Politics: A new beginning

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, that was just nasty.

I like it.

(Imagine, a contemporary Democrat railing against the vileness of misrepresenting someone else's position! Well, no, I just can't even think of such a thing . . . )

You really don't need your former reputation for fairness and impartiality anymore, I take it. Well, it was a nice fiction while it lasted.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Concur. To pick an emotionally hot-button topic and accuse the other guy of being against something that one simply cannot be against, is vile. The whole point of such ads is to force away debate on the issue. If the other guy then raises a question about how the issue is being handled, em is certainly a deeply misguided person, and probably anti-American, or worse. The ad's aim is to prevent any discussion on a topic, which by its nature is important, and should be open to debate.
Such ads are unfair and are themselves misguided.

I should admit. I haven't been following the thread. You were talking about the Democrat's ads that accuse Republicans of hating children because they question whether the Department of Education fulfills any legitimate or valuable role, right?

No, but it fits anyway.

Has anyone else seen this ad of which Hank speaks?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The problem with the ads is not that they're not "civil." They're flat-out dishonest. And they take a cause around which the nation should be rallying, and use it in a divisive way for partisan gain. It's not a question of style -- it's their substance.

If you are going to take that position then you also must condem the following, all of which are essentially the DEMs position over the last 40 years:

1. Cuts (or reductions to increases in spending) for education = GOP is against kids

2. Cuts (or reductions to increases in spending) or reform for SS or Medicare = GOP is against old people and poor people

3. Anti-affirmative action = GOP is racist

4. Any change to enviromental policy = GOP is against protecting the environment

I could go on, but the point is that this happens all the time on both sides. While I don't think the DEMS are anti-terrorists, they have been criticizing Bush at every turn from the beginning FOR PARTISAN GAIN. He's rushing to war. There's not enough troops. He's not working with the UN, etc.

Stop bitching and offer up a REALISTIC alternative. Newsflash - neither the UN nor NATO would have gone in to Iraq even if we would have asked nicely. Neither has sufficient troops (apart from ours) and are both content to let the US suffer the costs and casualties. And why not? They've been riding our coat tails for the last 60 years, why should they stop now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You really don't need your former reputation for fairness and impartiality anymore, I take it. Well, it was a nice fiction while it lasted.

I find that you just can't get the chicks as a "nice guy" anymore.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I find that you just can't get the chicks as a "nice guy" anymore.

I wondered why the chick traffic has picked up in recent months.

Sgtclub has a point re: Dem experience in mischaracterizing the opposition's position. From looking at the transcript of the current ad, I'm not surprised by its appearance, and frankly I'd have assumed that it would be worse. It *is* early, though.

(And, give it time -- it'll become much worse. By summer, you'll have The Republicans for A Safer, Better, and Nicer Society paying for ads that superimpose an image of Howard Dean* onto Satan, Clinton, Hillary, Saddam, OBL, Hitler, and John Baysdow**.)

The interesting question to my mind, though, is which party will end up using the flight-suit images from the carrier deck. Depending on how events unfold, I could see either one -- but it'll probably be the Dems.

Gattigap

* Not a sure thing, but looking more likely by the day.
** Some, of course, will charge that this list contains redundancies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you are going to take that position then you also must condem the following, all of which are essentially the DEMs position over the last 40 years:

This reductio ad absurdum stuff is boring. If you don't see a qualitative distinction between the new GOP ad and other political advertising, I have a hard time believe you went to law school.

While I don't think the DEMS are anti-terrorists, they have been criticizing Bush at every turn from the beginning FOR PARTISAN GAIN. He's rushing to war. There's not enough troops. He's not working with the UN, etc.

Some of us criticized Bush when it was not the popular thing to do because we thought he was doing the wrong thing. Events are increasingly proving us right (cue bilmore for the speech about how everything is going great in Iraq). I realize that this will make no sense to die-hard Republicans, and you know who you are, but there are things more important than partisan gain.

Stop bitching and offer up a REALISTIC alternative. Newsflash - neither the UN nor NATO would have gone in to Iraq even if we would have asked nicely.

Newsflash -- save that one for your arguments with your seven-year-old cousin tomorrow. The war in Iraq had little or nothing to with terrorism in any direct sense. (The neo-cons will tell you that they wanted to democratize Iraq to drain the swamp.) More is coming out about how gearing up for the war in Iraq undermined our efforts in Afghanistan (you know, where we were fighting the war on terrorism). And a containment strategy is looking better by comparison every day.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
I find that you just can't get the chicks as a "nice guy" anymore.

I should expand on this while I'm still chuckling.

After having seen, over the past two years, the depths that the mainstream Dem voices have delved in strident, personal, degrading, insulting crap, it is indeed humorous to hear them now complain when Bush says "some are attacking me for attacking terrorism". It is so blatently, outrageously, straight-facedly hypocritical as to be funny.

You can call Bush a lying, self-enriching, kid-hating drunk moron, but he can't question your characterization of his choice of strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism?

Fairness and impartiality do not encompass acknowledgment of idiocy and personal vileness as merely another voice of reason with merely a different bent.

[bilmore]

I'm going to spend Thanksgiving re-reading Romo v. Ford and being thankful.

Wow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I should expand on this while I'm still chuckling.

After having seen, over the past two years, the depths that the mainstream Dem voices have delved in strident, personal, degrading, insulting crap, it is indeed humorous to hear them now complain when Bush says "some are attacking me for attacking terrorism". It is so blatently, outrageously, straight-facedly hypocritical as to be funny.

You can call Bush a lying, self-enriching, kid-hating drunk moron, but he can't question your characterization of his choice of strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism?

(1) Cite, please. What "mainstream Dem voice" called Condi Rice a whore?*

(2) My three-year-old hasn't figured out "he started it" as a defense yet, but I imagine it's not going to get him very far when he does.

Fairness and impartiality do not encompass acknowledgment of idiocy and personal vileness as merely another voice of reason with merely a different bent.

Put down The National Review and slowly step away.


* Please note: Noam Chomsky, Peter Thottam and Al Sharpton are not mainstream Dem voices.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please note: Noam Chomsky, Peter Thottam and Al Sharpton are not mainstream Dem voices.

Tell me that Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt are fringe, too, and I'll feel better about the whole thing.

Include in that the entire set of mainstream liberal pundits, commentators, and reporters (pick your own mags) and I'll be almost relaxed about it all.

Pelosi, I'll concede. She simply can't be anyone's voice of Reason.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This reductio ad absurdum stuff is boring. If you don't see a qualitative distinction between the new GOP ad and other political advertising, I have a hard time believe you went to law school.

I don't see a material difference.*

*The fact that I used "material" should be proof enough that I went to law school.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Some of us criticized Bush when it was not the popular thing to do because we thought he was doing the wrong thing. Events are increasingly proving us right (cue bilmore for the speech about how everything is going great in Iraq). I realize that this will make no sense to die-hard Republicans, and you know who you are, but there are things more important than partisan gain.

You may actually be sincere in stating this, but most of your comrades were/are not. The DEMs have been using the war from the beginning for partisan gain. What's funny is that many of them have the gaul of voting for the war (for political cover, in case it went extremely well) and then criticizing once they learned (through Dean, who has actually been principled on this) that it wasn't the right position to appeal to their base. So now the GOP (not the administration per se) is fighting back and they scream bloody murder. What a fucking joke.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Newsflash -- save that one for your arguments with your seven-year-old cousin tomorrow. The war in Iraq had little or nothing to with terrorism in any direct sense. (The neo-cons will tell you that they wanted to democratize Iraq to drain the swamp.) More is coming out about how gearing up for the war in Iraq undermined our efforts in Afghanistan (you know, where we were fighting the war on terrorism). And a containment strategy is looking better by comparison every day.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I sleep well at night knowing that, when our national security is at stake, the administration is not waiting for a smoking gun (or bomb) before taking action. And, I'll say again, WMD was not the only reason put forth for going to war, and you, the NYT, your boy Josh, and a host of others made that point time back in February when you were criticizing Bush for not being clear as to why we were going in (is it for humanitarian purpose, WMD, etc.?).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stop bitching and offer up a REALISTIC alternative. Newsflash - neither the UN nor NATO would have gone in to Iraq even if we would have asked nicely. Neither has sufficient troops (apart from ours) and are both content to let the US suffer the costs and casualties. And why not? They've been riding our coat tails for the last 60 years, why should they stop now.

Stepping away from the decision to go in for a moment, because clearly the battle lines have been drawn on that one, I'm curious whether you think it would have been an unrealistic alternative to involve the world community sooner after the end of "major combat".

At that time we went to the UN and got a resolution basically making the reconstruction our show. Then months later, once things started to go less smoothly, we went back for a new resolution that we hoped would somehow encourage other countries to help more. None have stepped forward, leaving the price tag on the shoulders of the American taxpayers to the tune of $100+ billion so far (including military costs).

After the experience of the first Iraq war, where through attention to our diplomatic relationships and some pointed arm-twisting from James Baker the US paid only $9b of the $61b price tag, are you really telling me that there was no realistic alternative to this administration's handling of Iraq? Have our former allies in NATO and the UN gotten so selfish over the intervening 10 years?

Or am I misreading you and this argument only about the decision to go in to Iraq? Even so, I would argue that the successful reconstruction of Iraq is part of "taking the fight to the terorrists" and I'm rather disappointed by our prosecution of that reconstruction.

(As I said yesterday, I don't have much problem with the ad, mainly because if people believe it they deserve Bush as their president)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...948EST0744.DTL

(Senate GOP staffer put on leave for accessing "secure" Democratic computer files)

Between this story and the Intelligence Committee memo that was leaked, I'm wondering, since when is a congressional committee staff gig so full of intrigue and espionage?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I should expand on this while I'm still chuckling.

After having seen, over the past two years, the depths that the mainstream Dem voices have delved in strident, personal, degrading, insulting crap, it is indeed humorous to hear them now complain when Bush says "some are attacking me for attacking terrorism". It is so blatently, outrageously, straight-facedly hypocritical as to be funny.

You can call Bush a lying, self-enriching, kid-hating drunk moron, but he can't question your characterization of his choice of strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism?

Fairness and impartiality do not encompass acknowledgment of idiocy and personal vileness as merely another voice of reason with merely a different bent.

You're acting like you're shocked - shocked, I tell you - at some name-calling by Dems, as if this sprang purely from the left without warning or any basis in fact. The right's inability to take what they dish out is just as funny. I'll remind you of the right-wing reaction to the Clinton presidency and liberalism over the last decade. Hypocrisy isn't one-sided.

As for the ad, as Tyrone points out, you can't miss the qualitative difference between calling Bush a lying, self-enriching, kid-hating drunk moron, and labeling those who do so traitors.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
. . . I'm curious whether you think it would have been an unrealistic alternative to involve the world community sooner after the end of "major combat".

It really wasn't a binary solution set, was it? I doubt anyone would argue that we were simply better off keeping everyone else out, but there were costs that they attempted to impose as a condition of joining that we found to be unacceptable.