# Honorable Republicans - are you out there? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 22, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691 "2005-07-22T19:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/101 "2005-07-24T12:34:57Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > …Devious plan, eh hosers? 😉 Hoser Daddy? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/102 "2005-07-24T16:33:48Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Maybe it’s just me, but declaring the President not-human seems over the line. Probably OK for the Pit, but… jeez, tacky. C’mon, Guin. Not really, if you think about how low human beings can sink to. I don’t even have that high of an opinion of humans to begin with. At any rate, the way I understood it was that even if you’re not covert, you’re not supposed to tell people you work for the CIA, even if you’re just a secretary or whatever. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/103 "2005-07-24T17:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > At any rate, the way I understood it was that even if you’re not covert, you’re not supposed to tell people you work for the CIA, even if you’re just a secretary or whatever. Is that right? I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure Porter Goss, for example, is allowed to tell people he works for the CIA. But it is illegal for a government employee with classified clearance to reveal the identity of a covert CIA employee. And Valerie Plame was undeniably a covert CIA employee in 2002 when Karl Rove, a government employee with classified clearance, revealed her identity as such to a reporter. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/104 "2005-07-24T18:57:26Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure Porter Goss, for example, is allowed to tell people he works for the CIA. > > But it is illegal for a government employee with classified clearance to reveal the identity of a covert CIA employee. And Valerie Plame was undeniably a covert CIA employee in 2002 when Karl Rove, a government employee with classified clearance, revealed her identity as such to a reporter. Okay, the only reason I’m asking is because I had a great-aunt who was a secretary with the CIA, and until she retired, no one in the family KNEW she was working for them. Just that she had a government job. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/105 "2005-07-24T19:30:05Z")
I’m going to do this a bit out of order and start here: > [@xbuckeye](#): > > These letters don’t talk about what the organization is trying to do, but how evil the Bush administration is. One actually wanted you to believe that Bush was going to swing through California and cut down all the Redwoods on his way to Alaska to spray oil all over the entire Arctic Tundra. They failed to mention that he was also going to club baby seals along the way, but that assertion wouldn’t suprise me. > [@xbuckeye](#): > > Ok, I just listened to [this](http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=airam/airam/demand/TheMajorityReport/7-15-05/TheMajorityReport.wma&proto=mms&mswmext=.asx) (opens windows media file) clip of Janeane Garafolo and I am not impressed. Apparently I am an American Idiot. I am emotionally immature, I am cruel, I’m a racist, I am stone cold stupid, have anger management issues, I am a ‘nasty mo-fo’, and dumb with a low consciousness and I have no critical thinking ability. :rolleyes: > If this is the best, or even representative of her show, I am not impressed. Mocking, insulting, and name-calling isn’t convincing anyone. I don’t listen to any talk radio, but I am guessing that both sides sound alot like this sample. This isn’t politics, this is grade-school nanny-nanny boo-boo. :rolleyes: some more. > If I wanted name-calling, I’d open more political threads on the SDMB. Forgive me for pointing this out, but the majority of your posts in this thread hardly reflect all the positives of the party you support, but rather, all the negative, horrible, selfish things you think about the Democrats. And your complaints are so fucking superficial that it sounds more like petty jealousy than honest ideological differences. While you may not have used the same words to describe those whose political bent you disagree with, you hardly rise above Ms. Garafalo’s overall approach. You disdain your coworkers _and_, by extension, the party they support, because they have the gall to drive instead of taking public transport, they drink Starbuck’s coffee, involve their kids in sports and the arts and donate money to institutions of _their_ choice based on _their_ ideologies. You don’t _see_ them volunteer, so they must not do it. And then you make this hilariously hypocritical statement: > [@](#): > > It doesn’t work that way. Give me my income tax back and let me spend it on a cause I believe in. I see, you should be allowed to spend your money on causes _you_ believe in, but fuck anyone else who donates theirs to a cause you disapprove of. > [@xbuckeye](#): > > My choice every election day is who do I think would make the decisions I would make were I in that position. In '04, that was not Kerry. I don’t think Kerry would have made the decisions Kerry would have wanted Kerry to make were Kerry in Kerry’s position unless a pollster and five political handlers told him to. How very sad for you that you were so grossly misled and misinformed, and obviously did no fact-finding or research to really make an honest and informed decision. The election’s over, so it may seem irrelevant, but take this as an exercise in what you should do next time. The fact of the matter is that John Kerry is a man of principles and honor, who, even in the face of fierce opposition and political game-playing, has proven to be willing to go to the mat – even using his own personal resources – in exposing corruption, fighting terrorism and upholding the laws and integrity of our nation. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that you don’t even know how instrumental John Kerry was in taking down the international banking institution that financed terrorists (including Osama bin Laden) and exposing the Iran/Contra scandal, or how tirelessly he worked with John McCain to normalize relations with Viet Nam, and resolve the issue of whether there were still any POWs being held there, against very ugly accusations against him by very vocal POW groups. For further background, with supporting links, see the following posts, one of which contains this relevant quote that contradicts your allegation that John Kerry was strictly a poll-watcher: > [@](#): > > All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry **fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed**. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5245392#post5245392) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5257376#post5257376) . And then counter that with the following post, that exposes the Bush administration as not only poll-watchers, but dirty manipulators when the results aren’t in lock-step with them: [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5205107#post5205107). Here’s an excerpt: > [@](#): > > (all emphasis mine) > > The Bush campaign needs to focus on two goals with these crucial voters – **improve their perceptions about the jobs and economy AND more sharply and aggressively define John Kerry**. Any advertising that does not either sharply define Kerry or get the truth out about the growing economy appears to be a waste of resources in this environment, an environment in which the President’s image is polarized and generally fixed. > > If the Bush team can improve these voters’ perceptions of the jobs and the economy, it would improve the President’s job approval and image ratings. **Couple that improvement with a worsening in their view of Kerry and the President can greatly improve his chances of capturing these voters.** > > Short of accomplishing these two goals or some other significant event, these voters appear poised to break heavily AGAINST President Bush in John Kerry’s favor which would hand Kerry a lion’s share of these states. I challenge you to read them and read the linked articles and cites in their entirety. > [@](#): > > Bottom line is that until the Democratic party becomes something I can believe in more that the Republican party, I am going to vote for the Republican candidate. Dems out there: live up to a standard, not down to one, I forget who said it earlier, but just 'cause the other guys did it doesn’t mean you look any better getting caught doing it. Oh my, how ironic. Based on what you’ve written here, it sounds like the Democratic party supports more of what you believe in than the Republican party. And yet, all you manage to do is buy into their lies and rhetoric and disparage those who vote differently from you. Physician, heal thyself. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/106 "2005-07-24T19:32:51Z")
> [@xbuckeye](#): > > Ok, I just listened to [this](http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=airam/airam/demand/TheMajorityReport/7-15-05/TheMajorityReport.wma&proto=mms&mswmext=.asx) (opens windows media file) clip of Janeane Garafolo and I am not impressed. Apparently I am an American Idiot. I am emotionally immature, I am cruel, I’m a racist, I am stone cold stupid, have anger management issues, I am a ‘nasty mo-fo’, and dumb with a low consciousness and I have no critical thinking ability. :rolleyes: > If this is the best, or even representative of her show, I am not impressed. Mocking, insulting, and name-calling isn’t convincing anyone. I don’t listen to any talk radio, but I am guessing that both sides sound alot like this sample. This isn’t politics, this is grade-school nanny-nanny boo-boo. :rolleyes: some more. > If I wanted name-calling, I’d open more political threads on the SDMB. Forget Garafalo. Is she running for office? Does she make law or set policy? Does she run her political party? Then why should you care what she says. It has no relevancy. The way to vote is by seeing what the candicates say, and what their past history is. You don’t vote according to what actor or comedian pissed you off. Besides - in some quarters, being a nasty mofo is cool. Sort of like being the Big Dog. One more time - you vote for or against politicians based on whether THEY did good or bad, not according to what some outsider says. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/107 "2005-07-24T20:04:44Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Besides - in some quarters, being a nasty mofo is cool. Sort of like being the Big Dog. . _CoughCoulterCough_ ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/108 "2005-07-24T20:11:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Besides - in some quarters, being a nasty mofo is cool. Sort of like being the Big Dog. . _CoughCoulterCough_ ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/109 "2005-07-24T20:25:15Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Forget Garafalo. Is she running for office? Does she make law or set policy? Does she run her political party? Then why should you care what she says. It has no relevancy. The way to vote is by seeing what the candicates say, and what their past history is. You don’t vote according to what actor or comedian pissed you off. Besides - in some quarters, being a nasty mofo is cool. Sort of like being the Big Dog. One more time - you vote for or against politicians based on whether THEY did good or bad, not according to what some outsider says. Of course it has relevancy. Didn’t you read where she admits that she doesn’t bother to learn facts before making decisions that will guide this country into the future, but instead “[loo[s] at which party has the grassroots supporters [she] can relate to.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6397108&postcount=53)” And if one party’s grassroots supporters drive, drink Starbucks, have kids in soccer and/or music lessons, or donate to causes she doesn’t believe in, for reasons she either opposes or doesn’t understand, then she will vote for any candidate other than the one they support, even if she doesn’t support that candidate’s decisions and actions. And yet she presents herself in this thread in response to requests for _honorable_ Republicans. It truly boggles. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/110 "2005-07-24T20:35:52Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Of course it has relevancy. Didn’t you read where she admits that she doesn’t bother to learn facts before making decisions that will guide this country into the future, but instead “[loo[s] at which party has the grassroots supporters [she] can relate to.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6397108&postcount=53)” > > It truly boggles. Even MORE reason to completely ignore her then. It boggles me, that people actually decide their vote if they base it on someone who is as clueless as you say she is. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/111 "2005-07-24T20:41:02Z")
My bad, I thought we were still discussing Garafolo. You’re right, this person consistently votes against the candidates who seem to support what he wants, all because of some mean actor person. As far as grass roots, we both know that is just the bullshit both parties spew, so they can pretend they care about the “common man”, and I never worried about who drinks Starbucks or drives an SUV. It’s my borderline libertarian side telling me that if they can afford to, why not. Maybe I’m a weirdo. I vote according to past history, and what is being said (the bullshit factor?) and whether I caught them in any outright lies (yet). I look at issues, not coffee and cars. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/112 "2005-07-24T21:01:42Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 2000? 2004? I was one of those who was not interested in disputing the results (even though I voted for the other guy and was disappointed). However, winning an election does not alter what has happened since then. Heck, the Republicans may keep winning elections from now on. That does not alter things that have already been done (good or bad). The last election was what - a 51 percent squeaker? Not very good for a war president with a mandate, is it? Since then approval ratings have slipped. Numbers. That’s all. Instead of talking about who won elections, let’s talk about lies, administration orchestrated personal attacks, misdirection etc. That’s more interesting. Um, **SteveG1** , this might seem out of place in the pit, but I’ve been tracking your posts for awhile and I just want to say that I think you’re one of the smartest posters on this board. I don’t always totally agree with you, but even when I don’t your posts make a lot of sense. So yeah, um, hi. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/113 "2005-07-24T21:13:48Z")
> [@continuity eror](#): > > Um, **SteveG1** , this might seem out of place in the pit, but I’ve been tracking your posts for awhile and I just want to say that I think you’re one of the smartest posters on this board. I don’t always totally agree with you, but even when I don’t your posts make a lot of sense. So yeah, um, hi. 🙂 Thanks for the compliment 😃 I’ve been corrected a few times and had to change my mind, so I don’t have a lock on being right, but I do try to give reasons for my views. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/114 "2005-07-24T22:45:02Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > …And yet she presents herself in this thread in response to requests for _honorable_ Republicans… She did? Wow, a celebrity visit to SDMB! Where is she? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/115 "2005-07-24T22:58:50Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > And the ramifications continue. I quote Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer:This is no way to fight international terrorism or weapons proliferation. The Executive branch needs to do some spring cleaning, even if it confuses their base of support. > > A question remains, however: which modern US conservatives place country above ideology? I assume you mean “party above ideology”. Anyways, what makes you think that a former CIA case officer (presumably fired for incompetence) knows more than **Sam** , Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh? I mean, hell, that’s four against one right there! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/116 "2005-07-24T23:08:08Z")
No, it’s FIVE to one now. That world famous bon vivant and man about town, Ben Stein weighed in too, with his own very erudite regurgitation of the same old bullshit talking points. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/117 "2005-07-24T23:57:22Z")
The attached statements are not contradictory. I have worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) since 1986. When I started working there, we were not supposed to tell people where we worked unless we felt it was necessary. Some people being more cautious than others, I knew people from both Agencies who didn’t even tell their familes much about their jobs. Professions with outside societies (engineers, mathematicians, etc.) have been granted more latititude over the years, but many still describe their jobs with one-word descriptions (“analyst”, “manager”, etc). Things have loosened up considerably – our gift shop now sells NSA t-shirts. The 1986 CIA was a little less strict (I met a CIA secretary at a bar in 1986-1987 who floored me by telling me where she worked – I told her I worked for “the Defense Department”, our then-official euphemism). I don’t know how loose they are now compared to us, but I do know that they sell t-shirts too. None of these circumstances apply to covert operatives. They do not have any choice in telling their friends and neighbors where they work. Most CIA employees can tell you where they work. But covert operatives are special cases thereof. I never heard anyone argue otherwise before the Plame outing. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, the only reason I’m asking is because I had a great-aunt who was a secretary with the CIA, and until she retired, no one in the family KNEW she was working for them. Just that she had a government job. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure Porter Goss, for example, is allowed to tell people he works for the CIA. > > But it is illegal for a government employee with classified clearance to reveal the identity of a covert CIA employee. And Valerie Plame was undeniably a covert CIA employee in 2002 when Karl Rove, a government employee with classified clearance, revealed her identity as such to a reporter. ---
**Author:** ![xbuckeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9e8a1a/32.png) [@xbuckeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xbuckeye)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/118 "2005-07-25T03:01:24Z")
> [@zoo](#): > > Dude, do you like, have a secret crush on this chic? Had you read my earlier post you would know that A) I am not a dude and B) I did not bring up Ms. Garafolo, I responded to a previous post. This is much easier if you read the previous posts. > [@Shayna](#): > > And your complaints are so fucking superficial that it sounds more like petty jealousy than honest ideological differences. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on the level of severity of hypocricy and what my emotional motivators are. > [@Shayna](#): > > I see, you should be allowed to spend your money on causes you believe in, but fuck anyone else who donates theirs to a cause you disapprove of. I agree that people should be allowed to support whatever charities they choose, I take issue with blaming the Bush administration for your not being willing or able to donate pocket change to the Special Olympics. If you don’t want to support the Special Olympics that is fine, but take the fall for that yourself, Bush may be responsible for alot of things, but I don’t think he made people mentally or physically disabled or is able to magically cure them of their affliction. > [@Shayna](#): > > You don’t see them volunteer, so they must not do it. Actually, I know for a fact they don’t. > [@Shayna](#): > > The fact of the matter is that John Kerry is a man of principles and honor, who, even in the face of fierce opposition and political game-playing, has proven to be willing to go to the mat – even using his own personal resources – in exposing corruption, fighting terrorism and upholding the laws and integrity of our nation. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that you don’t even know how instrumental John Kerry was in taking down the international banking institution that financed terrorists (including Osama bin Laden) and exposing the Iran/Contra scandal, or how tirelessly he worked with John McCain to normalize relations with Viet Nam, and resolve the issue of whether there were still any POWs being held there, against very ugly accusations against him by very vocal POW groups. And again, you’d be wrong. I scarcely remember Iran Contra, or the entire Reagan Administraion, to be honest. So Kerry found a bank with some connections to bin Laden in the '80’s? Both were situations that weren’t exactly top secret. If Kerry understood what he had come up against back then, why wasn’t bin Laden stopped when I was still in grade school? I would bet that there were very few banks that _didn’t_ have ties to bin Laden. What exactly was proved by Iran Contra? You can’t say on one hand that Plame deserved to be protected and then use the other to applaud Kerry for outing another covert operation. > [@Shayna](#): > > (all emphasis mine) > > The Bush campaign needs to focus on two goals with these crucial voters – improve their perceptions about the jobs and economy AND more sharply and aggressively define John Kerry. Any advertising that does not either sharply define Kerry or get the truth out about the growing economy appears to be a waste of resources in this environment, an environment in which the President’s image is polarized and generally fixed. > > If the Bush team can improve these voters’ perceptions of the jobs and the economy, it would improve the President’s job approval and image ratings. Couple that improvement with a worsening in their view of Kerry and the President can greatly improve his chances of capturing these voters. > > Short of accomplishing these two goals or some other significant event, these voters appear poised to break heavily AGAINST President Bush in John Kerry’s favor which would hand Kerry a lion’s share of these states. No, this actually shows that the Bush camp did their homework. These excerpts and the entire workup point out things that the Bush campaign needed to point out to people, not political or ideological changes that the candidate should make. Bush Campaign: people that are undecided care about Issue X, so let’s talk about how we are working to solve Issue X. For example, people worry about unemployment so lets point out that we are doing this and that to create jobs. Kerry Campaign: People that are undecided care about Issue X, so let’s tell them how much we agree with them on Issue X. For a great example that I am sure everyone heard, let us recall the whole “I voted for the war before I voted against it” or the “I didn’t throw my medals, I threw my ribbons and the reason you heard me talk about throwing medals is that we used the terms interchangeably” or maybe they were someone elses, I really don’t remember which story was the most true. > [@Shayna](#): > > Oh my, how ironic. Based on what you’ve written here, it sounds like the Democratic party supports more of what you believe in than the Republican party. And yet, all you manage to do is buy into their lies and rhetoric and disparage those who vote differently from you. Physician, heal thyself. and the irony of your pointing out the irony of my statement… Most of my friends are Democrats, being a Democrat doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person. I have alot of respect for some Democrats, but just like their leaders, many do whatever they can to prove a point even when they embarass themselves in the process. > [@SteveG1](#): > > Forget Garafalo. > [@SteveG1](#): > > according to past history, and what is being said (the bullshit factor?) and whether I caught them in any outright lies (yet). I think you and I could be friends > [@Shayna](#): > > Didn’t you read where she admits that she doesn’t bother to learn facts before making decisions that will guide this country into the future, Actually, we all did, because I never wrote that, and in rereading my post, it didn’t magically appear either. I bring up the issue with Democratic Party supporters merely because they are currently the most vocal part of the Democratic Party. Whether or not this is the face the Democratic Party would like to display, it is what is displayed. I don’t defend every decision ever made by every Republican administration. The original question was whether there are any honorable Republicans out there, like many political ‘conversations’, this has degenerated into personal attacks. I don’t care what your opinion of me is, because I have no respect for people who have no respect for me. Insulting people and making them feel as though their opinion doesn’t matter because they aren’t as good as you are just makes them a bigger adversary in the future. I am honestly rooting for the Democratic party to reasemble themselves and figure out how to do things for the good of the country and its people. If they are going to, they need to start now, and they need to start with the individuals who are causing the most problem. **Shayna** , if this is your best work, then you should probably just be quiet for the sake of your party and your country. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/119 "2005-07-25T03:51:37Z")
Spin, spin, spin, talking point, talking point, talking point. Brava, you represent your party well, **xbuckeye**. You don’t read (it’s clear you didn’t read the links I challenged you to), you don’t make informed decisions, you justify when your party is proven to do exactly the thing you say you won’t support the other party for doing (which they don’t, but you couldn’t care less about facts), you mischaracterize, you judge people harshly for doing what you claim to want the right to do yourself, you vote for the people who will run this country based on what acquaintances you obviously resent and envy drive, drink and contribute to, and yet you dare to call yourself honorable. If the above is _your_ best work, then you should definitely keep your yap shut for the sake of your party – you do them an _enormous_ disservice. On second thought, you’re exactly the kind of non-thinking party drone they lap right up. You ought to be ashamed, but instead you’re actually proud. Stunning. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691/120 "2005-07-25T06:36:28Z")
> [@xbuckeye](#): > > What exactly was proved by Iran Contra? You can’t say on one hand that Plame deserved to be protected and then use the other to applaud Kerry for outing another covert operation. The hell?? Let’s compare, shall we? 1. Kerry outted an _illegal_, not to mention immoral, operation; an operation that went against longheld policy and put weapons in the hands of violent thugs. 2. Rove, Scooter, Novak and God only knows who else outted a CIA case officer who was doing nothing wrong, and in so doing not only ruined her own work, but may have put lives at risk by enabling Plame’s associates to be identified as fellow CIA operatives. Oh yeah, and they did it to get back at her husband for daring telling the truth about their having bullshitted their way into war. Yep. I _totally_ see how the two were morally equivalent. > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > And the ramifications continue. I quote Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer:This is no way to fight international terrorism or weapons proliferation. The Executive branch needs to do some spring cleaning, even if it confuses their base of support. > > A question remains, however: which modern US conservatives place country above ideology? It’s pretty sparse out there, I’ll grant you, but I can think of three right off the bat: Larry Johnson and Jim Marcinkowski (two of the former CIA agents who testified at the hearing), and Kevin Phillips, well-known author of _American Dynasty_, a highly informative book that carefully lays out the intricate and corrupt dealings of the Bush family. Are they politicians? Sadly, no, but after hearing Larry Johnson speak, I’d love to see him run for office. Oh wait, here’s two more: Senator Voinovich has shown glimmers of honor as well, although he’s wavered a few times as fellow Republicans put pressure on him to vote against his conscience on Bolton. And Paul O’Neill, who was fired from Bush’s cabinet when he failed to play ball and shut up about the ineptitude of the president and the administration’s true plans to go to war. I had hopes for Senators Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham, but they’re utterly unpredictable. Finally, how about Jim Jeffords? He left the Republicans to become an Independent. Though he usually votes with the Dems, I believe he still has true conservative leanings. Otherwise, it sure does seem that most public figures who self-identify as Republican march firmly in lockstep with their eyes on the latest party talking points and their tongues up Bush’s ass. Pathetic. We need more John Deans and Howard Bakers. Christ, even Barry freakin’ Goldwater is looking pretty good these days! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/honorable-republicans-are-you-out-there/313691.md?page=7)