), I must be a racist.

But just as liberals expose themselves as hypocrites for preaching tolerance, republicans reveal their hypocrisy by touting themselves as the party of family values. David "Diaper Fetish" Vitter said Clinton should resign because he had an extra marital affair. Well, guess what this fine upstanding Christian did? And guess what he didn't do about it?

And guess what the party of family values isn't doing about this inconsistency?

How about Larry Craig of the wide stance?

Mark Foley was especially interesting, referring to internet predators as "sickos." At least he resigned when he was busted, unlike Wide Stance, who repeatedly vowed to resign but never did.

And the list goes on and on.

Cousin Dave: How do you figure you were correct? Have many more 9/11s have we had? Looks to me like Bush's actions worked out at least moderately well.

Oh, for God's sake. Cousin Dave, I esteemed you so much smarter than that. You remind me of an episode of Gilligan's Island in which Mary Ann, in an effort to gather all the metal items that weren't absolutely necessary, tried to talk Gilligan out of his stainless steel good luck charm, but Gilligan maintained that it protected them from all kinds of harm, such as frostbite.

When Mary Ann pointed out that frostbite was a virtual impossibility on a tropical desert island, Gilligan came back with, "See how good it works?"

You cannot prove Bush's effectiveness by what doesn't happen!

As for what I would have done differently, I would have stayed in Afghanistan until bin Laden was surrendered or I obtained proof positive that he was dead. How's that for a start?

You don't embolden terrorists by issuing ultimatums, then backing down. "You surrender bin Laden right now...or else we'll leave and go attack Iraq."

Brian:

That's not demonizing, it's a statement of fact. First, support for terrorism is a binary thing, either you want it wiped out or you don't. Second, the statement was aimed at nations, not individuals, which makes it even more correct.

Bullshit. Just because you have a more realistic understanding that eradicating terrorism is an impossibility, and you don't support Bush's moronic misdirected efforts, it doesn't follow that you're "rah, rah, go al Qaeda."

Patrick,
I think we need to make the distinction between liberals (in general) and the liberal leaders who are sitting in seats of governmental authority. You mention Rush and Ann Coulter, who generally make very intelligent and well-reasoned points (arguable--of course I take it you're not a big fan). But those are commentators. Broadcasters, authors, etc. It's their job to express their opinion to as big an audience as possible, and, of course, their right as citizens.

The liberal leaders within our own government, however, who seek to dismiss/marginalize/demonize a very sizeable percentage of the population because they don't agree with their agenda--that's what the issue is here. Look at how the tea party movement was/is being mocked. Look at how the Obama campaign went after "Joe the Plumber", trying to discredit him, simply because he asked then Candidate Obama a question. Look at our head of the Dept of Homeland Security--her assertion that one of the biggest threats--if not the biggest threat--was the "right wing" (I'm paraphrasing, don't have the exact quote.) And most recently, Sen Reid making the claim that opposing health care "reform" is the equivalent to the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.

Liberals tend to be exceedingly thin-skinned, which is all well and good until they're in seats of power and they start trying to shut up citizens who disagree with their agenda.

Patrick,

I think it is far too early to make any sweeping generalizations about the success or lack thereof in Iraq. History will have to bear this one out.

Yep, you go, "the other Beth." You just go right ahead and ignore the fact that I mentioned Newt Gingrich as the one who beat the word "traitor" into meaninglessness. Just go ahead and pretend I claimed that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (who are disinfotainers, not commentators) were the ones who did all this, instead of pointing out that Gingrich did this with the aid of stooges like Coulter and Limbaugh. And let's just pretend we didn't hear my mention of Bush as saying "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

After all, your whole argument depends upon elected government officials among the liberals are the ones who demonize dissent, while of course, elected officials among conservatives never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do such things. Pointing out that I mentioned both Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush would just demolish your whole argument. Can't have that.

Nope. Big bad Patrick is trying to compare conservative disinfotainers to elected officials among the liberals. He never once mentioned conservative elected officials who ever did such a thing.

Yeah, right...

Patrick -

I want you to name for me even one person in the Bush administration or the Republican party that wanted legislation passed to shut Randi Rhodes up.

I can name at least three who have proposed legislation to do precisely that to Limbaugh.

And that is the difference between progressives and conservatives.

Conservatives will publicly shame and even demean their detractors. Progressives will physically attack and attempt to outlaw and imprison theirs.

And I hate to say it, but you were with Bush if you wanted to fight back after 9/11 in any way. Disagreeing with the method didn't put you against him as much as you think. There were and are countries that lend aid and comfort and funding to Al Qaeda, and there are still people in this country who openly support Al Qaeda.

If you aren't one of them, then you need to get that bunch out of your panties because you weren't on Bush's list.

Besides, how could you have decided you were "against us" before his policies were even announced? The "with us or against us" speech came long before the Iraq invasion.

Retroactively being offended by something that never applied to you for political effect may be a sign of mental illness. You might want to see someone about that.

Patrick, I'm going to need cites for each of the people you specified as "Beating the word traitor into the ground"

Because I can tell you that Rush was using the word in reference to true, actionable traitorous actions by Jim McDermott and others - namely lending aid and comfort to the enemy. If they'd done the same thing during WWII they'd have hung.

I don't follow Coulter or Gingrich, but I know that Coulter's schtick is to say the most outrageous shit she can come up with. And Gingrich has gone native in his support for soft leftism, so I doubt very seriously he was throwing the word "traitor" around.

Now, if you wanna talk about Al Gore doing it - we can do that. Because he's the one who said in a very public speech that Bush "Betrayed us".

He's also called those who doubt AGW "traitors" and guilty of "crimes against humanity".

You might wanna quit while you're ahead. Because right now reality's kicking you in the balls pretty hard.

Prove instance of Gingrich beating the word traitor into the ground?

How about the 1996 GOPAC memo which he authored, urging conservatives to demonize their opponents by calling them "traitors," among other things?

Notice the context in which he urged people to use these words.

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

And let's not forget, he used the word himself quite freely. Over a debate, he referred to the Democrats as "a bunch of sick...traitors."

Limbaugh's easy enough. He used to refer to Tom Daschle as "Hanoi Tom," "Tokyo Tom," and accusing him of "attempt[ing] to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain."

The accusation of being a traitor does not get any more clear than that.

I think it is far too early to make any sweeping generalizations about the success or lack thereof in Iraq. History will have to bear this one out.

It's pretty clear that we've won in Iraq.

And thinking back to Bush's statement that I quoted earlier, don't you believe that accusing someone of supporting al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11 is a pretty serious charge to make?

Bush was addressing countries that harbored Al-Qaida terrorists. It was an extremely serious charge to make, and no less true because of its seriousness. It was an ultimatum issued to countries, not a statement about individual people such as yourself.

Pseudonym: Bush was addressing countries that harbored Al-Qaida terrorists. It was an extremely serious charge to make, and no less true because of its seriousness. It was an ultimatum issued to countries, not a statement about individual people such as yourself.

Incorrect. He spoke to any country that was not actively supporting the U.S., harboring terrorists or not. If they weren't proactively supporting the U.S., that meant they were supporting the terrorists.

And he did have policies in place to apply this all-or-nothing proposition to individuals. One magical phrase, "enemy combatant," to be used at his discretion and his alone, and suddenly, you were stripped of the right to due process, consequently of all other rights.

One magical phrase, "enemy combatant," to be used at his discretion and his alone, and suddenly, you were stripped of the right to due process, consequently of all other rights.

When did Bush ever use this phrase for anyone other than enemy combatants, i.e., people opposing US troops on the battlefield or participating in or planning terrorist acts?

How about Larry Craig of the wide stance?

Mark Foley was especially interesting, referring to internet predators as "sickos." At least he resigned when he was busted, unlike Wide Stance, who repeatedly vowed to resign but never did.

And the list goes on and on.

Posted by: Patrick at December 10, 2009 10:40 AM

Oh will you give it a rest on the wide stance crap?

The only real evidence that Craig is gay and was trying to get it on with a cop in an airport bathroom is how he reacted to the charge. That is either because he is/was in the closet or was worried about the media field day if he wasn't guilty and the change went public. It also shows that like a lot of politicians (even the lawyer trained ones) he was ignorant of his own civil rights.

He should have shut his trap (and/or laughed at the insanity of the charge), given his basic info and called in a lawyer and his press sectretary. I'm sorry but I'm not going to take the word of a cop stuck on bathroom guard duty that some dude was tapping his foot in code for a hummer. Was any actual sexual act committed? No. Tapping a foot is lewd conduct? The cop was looking in his eyes when it was done? Any words exchanged offering sex for money or otherwise? No, just the word of a cop in a situation that reeks of entrapment.

Sio: The only real evidence that Craig is gay and was trying to get it on with a cop in an airport bathroom is how he reacted to the charge.

I see. So the cop's testimony means nothing, as he has no reason to lie, but Craig has every reason to lie to protect his reputation. And Craig's bizarre behavior in the wake of the charge, repeatedly vowing to resign (if he was not guilty, why should he promise to do that?), then reneging on his word?

Kiske: When did Bush ever use this phrase for anyone other than enemy combatants, i.e., people opposing US troops on the battlefield or participating in or planning terrorist acts?

Irrelevant. The fact remains that he could. No elected official should ever have the authority to deprive a legal citizen of due process.

Patrick, OK. I'll talk Newt. Say that Newt Gingrich did say the things that you're saying he did, etc....How does that prove anything?? That is ONE Republican, who, as Brian pointed out, is a fairly soft one, and not a true conservative. That's one Republican (former) politician saying or said x or y.

And Rush using nicknames on his show to zing politicians--that is one individual--albeit an extremely popular and influential one--who is a PRIVATE CITIZEN. As is Ann Coulter. She doesn't work for the government. She's not part of the government. The leading liberals in govt (with Obama on point) are engaged in a widespread campaign to discredit those Americans who disagree with their agenda by marginalizing them, mocking them, etc.

If the best you can do is Rush, Ann, and Newt, well, that just doesn't answer it for me. You've got any number of nuts on the left (private citizens) spouting off against Bush (and likely that will continue oh, another decade or so--still getting much mileage out of that one), Palin, Karl Rove, etc. That's not the issue. But when the govt verbally attacks and accuses its citizens who are exercising their Constitutional rights to disagree with what is happening to their country, there is a problem.

Patrick, I'll put it to you another way.

Private citizens can, have the right to, and OUGHT TO express their dissent with their government.

When the GOVERNMENT is expressing dissent with the American people (for expressing dissent towards them), that is ass-backwards. The government is supposed to SERVE the will of the people, remember "Of, by, and FOR" the people?

"You lie!"

Irrelevant. The fact remains that he could.

No, he couldn't. Not unless you were actually an enemy combatant.

The other Beth, no. I'll put it to you another way.

The conservatives are not angels, and are not above laying spurious charges against those that dissent. To pretend that liberals are the only ones who do this is to have your head so far up your ass that you should emerge from your own mouth.

Saxby Chambliss is not a private citizen, but that didn't stop him (and Bush, who was stumping for him) from suggesting that Max Cleland (who, unlike Bush and Chambliss, did not deliberately avoid serving in Viet Nam) is a supporter of Osama bin Laden.

Either you live in a box, Beth, or you're willfully ignoring what should be obvious. This article is about some pretty ugly demonizations by the left wing of those who oppose healthcare reform. To imagine that liberals are the only ones doing this, or as if this is something new, is to be ignorant, either accidentally or by design.

So, spare us all the phony outrage..."How dare those liberals demonize their opponents! Unheard of!" It's not unheard of. Conservatives have been doing it for years.

The hell it's not unheard of!

And by the way, I have named three conservatives who have resorted to this sort of thing. Know how many you've named? That would be zero.

kishke: No, he couldn't. Not unless you were actually an enemy combatant.

Oh, yes he could. He needed no one whatsoever to corroborate or support this charge. Once you were declared an enemy combatant, you were done.

Bush was addressing countries that harbored Al-Qaida terrorists. It was an extremely serious charge to make, and no less true because of its seriousness. It was an ultimatum issued to countries, not a statement about individual people such as yourself.

Incorrect. He spoke to any country that was not actively supporting the U.S., harboring terrorists or not. If they weren't proactively supporting the U.S., that meant they were supporting the terrorists.

Every country that wasn't harboring terrorists (and even some that were) proactively supported the U.S. Even the Palestinian Authority and North Korea condemned the 9/11 attacks.

And he did have policies in place to apply this all-or-nothing proposition to individuals. One magical phrase, "enemy combatant," to be used at his discretion and his alone, and suddenly, you were stripped of the right to due process, consequently of all other rights.

Oh, yes he could. He needed no one whatsoever to corroborate or support this charge. Once you were declared an enemy combatant, you were done.

This is actually one of the reasons why I stopped supporting the Republican Party during Bush's first term. The most charitable thing you can say about it is that they were willfully ignorant of the harm that a Hugo Chavez or an Manuel Zelaya could do with that power.

However, that's not the same as saying "If you're not with us you're against us" was applied to individuals. Clearly lots of people were not with him, were actually politically opposed to him and his conduct of the war, and yet managed to avoid Gitmo.

kishke: No, he couldn't [just declare you an enemy combatant]. Not unless you were actually an enemy combatant.

And who precisely was making the determination of whether or not a person was 'actually' an enemy combatant?

Oh, yeah . . . . right.

Bush.

Kiske - you're kinda funny!

And by the way, I have named three conservatives who have resorted to this sort of thing. Know how many you've named? That would be zero.

Patrick, you named pundits, people whose jobs entail a certain amount of hyperbole.

I'll give you a few left-wing pundits to even things up: Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, and Janeane Garafolo.

The anti-Cleland ad you reference was in support of candidate Saxby Chambliss. It was intended to question Cleland's judgement in his votes on several homeland security measures. The ad was controversial and was discontinued at the request of several prominent politicians (including Republicans John McCain and Chuck Hagel)

On the other hand, Harry Reid, Democrat and Senate majority leader, compared those opposed to the Democratic healthcare bill to slaveholders and segregationists.

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat and Speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line for the presidency, compared protestors demonstrating against the Democrat healthcare initiative to Nazis.

Those two are not pundits. They're actually charged with governing this country.

Sigh...here we go again...are some of you legally blind and can only see through peepholes through some opaque glaze covering your eyes?

Or perhaps reading is such a laborious process that you forget what you actually read.

Conan: Patrick, you named pundits,

Lie.

Conan: ...people whose jobs entail a certain amount of hyperbole.

Helloooooooo? McFly??? Anybody home???

I named TWO pundits. And I named, at the time of that post, three politicians. I named Newt Gingrich (which some conservatives rather amusingly say doesn't count because he's soft. Quite forgetting he delivered congress for conservatives). I also named Bush. And I named Saxby Chambliss. And with the "you lie!" post, I also (indirectly) named Joe Wilson.

That's four elected conservatives. Not pundits.

I have already pointed out to "the other Beth" that I did mention politicians, in response to the charge that "You're just talking about pundits. That's not fair. Waaaah!"

Then you come along and, "you're talking about pundits."

Do you all see this now??? Because I'll list them all again, if you have problems with this.

Conan: I'll give you a few left-wing pundits to even things up: Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, and Janeane Garafolo.

And? Is there some point to this? And a Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs to you, too.

Conan: The anti-Cleland ad you reference was in support of candidate Saxby Chambliss. It was intended to question Cleland's judgement in his votes on several homeland security measures. The ad was controversial and was discontinued at the request of several prominent politicians (including Republicans John McCain and Chuck Hagel)

Let's get more specific than that. That ad was because after months of stonewalling the Hart-Rudman commission's proposal of the DHS, Bush capitulated. But with a small caveat. The new department's employees would not be granted civil service protection, making them subject to coercive pressure from the White House. Bush was basically saying that if they didn't say what he wanted them to say, he'd fire them.

Max Cleland, who had been supporting the DHS since the inception, stood on principle and opposed the measure without civil service protection. With prosaic simplicity, he said, "I don't think you make America more safe by making the workers that protect America more unsafe."

And our old friend Bush didn't hesitate to debase the debate. But we know, of course, that conservatives don't make all those nasty charges about dissenters. That's just liberals that do that. Isn't that right, Conan? So, of course, he meant it only in the kindest way when he accused liberals of being "more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

Boy, it's a good thing he's a conservative, isn't it? Otherwise, that would look like he was demonizing the opposition. But since it's Bush, we just know he'd never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever mean it like that. Oh, no. Just the liberals.

And it makes it all right because John McCain asked that they stop doing things like that.

And I don't name politicians. I just name pundits.

This reminds me of 2001 when everyone who wasn't 100% behind Bush, and ever said anything bad about him ever, was evil and aiding terrorists and unamerican, blah, blah, blah...

I don't know what's wrong with America, that both the left and right thing that when they are in power they are above criticism. I think it is a major problem.

Sometimes I think the red and blue states should get an amicable divorce.

What would you have done different? And note: "negotiate" is tantamount to "nothing", which I will not accept as a reasoned response.
Posted by: Cousin Dave

Here is what I would have done, carpet bomed Afgnistan, pounded the montains untill all the cave systems collapsed.

Absolutly nothing in Iraq until they did something that warrented it
At that time push in hard, kill Saddam, and then leave - it isnt our responsibility to police or fix the world

I'd have leaned harder on the UAE and forced more conssesions out of them

Dumped a plane load of dead pigs on the kaabba.

I'd have spent more on green techology just for the pleaseure of telling the Suadis to go fuck themselves and deported every Suadi national until their governmnt had shut down every wahhabist mosque they could find.

I wouldnt have paid civilian contracters 10 times as much money to provid combat support when millions have already been spent on training soilders to provide their own combat support.

I wouldnt have let civillian contracters "reimburse" the money they defruaded from the government without also having the ones responsible brought up on charges and jailed for theft, fraud, and war profiteering.

I wouldnt have let civillian contracters been authorised to issue orders to military personel who then took the fall for the crimes they commited while the contracters fell into a legal no mans land outside of US jurisdiction and out side the UCMJ.

I wouldnt have taken vacations while there was a war on.

What would you have done Dave? You ask that of a lot of people but never have answered it yourself

The words "enemy combatant" are not free of meaning. They refer specifically to a person who makes war upon the country. To pretend that they can be arbitrarily applied to just anyone at all is ridiculous.

I named TWO pundits. And I named, at the time of that post, three politicians. I named Newt Gingrich (which some conservatives rather amusingly say doesn't count because he's soft. Quite forgetting he delivered congress for conservatives). I also named Bush. And I named Saxby Chambliss. And with the "you lie!" post, I also (indirectly) named Joe Wilson.

That's four elected conservatives. Not pundits.

Saxby Chambliss, while an elected Congressman at the time, was also a candidate for the Senate at the time he transgressed the rules you apply only to conservatives. That's why I wrote "candidate Saxby Chambliss." And, unfortunately, candidates (left and right) also end up spewing a bit too much hyperbole, much like pundits.

Joe Wilson was rude and out of line and deserved censure. But including him as an example of using "you're either with us or you're evil" is stretching it quite a bit.

====================

How about the 1996 GOPAC memo which [Gingrich] authored, urging conservatives to demonize their opponents by calling them "traitors," among other things?

Gingrich's GOPAC memo was a campaign advice memo. Both parties put them out with examples of positive words to be associated with the candidate of the party and negative words to be associated with the opposing candidate.

The word "traitor" was one of many examples of negative words that could be used to create contrast between the two candidates. It was included because it was thought to be effective. It was unfortunate that it was included as an example of a negative word that could be used, but that hardly constitutes Gingrich issuing a blanket condemnation of all liberals as evil or traitors.

And the memo put out by Gingrich's GOPAC was an internal party memo that was not put out in his official capacity as Speaker of the House, but in his capacity as member of the party.

Pelosi and Reid's comments were uttered in the context of their official capacity as Congressional leaders.

====================

That ad was because after months of stonewalling the Hart-Rudman commission's proposal of the DHS, Bush capitulated. But with a small caveat. The new department's employees would not be granted civil service protection, making them subject to coercive pressure from the White House. Bush was basically saying that if they didn't say what he wanted them to say, he'd fire them.

That's right. Because we all know Bush was an evil control freak.

Bush's opposition to civil service status for DHS employees could in no way have been related to the fact that cumbersome and rigid civil service work rules have turned management of government employees into a legal minefield.

According to democraticunderground.com, Bush's proposed a system that "will replace the half-century-old General Schedule, with its familiar 15 pay grades and raises based on time in a job, and install a system that more directly bases pay on occupation and annual performance evaluations...." You know, the kind of performance evaluation that exists in the non-government world.

'cause we don't want to promote competent terrorism fighters, just tenured ones.

Oh, and by the way, Saxby Chambliss was at that time serving as Chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security which investigated intelligence issues related to 9/11 and issued the first comprehensive report detailing critical shortfalls within the United States intelligence community's performance and technological capabilities. So, Chambliss might have known a little something about creating an effective DHS.

Cleland actually supported Bush on most of his proposals for the War on Terror. But Cleland admitted that he had misgivings before his vote in favor of the use of force in Iraq and later regretted it, saying he eventually voted for it because he felt he "would be dead meat in the [Senate] race" if he didn't. So, he put his own political fortunes over what he thought was right. That's some mighty fine representin' there, Max.

Oh, and by the way, you wrote, "...I have named three conservatives who have resorted to this sort of thing."

Three.

You named Coulter, Gingrich, and Limbaugh. Coulter and Limbaugh have always been pundits (and extremist ones at that). And, Gingrich is today a pundit.

I guess you telling me that I'm "legally blind" and that I "can only see through peepholes through some opaque glaze covering [my] eyes" or that "reading is such a laborious process that [I] forget what [I] actually read" will teach me to stop taking you at your word.

For a guy who claims to want an elevated debate, you sure do seem to enjoy being an ass.

"For a guy who claims to want an elevated debate, you sure do seem to enjoy being an ass."

He was all praise for the Conan-man on a previous thread... Didn't last long before he went all "vicious" on ya, eh?

Conan: Gingrich's GOPAC memo was a campaign advice memo. Both parties put them out with examples of positive words to be associated with the candidate of the party and negative words to be associated with the opposing candidate.

The word "traitor" was one of many examples of negative words that could be used to create contrast between the two candidates. It was included because it was thought to be effective. It was unfortunate that it was included as an example of a negative word that could be used, but that hardly constitutes Gingrich issuing a blanket condemnation of all liberals as evil or traitors.

Because we all know that Newt Gingrich wouldn't possibly be practicing what he was preaching, right? Oh, wait. During the 1990 budget debate, the democrats were a bunch of "sick, pathetic, liberal, incompetent, tax-spending traitors."

All because they didn't see eye-to-eye on the budget.

Conan: Saxby Chambliss, while an elected Congressman at the time, was also a candidate for the Senate at the time he transgressed the rules you apply only to conservatives.

Lie, again.

I am not applying rules only to conservatives. I have conceded at the very beginning that liberals are demonizing dissenters. I am pointing out that liberals are not the first nor the worst to do this.

On the contrary, you seem to think that only liberals do such things, but somehow when conservatives do the same thing, it doesn't count.

Conan: That's right. Because we all know Bush was an evil control freak.

True. Glad you admit that.

Conan: Bush's opposition to civil service status for DHS employees could in no way have been related to the fact that cumbersome and rigid civil service work rules have turned management of government employees into a legal minefield.

Hardly the time to revamp the pay-grades, you know?

Conan: But Cleland admitted that he had misgivings before his vote in favor of the use of force in Iraq and later regretted it, saying he eventually voted for it because he felt he "would be dead meat in the [Senate] race" if he didn't. So, he put his own political fortunes over what he thought was right. That's some mighty fine representin' there, Max.

Actually, Bush had misled most of the Senate when it came to the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Cleland was not the only one to authorize the use of force and came do regret it. But who knew that Bush would prove to be such a fucking liar? Bush had stated that "approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent or unavoidable," but that "America speaks with one voice."

Contrary to what Bush had promised in an effort to get the go ahead from congress, he did not go to war as a matter of "last resort," nor did he keep his promise to build a coalition and work through the United Nations.

By the way, my point was in proving that liberals aren't the only ones who demonize dissenters with over-the-top criticisms. Since I've made the case with Bush, Chambliss, Gingrich and Wilson, and you have failed to defend them from this charge, I would say the point stands.

"By the way, my point was in proving that liberals aren't the only ones who demonize dissenters with over-the-top criticisms."

Pot?...Kettle?...I'd like to meet you to Patrick.

Conan: You named Coulter, Gingrich, and Limbaugh. Coulter and Limbaugh have always been pundits (and extremist ones at that). And, Gingrich is today a pundit.

On the subject of folks who want to play the ass, I have said (now for the third time). I have named Saxby Chambliss, Bush, Newt Gingrich and Joe Wilson.

You want to throw out Wilson? Fine, that's still three conservatives who resort to uncalled for personal attacks in demonizing opponents.

I am tired pointing this out. You keep coming back with "Why are you talking about pundits?" Saxby Chambliss is not a pundit. Bush, with his virulent case of foot-in-mouth-disease, could never be a pundit. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House when he circulated his memo advising the GOP to demonize Democrats with words like "traitor," and led by example.

Not talking about Coulter or Limbaugh. I said from the very beginning that they merely served as flunkies for the likes of Gingrich.

I am sitting here positively aghast. If we were engaged in spoken conversation, I could understand the possibility of forgetting what was said. Once the words are spoken, they are heard or they are not. In either case, they vanish into the ether.

But the printed word is just a few posts above you. They don't vanish. They can be referred to at any time.

The three I referred to are Bush, Chambliss and Gingrich. The fact that you choose to call Gingrich a pundit is irrelevant. He was Speaker of the House when he advocated (and exemplified) the use of "traitor" to demonize opponents. Bush was stumping for Saxby Chambliss when the over-the-top comparison of Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

I don't understand this. I never have understood it. And I never will. The audible word can be missed. But how does someone miss the printed word?

Bush, Chambliss, Gingrich. Those are the three I named. Bush, Chambliss, Gingrich.

Bush, Chambliss, Gingrich.

Not Coulter. Not Limbaugh.

Bush, Chambliss, Gingrich.

Patrick, good morning. Sigh.

You certainly do get worked up over this stuff, dontcha?

I think everyone can agree that part of politics (probably the most distasteful aspect) is that there is so much negativity. Both parties, all politicians use that approach; whether it's effective or just turns people off, eh, probably some of both.

Bush was referring to fellow nations within the global community when he said "If you not with us, etc" It wasn't addressed to citizens of this country who didn't agree with his methods.
Can we agree on that point at least?

No one is saying (certainly not me) that Republicans are perfect and never hypocritical. That is another discussion for an entirely different post and has nothing to do with this topic. At all.

My point is that since this administration has come into power and both the executive and legislative branches are being led by very liberal individuals, there has been widespread demonization of American citizens who have the audacity to simply dissent with--and peacefully demonstrate against--their policies and proposed policies. Something that I don't recall experiencing before during my adult life, up to this point.

Politicians who devise strategy that includes negativism against their political opponents (Newt), politicians who have a passionate, albeit inappropriate outburst during the president's speech to Congress (Wilson) and a president who takes a hard, though unpopular stance in the international community (Bush)--have really nothing to do with this article. None of these entails politicians attacking a segment of the American population. As far as pundits, we've already beaten that one to death.

When you have politicians who are using their position within the government and their bully pulpit to denigrate their own citizens, that's a problem. At a minimum, it's immature, unprofessional, and disingenuous.

Politicians beating up on other politicians= part of politics.

Pundits, citizens beating up on politicians, government= free speech, Constitutional right

Government beating up on private citizens for disagreeing with their politics= pathetic

The other Beth: Patrick, good morning. Sigh.

You certainly do get worked up over this stuff, dontcha?

Well, I don't like being misquoted. I've never heard of anyone who actually cares for the idea.

And in a printed media, I am at a loss to understand this phenomenon, especially when I have to explain it three times.

The point of this thread was to point out how evil and nasty liberals are when it comes to demonizing dissenters. Which is a point I never disputed, and even stated that I agreed with. Of course, that didn't stop the accusation that I'm holding "only" conservatives to certain standards.

But amidst all the sanctimonious holier-than-thouism, I felt the need to interject as the conservatives' halos were shimmering into existence and they're thanking God that they're conservatives and that they're elected officials don't do things like that. I should point out that conservatives also have a history of vilifying their opponents with the most obscene over-the-top demonizing.

And it's taken me an unreasonable length of time to refute (repeatedly) against the charge that I am comparing pundits to politicians, and all I committed the damnable sin of actually mentioning Coulter and Limbaugh only as flunkies that were willing to run with the "traitor" accusation that Gingrich passed around like candy on Halloween. No matter how many times I pointed out that I gave examples of Wilson, Bush, Gingrich, and Chambliss, I still get, "::blink, blink:: Why are you comparing pundits to politicians? ::blink, blink::"

As I said, I do not understand this. If this were a spoken exchange, I could possibly see this happening, but when the words are right in front of you if you take two seconds to scroll up? How does that happen?

All this effort to point this out, and I haven't even played my high card yet.

Let's not forget Sarah "Death Panels" Palin, who basically accused the liberals of wanting to form committees to see if people like her youngest son Trig would be allowed to live. Very good, Sarah. Play that "mother defending her child" card, even though no one's threatening her child or any other developmentally disabled person. Similar to the phenomenon I see manifested on this board with bizarre frequency, no matter how many times it's explained that "end-of-life counseling" is about making decisions for your care should you no longer be in a position to state your wishes, not about death panels, the Death Panels theme became a rallying cry. And even though the conservatives knew damned well that they were spouting bullshit, they found the means to whip up the ignorant fears of their base.

"The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! And they're out to kill grandma!"

He was Speaker of the House when he advocated (and exemplified) the use of "traitor" to demonize opponents. Bush was stumping for Saxby Chambliss when the over-the-top comparison of Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. [sic]

Here we go again.

Yes, Gingrich was the Speaker of the House when the memo was distributed. Read my post again and you'll see that readily acknowledged. The memo in question, however, was an internal party memo distributed by GOPAC. It was not distributed by the Speaker's office nor as an official communique from the Speaker of the House.

Yes, Saxby Chambliss was a Congressman when the ad to which you so strongly object was aired. Again, read my post and you'll see this acknowledged as well. But, at that time, he was also a candidate for the Senate seat held by Cleland. And it was in the context of that campaign that the ad was aired, not in Chambliss' official capacity as a Congressman or Chairman of a House committee on counter-terrorism and intelligence. Candidates, like pundits, often engage in hyperbole (sometimes to the degradation of their campaigns, but that's a matter we can take up later).

And the ad did not compare Cleland to Saddam and bin Laden. It used their images to warn of the consequences of the delay in establishing the DHS. Was it over-the-top? Yes. That's why several prominent Republicans joined in asking that it be taken off the air. And it was.

No one disagrees that politicians of all stripes paint their opponents in the most unflattering light, often resorting to exaggeration and hyperbole (and sometimes outright lies) to do so.

This thread is about healthcare and the left demonizing all who oppose the current healthcare bill. Pelosi and Reid have uttered statement about the opponents to their healthcare bills that go beyond the pale, comparing them to slaveholders and Nazis. And Pelosi and Reid made these statements in the official capacity of their offices.

Bush warning that countries that are not with us in opposing the terrorists may be considered against us may have been a bit over-the-top, but it harkens back to the old saw that the only thing needed for evil to triumph completely is for good men to do nothing.

"The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming! And they're out to kill grandma!"

I thought the Youth in Asia were going to kill grandma.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6291674

Hardly the time to revamp the pay-grades, you know?

'cause it would be so much better trying to restructure things after you've got an entrenched bureaucracy wedded to the old ways in place?

No, that was exactly the time to lay the groundwork for a performance-based DHS rather than a tenure-based DHS.

Cleland was not the only one to authorize the use of force and came do regret it.

No, but Cleland admitted he voted in favor of the resolution because of re-election considerations - not because he was swayed by the pretty flowing speech of a president that we all have to admit was not always on speaking terms with the English language.

That's not exactly the portrait of the lone man of honor you keep trying to paint.

Cleland was a good man. He was a war hero in Vietnam. He was a political moderate. He actually supported several of Bush's measures in the war on terror as well as his tax cuts. I disagree with his stance on drilling for oil in the ANWR. He held a variety of views and was not a doctrinaire leftist.

But he was also a Democrat, which means his political fortunes were tied to maintaining the support of the unions (including civil service unions). Allowing a Cabinet-level department to be formed without the civil service unions could have meant the end of his political career. It is doubtful that, like Joe Leiberman, Cleland could have kept his seat as an independent.

That means Cleland had to hold out for a civil service guidelines ruled DHS. And that meant those who opposed installing the civil service bureaucracy in DHS had to oust him.

Actually, Bush had misled most of the Senate when it came to the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Funny how, to liberals, Bush was a borderline-retarded idiot yet he still managed to con a room full of his intellectual superiors, many of whom had access to the same information. And Bush managed to do it time and time again. Anytime a liberal has to explain a vote he regrets, it's "Bush lied."

"And in a printed media, I am at a loss to understand this phenomenon, especially when I have to explain it three times."

My sentiments exactly....

Conan: Yes, Gingrich was the Speaker of the House when the memo was distributed. Read my post again and you'll see that readily acknowledged. The memo in question, however, was an internal party memo distributed by GOPAC. It was not distributed by the Speaker's office nor as an official communique from the Speaker of the House.

Here we go again, indeed. I must point out (AGAIN!) that Gingrich put this into practice. This is not simply some harmless communique that Gingrich circulated. See my previous remarks about the 1990 budget debate. These were rules he abided by. (And suggesting that he didn't circulate this while acting in his "official capacity," smacks of this "off the record" plea that so many in high offices want to use to justify inappropriate comments. There is no such thing as "off the record." And if Gingrich circulated this to the GOP while Speaker of the House, he was acting in his official capacity. This was not a email to his wife. It was a circulated memo to his political allies.)

Conan: I thought the Youth in Asia were going to kill grandma.

Oh, very good.

Conan: And the ad did not compare Cleland to Saddam and bin Laden. It used their images to warn of the consequences of the delay in establishing the DHS. Was it over-the-top? Yes. That's why several prominent Republicans joined in asking that it be taken off the air. And it was.

Disingenuous. The pictures were side by side, for one thing. What else can be inferred? Chambliss, by the way, has no regrets about running this ad, and described it as truthful in every way. Cleland actually co-sponsored the creation of the DHS. But stood against it, because he wanted to insulate the department employees from coercive political pressures from the White House. You can insist all you care to that he only did so because his political fortunes were tied to unions. But I have a statement of Cleland's which I already posted that indicates his objections were to leaving them without civil service. You have forwarded exactly zero statements of Cleland's to support your contention.

This "Cleland knew...therefore he did this..." is simple mind-reading, and I've never believed in that.

Conan: Funny how, to liberals, Bush was a borderline-retarded idiot yet he still managed to con a room full of his intellectual superiors, many of whom had access to the same information. And Bush managed to do it time and time again. Anytime a liberal has to explain a vote he regrets, it's "Bush lied."

Not so funny when you realize that most political figures surround themselves with advisers. Or in the case of Karl Rove, a puppeteer. Rove is completely without conscience and there is nothing over-the-top where he is concerned. In an effort to place his candidate, Harold See, in an elected judge's spot in Alabama, he started a whisper campaign against See's opponent, Mark Kennedy, claiming that Kennedy (a staunch advocate for the protection of children) was a pedophile.

Being a sociopath has its advantages. You never need worry about the consequences your actions might have on others. Who cares what such an ugly rumor in a state like Alabama might bring about to Kennedy? Gotta make sure Rove's man wins the election. (On the positive side, Rove did, in fact, fail this time. And See lost. By less than 1% of the vote.) And Rove's signature move is to attack the front that looks unassailable. Witness the smear campaign against John Kerry. His status as a Viet Nam vet vs. Georgie's draft-dodging. Yet, that's what Rove went after. Score one for him. Although personally, I'm rather glad I have feelings, thanks.

Yes, the liberals were extremely slow to catch on to the fact that Bush is controlled by an unconscionable bastard. But it's not hard to see how Bush apparently conned the liberals so often when you realize the Svengali behind him has no qualms about...anything.

Conan: 'cause it would be so much better trying to restructure things after you've got an entrenched bureaucracy wedded to the old ways in place?

No, that was exactly the time to lay the groundwork for a performance-based DHS rather than a tenure-based DHS.

I strongly disagree. We just had the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. Not the time to diddle over revamping the structure. Especially since the new DHS would simply be one more office entrenched in the old order of how many government offices were there prior to the DHS? Dozens? Hundreds? More?

Lefties can just claim that they're emulating Bush's "your with us or the terrorists" comment. Except Bush was right, and the lefties are wrong.

You can insist all you care to that he only did so because his political fortunes were tied to unions.

I'm not insisting. I'm suggesting.

As a Democrat, unions (including civil service unions) were a major component of his electoral and financial support. There is no way that the unions would have subsequently supported any representative who had voted in favor of creating a Cabinet-level department that would be exempt from union rules.

But I have a statement of Cleland's which I already posted that indicates his objections were to leaving them without civil service.

Of course his statement didn't say, "I'm in thrall to the unions and can't afford to cross them."

But his statement on voting for the Iraq resolution, which I posted, showed him putting his political interests ahead of the misgivings that he said afterward had plagued him before the vote.

Of course, both of these are just statements. And we both know politicians are not known for their veracity, whether they served in Vietnam, flew jets in the Air National Guard instead, or skipped service altogether due to a football injury.

I strongly disagree. We just had the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. Not the time to diddle over revamping the structure.

You can make a strong argument that creating the DHS was not the right time to try and enact civil service reform. You can also argue that the existing civil service work rules would make it more difficult to politicize the department.

And you can also argue that it was the right time to reform those rules because what was needed in such an important department was a performance-based system rather than a tenure-based system.

Neither argument makes the other one evil or wrong. But if you're a proponent of one view and you've got a chance to replace an opponent with an ally, you're going to take it. That's what Bush did.

Yes, the liberals were extremely slow to catch on to the fact that Bush is controlled by an unconscionable bastard. But it's not hard to see how Bush apparently conned the liberals so often when you realize the Svengali behind him has no qualms about...anything.

So, now it's not Bush the Retard, it's Rove the Sociopath who's to blame. I see. Well, as long as you've got someone to blame, you'll never have to take responsiblity for your own actions.

Conan: So, now it's not Bush the Retard, it's Rove the Sociopath who's to blame. I see. Well, as long as you've got someone to blame, you'll never have to take responsiblity for your own actions.

I don't need to blame someone for my actions. I never voted to go to war in Iraq. I am merely suggesting that suggesting Bush's image as a somewhat dull-witted clod is not at all inconsistent with the con jobs he was able to pull on Democrats. Who, again, were very slow to realize that Bush (under the control of Rove) had no misgivings whatsoever about lying to gain support. (I prefer not to use the word "retard" like a synonym for "stupid." Retarded people do not owe their affliction to any fault of their own and to use their condition as an insult is tasteless and cruel.)

And I am in no way exonerating democrats. If you don't support war, you don't vote for it. None of this, "We need to send a clear message."

Their clear message should have been "no to the invasion of Iraq."

Retarded people do not owe their affliction to any fault of their own and to use their condition as an insult is tasteless and cruel.

I agree.

I gather then, that you'll soon be censuring Russell Brand, cafepress, EvilBible, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, stormfront, urban dictionary, Robert Redford, and other leftists for their use of "retarded" in referring to George W. Bush?

I don't need to blame someone for my actions.

Not "you" as in Patrick, "you" as in the general you. Democrats seem to think that as long as they can blame Bush (or Rove), they have no responsibility for whatever they did.

I'm growing weary of this exchange.

To you Bush was an evil maniac and/or a pawn of Karl Rove, the evil sociopath. And you seem unwilling to consider any argument to the contrary.

To me, Bush was a flawed president who had noble intentions, but got blindsided by events and made some mistakes along the way. However, I doubt any president could have succeeded facing the level of Congressional perfidy, media hostility, and world instability that Bush faced.

Since we'll never agree on this, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find a book on Calvinist Geneva.

Conan: I gather then, that you'll soon be censuring Russell Brand, cafepress, EvilBible, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, stormfront, urban dictionary, Robert Redford, and other leftists for their use of "retarded" in referring to George W. Bush?

You think I should send them emails about it? I doubt they'd listen to me. But I am familiar with the Chris Rock quote. Someone was using it as their signature line. I asked him to remove it, and when several other posters concurred, he removed it.

On another occasion, someone (who, ironically, is probably the staunchest liberal on the board) created a thread that he entitled, "This Applies To All Of Us...Including Me."

I opened the thread and saw a really breathtaking picture of a young, obviously mentally-challenged child in a runner's uniform, complete with a competitor's number, obviously engaged in some cross country running competition. He was smiling broadly and the surroundings were beautiful: green trees, blue sky.

I was thinking this picture should be blown up and made into an inspirational poster...until I read the caption.

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...win or lose, you're still a retard."

I couldn't believe that this staunch liberal would be so uncouth and so cruel. And interestingly enough, he was one of the four liberals who called me a racist because I don't support Obama, and voted for McCain. And because I thought Peggy Joseph had no self-respect, expecting Obama to take care of her gas and mortgage.

Conan: Not "you" as in Patrick, "you" as in the general you. Democrats seem to think that as long as they can blame Bush (or Rove), they have no responsibility for whatever they did.

Since you're tired of this exchange, I should mention that we do have some common ground. I agree that the Democrats are looking to blame someone else for their mistakes. Regardless of how evil Rove is or isn't, responsibility for how the Democrats voted rests with them.

"It's not our fault because Bush lied," is bullshit. You don't support war. Then you don't vote for war. The idea that something as drastic as a declaration of war should be treated as merely a clear message that America speaks with one voice is irresponsible. The authorization to use force should be regarded as serious as a heart attack, not a tool to make statements with.

"Let's not forget Sarah "Death Panels" Palin, who basically accused the liberals of wanting to form committees to see if people like her youngest son Trig would be allowed to live."

"Death Panels" had already been included and funded within the TARP legislation. Check out reality sometime, Patrick - she was right.

We've had death panels for years

Organ transplant review boards
Quailty of life commitees(these are the folks who decide how much cash to blow on life support for people without insurance)

The way I see it health insurance should be like education.

You get a shitty system that everyone gets for free, emergency care(for acctual emergencies only)

And if you want something better you pay for it yourself.

Everyone likes to share insurance stories so I'll sahre mine. My mothers boyfriend is a diebetic, insulin dependant. A few years ago there was a major power outage substation completely fried.

His insulin which needed to be refrigerated spoiled. For what ever reason a insurance bureacrat told him he would not be authorised for a new insulin prescription until his supply was originally projected to run out. So three times a day for just over a month he went to the emergency room for an insulin injection.

In an effort to save the cost of one doctors visit and one precsription his insurance company decided to pay for more than 100 trips to the ER.

Now thats just one company's buracracy - what makes anyone think a national sized buracracy is going to be any better with even more levels and hoops to navigate?

Organ transplant review boards are not death panels, per se. They simply prioritize and the ones who are low priority die before their turn comes up.

You might not see a difference, and practically speaking, there isn't one. But no one is told "you're not going to get one."

And if you have money, as in the cases of Larry Hagman and Mickey Mantle, you can bypass the process.

"Not so funny when you realize that most political figures surround themselves with advisers. Or in the case of Karl Rove, a puppeteer."

Patrick, the Left has said those exact words about every Republican President of the 20th century. They said it about Bush Sr. They said it about Reagan -- Democrats called him the stupidest President ever, someone who only got elected because he was a movie star, and could barely remember his own name, much less be President. They said it about Nixon. They said it about Eisenhower -- hey, everyone know Montgomery was the brains behind the Allied armies of WWII! They even said it about Hoover, whose economic policies weren't all that different from FDR's.

So when leftists accuse any of the political opposition to be of low intelligence, I dismiss it out of hand. Because, hey, everyone knows that you can't call yourself intelligent if you aren't a leftist!