# How are the conservatives/GOP getting away with all this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445 "2005-02-10T19:23:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/141 "2005-02-16T19:42:47Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If those reasons were so justified, why didn’t Bush simply lay them out before the American populace, instead of throwing up the “we’re gonna get attacked by Iraq any day now” bogeyman? I don’t need Bush’s endorsement or support for my reasons to be “justified.” **I** get to decide whether I think the war was justified, and on what bases. I realize the Democratic porn gives the impression that all conservatives care about is repeating the gospel of Bush, but that’s not true. What reasons Bush gave for the war had nothing to do with the reasons I think the war was justified. And the Bush admin _did_ give many of those reasons at one time or another, in one form or another. The fact that they focused most prominently on the WMD reason in selling the war doesn’t diminish the fact that there were other reasons that the war was justified. And do I need to point out that Bush never said “We’re gonna get attacked by Iraq any day now”? Unfortunately, I probably do. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/142 "2005-02-16T19:44:04Z")
Remember, kiddies, IOKIYAR. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/143 "2005-02-16T19:44:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Reading is Fun, indeed. What is less fun is arguing with people who engage in [blackwhite.](http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/xframes.html) > Sure you did. Since I provided a link earlier that gave both the author and occasion of the quotes, and you still guessed Kerry when it was really Hilary, you obviously did not click on the link I provided. Really? Where? It certainly isn’t in your post. Furthermore, you identified the first quote as being from Kerry, not Clinton. I responded by providing an actual link to the full Kerry quote for people who wanted to see Kerry’s comments in full. > [@](#): > > And your further guess, that I got it from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), is also wrong. Again. Unless by “Freeper” you mean “any website presenting facts that I desperately want to ignore”. Again, the only links I have seen from you since your quotes are to logical fallacies and black and white. Which is clever, when the poster citing to them actually understands them. You do not appear to. > [@](#): > > So your apparent inability to read is **my** fault? The effort of a mouse click is really beyond you? Again, what links? There were none with the quotes. > [@](#): > > Sheesh! > > OK - “We found the WMD” - > “We need to invade Iraq” - And these quotes do not say anything about findings WMD or we need to invade Iraq. > [@](#): > > None so blind as those who will not see. And blinder than that are those who will look at the sky on a cloudless day, and say, “If Bush says that is blue, then it isn’t blue. And if he says so, it’s a lie!” This is foolish. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/144 "2005-02-16T19:50:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > None so blind as those who will not see. My irony detector just exploded. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/145 "2005-02-16T20:02:39Z")
I’d be willing to be mad about Clinton if he’d done the same things Bush has done. Clinton fired off a few SCUDs, sent expeditionary forces into a few backwaters … he didn’t try any fucking invasions on false pretenses. Bush is the actor, Bush gets the blame. It’s not partisanship, is pragmatism. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/146 "2005-02-16T20:02:47Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Really? Where? It certainly isn’t in your post. Furthermore, you identified the first quote as being from Kerry, not Clinton. I responded by providing an actual link to the full Kerry quote for people who wanted to see Kerry’s comments in full. > > Again, the only links I have seen from you since your quotes are to logical fallacies and black and white. Which is clever, when the poster citing to them actually understands them. You do not appear to. > > Again, what links? There were none with the quotes. > > And these quotes do not say anything about findings WMD or we need to invade Iraq. > > This is foolish. Yes, it is. You apparently cannot recognize a link. It is in blue (in my browser) and underlined. When you place your mouse on it and click, you are taken to another website. Read my posts very carefully. Actually read, as in look at the words I wrote. If you do that, you will notice some of the words I typed fit the description above. This is a link. Click on it. Or not. If you prefer to repeat: > [@](#): > > Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has **always** been at war with Eastasia. then nothing can be done. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/147 "2005-02-16T20:05:12Z")
FWIW - I am trying hard to ignore yet another ‘Bush said Saddam had WMD so Bush is a liar’ debate as I really don’t think it’s going to go anywhere the last 600 haven’t. > [@Shodan](#): > > Clinton never received the majority of Presidential votes cast in any election. Gonna have to ask for a cite on this one. I seem to recall Clinton getting the majority of votes cast in both of his election, as well as electoral majorites. > [@Shodan](#): > > Bush did, in the most recent election. Unlike most ‘lefties’ (actually, I am a liberal independent and vary pretty widely from most ‘leftie’ stances, but anywhoo), I don’t disagree with this. Much as I wish I could have waved my magic wand and made sure people voted for what I believe is so important, they didn’t, and wishing won’t change anything. > [@Shodan](#): > > He was, in fact, the first President since Reagan to be re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. Bush therefore has a much better claim to a “mandate” than any President of the last twenty years - better than Clinton, in fact. Gonna have to ask for a cite on that. And as for the mandate, Clinton never claimed one, and if a Republican-dominated congress for his second term is any indication, he didn’t have one. > [@Shodan](#): > > And I want to be represented by people who come close to sharing **my** view of the world. And so we all vote, and whoever gets more votes than anyone else wins. As happened with Bush. Are you happy now? You seem to be spending a decent amount of time and effort defending the current cabal of neo-con hawks rather than singing their praises, is all. > [@Shodan](#): > > Just as I had to put up with Clinton and Carter, you have to put up with Bush. This is hardly a violation of republican principles, it is pretty much unavoidable. We can’t agree (usuall) on who should represent us, so we have a vote and the majority (or plurality) wins. Thanks for that friendly and non-condescending lesson on how an election in a democracy works. I understand that very well, thank you. Now if you had actually read my objections, it was not to being mis-represented at the Presidential level but at the level of the house of Representatives. As a US citizen who lives outside the US and does not have a legal domicile in the US anymore, I only have the president to ‘represent me’ (much to my chagrin). But I look at my ‘home’ state of Montana, and see that in spite of a 47% Democratic voting group, my state is across the board Republican in all of it’s Federal representatives. Does this sound remotely fair? > [@Shodan](#): > > You **are** represented, when you vote. But there is only one office of President, so we can’t “divide” the office. The closest we can come to proportional voting seems to be the Electoral College, and I don’t see you lefties as big fans of that institution ever since - oh, a few years back. 🙂 Sorry, I did vote. As I said, I am in a tough spot personally due to my living situation at present, and don’t expect to be catered for specifically, but damn it - 47% of Montanans voted Democratic and they have no voice whatsoever! They voted, too! > [@Shodan](#): > > Probably true, but I would have thought that if the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that Congress was divided, they would have made some provision for it - reserving seats in Congress for one side or the other, or something like that. But they didn’t, and no Constitutional amendment proposed ever since that was intended for that purpose has been ratified (like Lani Guinier’s notions about proportionate voting, or whatever it was). Sorry mate, but your point has no value as the founding fathers were to a man opposed to political parties in government. They believed that the bodies of government themselves should be opposed; I like to think that the founding fathers are spinning in their graves about now with all 3 bodies effectively controlled by 1 party with 1 agenda. It’s clear in their intent - one body to pass laws, one to enforce, one to rule on legality. > [@Shodan](#): > > What bad things? Whining and lawsuits? We got over that in 2000, or most of us did. Revolution? Is that what you mean? Piffle. Thank you again for the non-condescending remarks. I must assume that you’re not calling all leftists whiners. That would be insulting, not something you would stoop to, of course. How about stopping government through fillibustering the budget? How about walking away from government to ensure that a quorum is never reached and the Senate and the House are both rendered useless? Forget about lawsuits, what about civilian action against the government? The Civil War started over things like these - states felt disempowered, and fought to keep their power, and people felt their only option was to go to war to stop the Federal Government, which they felt didn’t represent them. I don’t believe that it’s beyond belief that this could be the beginning of the end of the Union. > [@Shodan](#): > > The winning side, and those on the losing side with a commitment to majoritarian principle and the rule of law, will make common cause against the rebels and pitch most into prison for treason and hang the rest. And good riddance. YAt first, I was enjoying this debate, as you had seemed to maintain the ability to rise above the partisan bullshit with your arguments, but taking on the manner of Herr Coulter in declaring anyone who dislikes the ruling elite treasonous is really quite pathetic. When are you and your ilk scheduled to start up the trains and ovens for those of us who disagree with you? > [@Shodan](#): > > You lefties need to give up this apocalyptic crap every time you lose an election. It happens. Get over it. The Republic will survive. > > If it lived thru Clinton, it can live thru Bush. At least he has a majority to support him. And you righties need to stop treating a marginal victory like the second coming of Christ and at least attempt to mend some of the fences you tore apart in your blind quest for power at all costs before it’s too late and people simply quit trying to work within the framework of the government. Oh, and maybe spend 2 seconds in the next 4 years thinking about what kind of country and world you’re going to leave for your descendants by supporting these Crusaders for Truth and the American Way. At least I can say I voted for the other guy. What are you going to be able to tell them? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/148 "2005-02-16T20:25:12Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Gonna have to ask for a cite on this one. I seem to recall Clinton getting the majority of votes cast in both of his election, as well as electoral majorites. [1992: Clinton wins with 43.0% of the popular vote](http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html) [1996: Clinton wins with 49.6% of the popular vote](http://www.presidentelect.org/e1996.html) In both cases he won an electoral majority. But in neither case did he win a popular vote majority. [quote] Gonna have to ask for a cite on [Bush being the first president re-elected with a popular majority since Reagan] See above links- Clinton never had a popular majority. As the only President to win re-election between Reagan and Bush, and as Bush won with a popular vote majority, etc. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I did vote. As I said, I am in a tough spot personally due to my living situation at present, and don’t expect to be catered for specifically, but damn it - 47% of Montanans voted Democratic and they have no voice whatsoever! They voted, too! As one of the 20% of Republicans who voted in Maryland against Albert Wynn, and 34% who voted against Barbara Mikulski, why don’t I get a Republican voice? Just because Republicans control the Senate and House doesn’t mean that Prince George’s County Republicans have a voice. > [@](#): > > Sorry mate, but your point has no value as the founding fathers were to a man opposed to political parties in government. This would include Alexander Hamilton, founder of the Federalist Party, and Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic-Republican Party? > [@](#): > > The Civil War started over things like these - states felt disempowered, and fought to keep their power, and people felt their only option was to go to war to stop the Federal Government, which they felt didn’t represent them. I don’t believe that it’s beyond belief that this could be the beginning of the end of the Union. Yes, but that’s because at the time there was serious debate over which was the true instrument of government: the Federal Union, or the Individual State. Since that point, we’ve come to recognize that the Federal government is the supreme law and that if you don’t like what one administration does, work to get a new one elected. > [@](#): > > YAt first, I was enjoying this debate, as you had seemed to maintain the ability to rise above the partisan bullshit with your arguments, but taking on the manner of Herr Coulter in declaring anyone who dislikes the ruling elite treasonous is really quite pathetic. Not nearly as pathetic as: > [@](#): > > When are you and your ilk scheduled to start up the trains and ovens for those of us who disagree with you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/149 "2005-02-16T20:37:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If someone made the following statement: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” > > and no WMD (or rather few) were found, the maker of the original statement is a proven liar. > > QED. Your logic on this one is faulty. Gore claimed that it would not be possible to deter Hussein’s _search_ for WMDs. There was no statement that we would be unable to prevent him from _acquiring_ them. Nothing in Gore’s statement indicates that Hussein actually had WMDs. Your claim that he was lying, in this case, is simply wishful thinking on your part. . > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, it is. You apparently cannot recognize a link. It is in blue (in my browser) and underlined. When you place your mouse on it and click, you are taken to another website. However, since **Hentor** is specifically referring to your post #118, your claim indicates that you are not even following your own side of the discussion very closely. . > [@GomiBoy](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > Clinton never received the majority of Presidential votes cast in any election. > > Gonna have to ask for a cite on this one. I seem to recall Clinton getting the majority of votes cast in both of his election, as well as electoral majorites. **Shodan** is entirely correct regarding the popular votes on 1992 and 1996. Clinton won a plurality of votes, but never a majority, 43.3% in 1992 and in 1996 he won 49.24%. (It may be possible to argue with **Shodan** regarding “majority” if he has posted that the electoral votes of 2000 were the “real” votes, since, by that logic Clinton certainly won a majority in both elections, but Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/150 "2005-02-16T20:42:46Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > When are you and your ilk scheduled to start up the trains and ovens for those of us who disagree with you? You are out of line, here. There is no basis for this remark and using allusions instead of names does not excuse you on this point. Do not do this again. **[/Moderator Mode]** ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/151 "2005-02-16T20:57:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are out of line, here. There is no basis for this remark and using allusions instead of names does not excuse you on this point. > > Do not do this again. > > **[/Moderator Mode]** I respectfully disagree with this warning. How can I discuss this with you? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/152 "2005-02-16T21:21:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your logic on this one is faulty. Gore claimed that it would not be possible to deter Hussein’s _search_ for WMDs. There was no statement that we would be unable to prevent him from _acquiring_ them. Nothing in Gore’s statement indicates that Hussein actually had WMDs. Your claim that he was lying, in this case, is simply wishful thinking on your part. What evidence do you have that Gore meant to draw that distinction? This strikes me as an _ex post facto_ attempt to find some excuse to avoid the plain sense of the quote. Maybe Gore was thinking that Saddam could be stopped by invasions from Mars. But he never mentioned it, so we cannot assume this to be so. Same for your distinction, which is rather a stretch. But I am not claiming that Gore lied. I am claiming that whether or not a statement is truthful does not hinge on who made it. As it happens, I think Gore’s statement (that Saddam was going to continue to try to get WMD as long as he was allowed to remain in power) was entirely accurate. But, by the standards that the lefties wish to apply to Bush, he was lying. So, as always, they cannot have it both ways. If Bush lied, then Gore lied (and Clinton and Hilary and Kerry and Edwards and etc.). Be that as it may, what Gore was saying (and what Bush seemed to agree on) was that as long as Saddam was in power, we could never be sure that he had not violated the inspection agreement and obtained WMD that could be used against the US, his neighbors, or handed off to terrorists. And therefore, only an invasion, or some other method of removing Saddam from power, would fulfill the requirements. **Hentor** asked for a quote that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Such was supplied. Now, as ever, he wants to weasel out by trying to deny the plain sense of the words, and assume facts not in evidence. > [@tomndebb](#): > > However, since **Hentor** is specifically referring to your post #118, your claim indicates that you are not even following your own side of the discussion very closely. Bullshit. **Hentor** is asking for cites for the quotes I have been cutting and pasting. That cite has been provided. If he can’t read it, that is not my problem. And, since he cannot, or does not choose to, read the cite, he is making all kinds of guesses as to what I am saying - that the source of the second quote was Kerry (which it was not), or that I got it from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), which I did not, or that they are inaccurate, which they are not, or in some other way attempting to cling to his denial. > [@tomndebb](#): > > (It may be possible to argue with **Shodan** regarding “majority” if he has posted that the electoral votes of 2000 were the “real” votes, since, by that logic Clinton certainly won a majority in both elections, but Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.) That is an argument the Left cannot afford to make. If the electoral votes are the “real” votes, then Bush was “really” elected in 2000. Not that it matters. Bush was re-elected with both a majority of the electoral vote, and an absolute majority of the popular vote. Which is not true of Clinton, Carter, or Bush Sr. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/153 "2005-02-16T21:27:39Z")
> [@Agent Foxtrot](#): > > Do to extreme laziness, I’m not going to list cites, but you’ve heard it all before: planting a stooge in the press corps, paying journalists to promote their agenda, trying to change the ethics rules so Tom DeLay can keep his post… and that’s just a scant few issues. Why is no one crying ‘Foul!’? > > Are the Democrats so weak-willed? They give their half-assed, cursory objections, then vote right with the Republicans. If I hear one more time, “The Democrats are protesting the Republican-sponsored bill, but are still expected to vote for it,” I’m going to scream. If you don’t want Condi Rice in the State Department, **vote against her**! She is not the only person in existence capable of doing the job. > > No one’s asking tough questions, either. The media have softened all of their blows in fear that they’ll be black-balled from the press conferences. Not only is asking one direct, tough question worth being black-balled (in my opinion), but you’d think the more left-wing media would wear that with pride on their sleeve. > > On _The Daily Show with Jon Stewart_ last night, guest Richard Viguerie (author of [_America’s Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566252520/qid=1108063202/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-1136236-6367008)) came up with a good point (not verbatim, but close): “There is no ‘liberal movement.’ The conservatives have been meeting three to four times a week for the past 30 years to get to this point. Liberals don’t see themselves as a movement, but as individual special interest groups.” > > He’s absolutely right. The conservatives formed a unified front, whereas the liberals still feel that screaming on street corners is effective lobbying. And it doesn’t help matters that there’s no strong, effective, no-nonsense leader to take the reins. Howard Dean won’t be able to do it, charismatic as he is. I’m not even sure if Hillary could do it. Maybe Barack Obama. _Maybe_. But, as he puts it, he’ll have to spend the next few years “sharpening pencils and learning from the guys who have been there 10-15 years.” How depressing. > > I guess I’m digressing from my original point and answering my own question at the same time. What do you all think? How has the GOP and conservatives effectively made Democrats and liberals their bitch? Is there even any use to a Democratic party anymore? Why doesn’t anyone give a damn that this is going on? > > Adam Well you talk about many different things so depending on what you really want to know about, your answer would be different. To your first question of all the supposed “issues” that you refer, much of this is generated by the opposing party to make their “opponents” look bad and has less to do with real problems. The reason that nothing is being done, is that none of this is anything new that both sides haven’t been doing for most of recent history. That is why no one is making a big deal of this. As horrible as all of this may seem, believe it or not, this is all just “business as usual” for both parties. As for why democrats are complaining and then turning around and voting for things anyway, this is all normal political strategy as well. This way they can pretend to be against something, then support it, and will win out either way. If it turns bad they can say “we were against it” if it works out well and are accused as being against something, they will say “just look at our voting history.” Its all just politics, and everybody does this. The bottom result is that much less gets done due to all these games. I talk about this thread here:[Is there a problem with our current political party system?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302574). In my opinion this problem isn’t based on the reason you assumed. ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/154 "2005-02-16T21:37:06Z")
> [@Agent Foxtrot](#): > > Do to extreme laziness, I’m not going to list cites, but you’ve heard it all before: planting a stooge in the press corps, paying journalists to promote their agenda, trying to change the ethics rules so Tom DeLay can keep his post… and that’s just a scant few issues. Why is no one crying ‘Foul!’? > > Are the Democrats so weak-willed? They give their half-assed, cursory objections, then vote right with the Republicans. If I hear one more time, “The Democrats are protesting the Republican-sponsored bill, but are still expected to vote for it,” I’m going to scream. If you don’t want Condi Rice in the State Department, **vote against her**! She is not the only person in existence capable of doing the job. > > No one’s asking tough questions, either. The media have softened all of their blows in fear that they’ll be black-balled from the press conferences. Not only is asking one direct, tough question worth being black-balled (in my opinion), but you’d think the more left-wing media would wear that with pride on their sleeve. > > On _The Daily Show with Jon Stewart_ last night, guest Richard Viguerie (author of [_America’s Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566252520/qid=1108063202/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-1136236-6367008)) came up with a good point (not verbatim, but close): “There is no ‘liberal movement.’ The conservatives have been meeting three to four times a week for the past 30 years to get to this point. Liberals don’t see themselves as a movement, but as individual special interest groups.” > > He’s absolutely right. The conservatives formed a unified front, whereas the liberals still feel that screaming on street corners is effective lobbying. And it doesn’t help matters that there’s no strong, effective, no-nonsense leader to take the reins. Howard Dean won’t be able to do it, charismatic as he is. I’m not even sure if Hillary could do it. Maybe Barack Obama. _Maybe_. But, as he puts it, he’ll have to spend the next few years “sharpening pencils and learning from the guys who have been there 10-15 years.” How depressing. > > I guess I’m digressing from my original point and answering my own question at the same time. What do you all think? How has the GOP and conservatives effectively made Democrats and liberals their bitch? Is there even any use to a Democratic party anymore? Why doesn’t anyone give a damn that this is going on? > > Adam Well you talk about many different things so depending on what you really want to know about, your answer would be different. To your first question of all the supposed “issues” that you refer, much of this is generated by the opposing party to make their “opponents” look bad and has less to do with real problems. The reason that nothing is being done, is that none of this is anything new that both sides haven’t been doing for most of recent history. That is why no one is making a big deal of this. As horrible as all of this may seem, believe it or not, this is all just “business as usual” for both parties. As for why democrats are complaining and then turning around and voting for things anyway, this is all normal political strategy as well. This way they can pretend to be against something, then support it, and will win out either way. If it turns bad they can say “we were against it” if it works out well and are accused as being against something, they will say “just look at our voting history.” Its all just politics, and everybody does this. The bottom result is that much less gets done due to all these games. I talk about this thread here:[Is there a problem with our current political party system?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302574). In my opinion this problem isn’t based on the reason you assumed. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/155 "2005-02-16T22:12:21Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > At first, I was enjoying this debate, as you had seemed to maintain the ability to rise above the partisan bullshit with your arguments, but taking on the manner of Herr Coulter in declaring anyone who dislikes the ruling elite treasonous is really quite pathetic. Nope, nothing of the kind. Armed rebellion against the government because you lost an election is practically the definition of treason. I specifically mentioned that those who lost the election but still remained committed to majority rule would not be included. The notion that this constitutes calling those who don’t like Bush “treasonous” is pretty far-fetched. Regards, Shodan PS - I believe complaints about the mods belong in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/156 "2005-02-16T22:46:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > PS - I believe complaints about the mods belong in the Pit. Well, I hate to be seen as a whiner, but I do have a grudge. \*\*Tomndebb \*\* and / or **Shodan** - could you please join me [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5848952#post5848952)? I don’t plan on pitting either of you, it’s only there as I thought it was appropriate and I really want to know. There may be some delay in my responding as it’s 11pm in my time zone, but I will respond. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/157 "2005-02-16T22:50:20Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Armed rebellion against the government because you lost an election is practically the definition of treason. I specifically mentioned that those who lost the election but still remained committed to majority rule would not be included. QUOTE] You brought up armed rebellion, not me. I took your remarks to mean anyone who rebelled against the government was treasonous and should be either locked up or killed. I took this personally, as I consider myself to be in rebellion from this government. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/158 "2005-02-17T00:55:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What evidence do you have that Gore meant to draw that distinction? > > This strikes me as an ex post facto attempt to find some excuse to avoid the plain sense of the quote. The plain sense of the quote was that Hussein would always attempt to obtain weapons. There is nothing else in the plain sense of the quote. There is no declaration that Hussein possessed WMD and no declaration of a particular need to stop him in any particular way. All of that is your _ex post facto_ interpretation. I have made no claim that the Democratic administration never spoke of removing Hussein; I only noted that this single example was flawed. On the other hand, your ability to read into the “plain sense” of that statement does indicate that you bring your own bias to this discussion that is certainly the equal of that of any of your opponents. > [@](#): > > But I am not claiming that Gore lied. Well, you are, but only to justify Bush’s lies, so that is OK. As to your misinterpretation of **Hentor** ’s statement, I suggest you re-read your exchange in order and in context. It is possible that you will willfully come to the same conclusion you have expressed, but I will find that sad. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/159 "2005-02-17T02:27:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Bullshit. **Hentor** is asking for cites for the quotes I have been cutting and pasting. That cite has been provided. If he can’t read it, that is not my problem. > > And, since he cannot, or does not choose to, read the cite, he is making all kinds of guesses as to what I am saying - that the source of the second quote was Kerry (which it was not), or that I got it from [FreeRepublic.com](http://FreeRepublic.com), which I did not, or that they are inaccurate, which they are not, or in some other way attempting to cling to his denial. Hey, no need to spaz out. All you have to do is say, “Oh these are from a link I posted way up in the thread somewhere else.” No need to play coy and hard to get. You can be direct. You could even have reposted the link or made clear where one could find it. > [@](#): > > […] **Hentor** asked for a quote that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Such was supplied. Now, as ever, he wants to weasel out by trying to deny the plain sense of the words, and assume facts not in evidence. You bring a quote that has nothing in it about invading Iraq, and claim I’m weaseling. Again, this is just really sad, dude. Let me approach this from a different direction. Maybe that will make some headway. Here are three different statements that reflect the type of statements we are talking about. Note that I am not suggesting that the contents of the quotes are true in any way, shape or form, but only using them for examples’ sake to try to illustrate my point. First is the type of statement you keep referring to from various Democrats: “I believe that Shodan is a troll” or more directly “Shodan is a troll.” Next is the type of statement made by Bush or members of the Bush administration. “Shodan is a troll because he started a thread by saying that all Democrats are homosexual. He started another thread by saying that liberals sodomize babies every weekend.” Do you see how these two types of statements are not equivalent. The first is a statement of belief, asserting a general description, which may turn out to be wrong. The second provides two (presumed) lies to make the argument. “Because Shodan is a troll who posts that Democrats are homosexual, he should be banned.” This clearly calls for an action based on a lie. It is an extension of the second. It is akin to stating that Iraq should be invaded. Do you see how much more compelling the argument is with these lies, versus simply just saying “Shodan is a troll who should be banned”? Perhaps you cannot see how these statements are different. If not, we are at an impasse. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445/160 "2005-02-17T03:23:15Z")
**Hentor** , while I understand the point of your analogy, it will be better to refrain from using “troll” as the focus word of any future analogies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-conservatives-gop-getting-away-with-all-this/289445.md?page=9)