Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I can't believe that we are still having this conversation. Does anyone really dispute that:

1. There are Republicans who disagree with other Republicans.
2. Some of these Republicans are willing to do so in public.
3. There are Democrats who disagree with other Democrats.
4. Some of these Democrats are willing to do so in public.
5. As a general rule, the Democratic Party is less well organized, and stays on message less often, than the Republican Party.
6. Republican possession of all three branches of government tends to make Democratic criticism of other Democrats less likely, and Republican criticism of other Republicans more likely.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Besides, calling Rush a conservative commentator is something akin to calling Al Franken a liberal commentator. They both have radio shows, and they both have political views, but really they're just satirists.

I am not fond of Rush, but his impact on conservative talk radio cannot be dismissed as satire. True that some people find his show entertaining, but that isn't responsible for the lasting impact of his radio show.

Franken is a nobody trying to be a somebody. He is a satirist, but not a funny one, IMHO. The most in common he has with Rush is his past drug use.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
After all the shit I gave him the other day, I feel obligated to note that Scalia apologized to reporters for the federal marshals having confiscated the reporters' recordings of his public speech.

He even feels chastened enough, apparently, to revise his policy to allow such recordings by the media.

Kudos to him.

edited to add link -- T.S.

You are a bit late to the party.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
3. There are Democrats who disagree with other Democrats.
4. Some of these Democrats are willing to do so in public.

Cite please. And candidates opposing each other in a primary don't count.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
5. As a general rule, the Democratic Party is less well organized, and stays on message less often, than the Republican Party.

I will give you the less organized, but you all sure do got that "Bush Lied" mantra down pat. No variation from that one.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
6. Republican possession of all three branches of government tends to make Democratic criticism of other Democrats less likely, and Republican criticism of other Republicans more likely.

Did the Reps have all three branches in the Nixon era? Nixon wouldn't have left office if it weren't for Howard Baker.

What about when GB 41 was president? Lots of Reps weren't too happy with him raising those taxes and said so. Did the Reps have all three branches then?

I don't agree with Bilmore on this (see I will criticize him). This behavior is endemic to the Democratic soul.

eta - I really am asking if the Reps had all three branches at those times. I am drawing a blank but I think the house at least was controlled by the Dems. I am too lazy to google it.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
While I, Gattigap and Larry, as the voices of reason, push the compromise position of "a few swift kicks in the ass, one in the nuts, and a trip to the unemployment line."

Ah, the Cartman doctrine.

Speaking of trips to the unemployment line, our local paper ran a column by some octogenarian gentleman last week. It was a mildly interesting reminiscence of growing up in the Depression.

Some junior editorial assistant decides to put a subhead on it insinuating that the current unemployment rate (oh, my gawd, it's almost SIX percent!) means that we're pretty much already in the new great depression.

F'ing media.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite please.

Will Rogers said this for a reason.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did the Reps have all three branches in the Nixon era?

No.

What about when GB 41 was president? Lots of Reps weren't too happy with him raising those taxes and said so. Did the Reps have all three branches then?

No.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Will Rogers said this for a reason.

Got a more recent cite of a Dem actually criticizing a Dem president?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Got a more recent cite of a Dem actually criticizing a Dem president?

Like I said, I can't believe we're still having this conversation. Where were you when Clinton was in office, Planet 10?

It is true that one happy side effect of the massive fuck-up that Bush et al. have made of Iraq is that many Republicans are disenchanted with Bush.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Got a more recent cite of a Dem actually criticizing a Dem president?

No, because we haven't had a Dem president recently.

This is the next best thing. TNR criticizing TDS.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Got a more recent cite of a Dem actually criticizing a Dem president?

Lieberman - Clinton.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/824a1Lieberman.pdf

Y'know, you're getting quite boring over this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am not fond of Rush, but his impact on conservative talk radio cannot be dismissed as satire. True that some people find his show entertaining, but that isn't responsible for the lasting impact of his radio show.

I'm not saying that he has no impact on talk radio. I'm saying that including him in a list that includes Novak, McLaughlin, and Will leads invariably to a session of "which in this group doesn't belong?"

You are a bit late to the party.

Scalia sent his letter on Friday. I saw this and posted on the following Monday, so unless your standard item of measurement is an egg timer, I'm not sure what you mean, unless the goal is to simply extend the thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Lieberman - Clinton.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/824a1Lieberman.pdf

Y'know, you're getting quite boring over this.

I would like to say that I thought of posting this very example, or perhaps something later in Clinton's second term -- pardons, anyone? -- but then I thought, why feed the beast? She can't be that obtuse. You're just encouraging her.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Like I said, I can't believe we're still having this conversation. Where were you when Clinton was in office, Planet 10?

Only after the DNA showed he giszed on her dress. JFC, it takes irrefutable DNA evidence of sperm on an intern's dress before a Dem will criticize a Dem.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It is true that one happy side effect of the massive fuck-up that Bush et al. have made of Iraq is that many Republicans are disenchanted with Bush.

Nothing could ever make me use the term "happy" in reference to something that resulted in the death of so many Americans.

Hey Ty - was that you I saw demonstrating in SF Saturday:

http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Scalia sent his letter on Friday. I saw this and posted on the following Monday, so unless your standard item of measurement is an egg timer, I'm not sure what you mean, unless the goal is to simply extend the thread.

Pssst. Gatti. He means the "Scalia is the greatest thing since sliced mortadella" party. We're all a little late to that party.