The 1990s were dominated by the Clinton presidency, so it’s slightly more difficult to find Democratic excess targeted at Republicans; the natural lightning rod is the President.
But sure. In the 1980s, The Nation’s columnists called George Schultz “demented” and “rabid,” over the bombing of Libya. The publication also compared Reagan to George Wallace’s “I will not be out-n***ered,” by proclaiming that Reagan would not be “out-colored.” And Richard Cohen wrote:
Bush was subjected to considerably more vitriol than one person calling him a monkey. Look at this board and do a search on “Shurb,” or “smirk.”
Is that an argument directed at me? Are you asking me to defend statements I never made and don’t endorse?
Perhaps, then, you and I can compare records. Would you say I’ve ever leveled a name-calling insult against a Democratic national politician?
Have you?
I don’t support Trump myself, so I’m not the best messenger of the views of those that do.
Your points are irrelevant to what I’m saying. I’m not in denial that Trump was elected president. I have no idea what straw man you think you’re attacking.
Fortas’ opposition was not primarily partisan in nature. 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted for cloture; 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against cloture.
How about elected by an actual majority of voters?
Losing by millions but “winning” because we want white votes to matter more than minority votes (which is what the Electoral College does) can hardly be called a democracy. Ethnocracy perhaps, but Democracy? Don’t make me puke.
It has been my experience that CTs are generally “true, though not widely known”. Please do yourself and you cause a favor by not propagating stuff like this.
I do believe that Democratic elected officials are, by and large, more reasonable, less obstructionist, and willing to work across the aisle than Republican elected officials as a whole.
But when it comes to the red and blue *voters *- well, no, plenty of people in both camps are downright frightening. I believe that most of them are, deep down, driven by the same stamp-the-other-side-out-of-existence motivation as the other. I truly believe with all sincerity that many red and blue voters would happily resort to tyrannical, maybe even murderous, means to wipe each other out, if the powder keg’s fuse was ever lit. Reading Internet comment sections from both sides alike often leaves little hope for democracy.
What does this have to do with my dismissal of him basically saying “scoreboard!” in an irrelevant attempt to refute something he thought I said?
I tried digging into this one a little bit but I’m not sure there’s a conclusive answer. I think I originally read it in The Guardian, which is not exactly Alex Jones. According to this, Chirac called the University of Lausanne to get someone knowledgeable about the Bible to decipher what Chirac claimed Bush said, which is documented in their university magazine in 2007. Chirac apparently reaffirmed the story in an interview published in this book, but I can’t find a translation.
As far as I can tell, Chirac claims that this was said on a conversation to him, and there is a record of him calling a university to get more information about “gog and magog”, which supports the claim. There’s no recording or other documented proof. But it does seem plausible for a guy that said he personally talks to god to make decisions - why not?
That said, it’s not really relevant to the conversation here. I’d be happy to pretend I never said it. My point was that Bush had done things by that point to deserve criticism and hatred - he created a war based on lies (whether he did it as a religious nutjob isn’t necessary to criticize him) and as such, the hatred for him after the war and the hatred for summer 2007 Obama are not the same thing.
BTW, SenorBeef, just in case you try and “prove” your assertion, here is the “counter proof”. First hand reporting from someone who was actually there. So no, your assertion is not “true” regardless of how widely known or unknown it is. It has been reported, yes. Verified? No way.
And let me just add that I’m pretty much in agreement with the overall thesis you are driving here. My sense is that the GOP is much worse at these things than the Democrats are. Not that you can’t find individual instances that match up pretty close on the different sides, but there is no comparison in terms of the “quality”, quantity, and the level of the source for such things on the GOP side. But it’s one of those things that is so hard to prove, and so divided itself along party lines that it’s hardly worth the effort to argue about. No one is going to change his mind.
Others later did contradict the reports, but not citing directly, so IMHO one can make the argument that there is doubt about it nowadays, but I have not seen the original reporters backing down from what was said then. Bottom line: SenorBeef is not inventing that, nor it was a CT.
But I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that terrible, but true things were said about Bush. Yes, many terrible, but true things were said about him. But many untrue things were said about him, as well, in addition to the partisan sniping (like constantly calling hime “Shrub” or whatever).
Yes, lots of folks thought Obama would cancel elections-- and lots of folks thought Bush would, too. People called Obama “Hitler”-- and people called Bush “Hitler”, too. People even claimed Bush’s Texas accent was fake. You’re hardly going to win the argument by comparing how Bush and Obama were treated by the folks on the ground in either side of the debate. It’s more about the party as a whole, and actions and statements made by members in Congress. On that, I don’t doubt that “the GOP is worse”. I can’t even bring myself to trust the good ones anymore, because they get swamped out by the not so good ones, and they don’t fight back nearly hard enough.
You can witness that in the Pit with the calls to barely veiled calls to violence there. It’s extraordinarily disappointing how hypocritical support for fundamental rights really is.
