On Republican Disillusionment

[Shodan]

@jshore

Well, yes, I could see how this would be a problem for people who deal with the world in sound bites and “this bad, evil”, “this good.”

You mean like “Bush bad, evil”, “Kerry good” - that sort of thing?

Yes, that sort of simple-mindedness is a problem.

@jshore

You might want an actual cite for that latter fact. (If you are talking about the debt ceiling, that has to be raised all the time and Bush has done the same.)

No, I was referring to Clinton’s attempt to increase the budget deficit as his first economic act.

@jshore

(Referring to Kerry’s leading a commission that found that there were no POWs left in Viet Nam)
Well, that was just one of the thiongs he did. And, I do think it takes some courage in an era where there were a lot of people who believed strongly that they weren’t all home and for whom this was as big a single issue as guns are to some people on this board.

No, it doesn’t take any courage to lead commissions that find no basis for the beliefs of people who think Rambo movies are documentaries. If that is the best you can do as regards Kerry’s political courage, you might want to try again.

@jshore

I should add that although you would never favor unilateral disarmament of the U.S., you do seem to favor unilateral disarmament of Democrats like Kerry. I.e., if they think the present system of campaign financing is not good, they are supposed to stick up for these principles…

Well, sticking up for some principles would be nice in Kerry’s case. That means he would have to develop some, and the effort might do him good.

What I was objecting to most was not so much disarmament, but more Kerry’s saying one thing and doing another. As well as his apparent lies about his connections with Johnny Chung. If he says he isn’t going to accept large donations from corporations and their PACs, it might be nice if he didn’t then accept large donations from corporations for his PAC.

@jshore

Just to make it perfectly clear to you since you really seem to have a hard time if we don’t spell all the little details out for you, what Kerry is saying might be more like, “I really wanted to pay for the war, but I voted against a bill that authorized the money in ways that did not have the proper accountability (like for contracts awarded to overcharging Halliburton) because, strangely enough, I don’t think every word written down by this Administration in a bill is the received word of God.” And, in the second case, it might be, "I voted to authorize the use of military force in order to give Bush the maximum latitude to push Saddam to allow inspectors in and allow them freedom to go where they wanted to…

Actually, what I expect he was saying was, “I am against using force against Saddam, unless it becomes clear that I have no more grasp of strategic thinking than your aunt Mabel, in which case I will claim that I supported the President’s policies. Then I will vote in favor of using force until the leaders of my party tell me that the official line is to attack Bush for using force, in which case I will immediately try to pretend I was against it. And, since I fulfill no more role in the Senate than would a blow-up doll, I will claim I don’t take every word Bush says as true, until it is time to claim he misled me about Iraqi WMD. Then I was a helpless dupe; now I am - well, something else. So I would like to come out strongly in favor of things that are good, unless they are not good, which I oppose, and feel strongly that they should or shouldn’t prevail, which depends on all aspects of the situation, which we must clearly face and bravely strive for or against whatever will lead this great country into a bright new future. Oh yeah, and health care.”

Or something like that. This week.

Regards,
Shodan

[Apos]

This sure is going to be a fun political season. The order has apparently come down the wire that good Republicans should be utterly mystified by everything Kerry did or has done. Pundits around the country are practicing furrowing their brows in the mirror in preparation. For the war, but against the specific bill that the President wants to fund it: that’s plain dumb! I mean who can explain that?

I mean, it’s not like the Republicans would ever vote down a bill that sheilds gun owners from frivolous lawsuits, would they?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04063/280366.stm

Are the Republicans for frivolous lawsuits that harass gun owners and manufacturers, or are they against them? It’s crazy I tell you! No making any sense of it! Weak characters the lot of them!

Brought to by arguments Shodan wouldn’t buy for a second if this wasn’t Kerry we were talking about heh.com

[dropzone]

@bigblock

Dropzone, I have a feeling that at least 60% of voting-age Americans agree with you on these…

Not surprising. The middle third of a bell curve is where most of the people sit.

[jshore]

To be honest, Shodan, I think most of your arguments in your last post are silly enough to die on their own merits, so I will just respond to a few things here.

@Shodan

No, I was referring to Clinton’s attempt to increase the budget deficit as his first economic act.

Well, that truly is shocking! Can you believe the nerve of some people? Clinton proposed a $16 billion stimulus plan…$16 billion dollars!!! Can someone remind me, is $16 billion more or less than the $2 to 3 trillion dollars in stimulus that Bush has sold us? There is a difference though…There was actually net job creation during Clinton’s term.

You also seem to have missed the following line in the cite that you linked to (bolding added):

Congress completed work Thursday on the five-year budget blueprint that would implement Clinton’s long-term economic plans and reduce the deficit by $496 billion. The Senate approved the budget resolution, 55 to 45, with Democrats Bob Krueger (Tex.) and Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) voting against it. All Republicans opposed the bill. The House approved the compromise measure Wednesday evening.

Can someone please remind me…Is $16 billion less or more than $496 billion?

@Shodan

No, it doesn’t take any courage to lead commissions that find no basis for the beliefs of people who think Rambo movies are documentaries. If that is the best you can do as regards Kerry’s political courage, you might want to try again.

Well, actually, you seem to have selected the one example from my cite that you find the least convincing, conveniently ignoring for example the investigation of the bank that led to a report blasting Clark Clifford and other Democratic big-shots.

But, you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that there were a not-insignificant number of people, particularly veterans, around who had those black POW/MIA stickers and pretty much seemed to be obsessed with this one issue.

What I was objecting to most was not so much disarmament, but more Kerry’s saying one thing and doing another. As well as his apparent lies about his connections with Johnny Chung. If he says he isn’t going to accept large donations from corporations and their PACs, it might be nice if he didn’t then accept large donations from corporations for his PAC.

Well you haven’t actually provided any documentary evidence to back this up.

(Not like originally saying one thing and later doing another is something that we have had any shortage of in this current Presidency.)

Actually, what I expect he was saying was, “I am against using force against Saddam, unless it becomes clear that I have no more grasp of strategic thinking than your aunt Mabel, in which case I will claim that I supported the President’s policies. Then I will vote in favor of using force until the leaders of my party tell me that the official line is to attack Bush for using force, in which case I will immediately try to pretend I was against it. And, since I fulfill no more role in the Senate than would a blow-up doll, I will claim I don’t take every word Bush says as true, until it is time to claim he misled me about Iraqi WMD…”

So, basically, what you are saying is that you are a partisan who is utterly and completely incapable of entertaining any explanation other than the preconceived one that you favor, the facts be damned. Well, I can say that without a doubt, Bush is your man. You two are birds of a feather indeed!

[annaplurabelle]

@Apos

For the war, but against the specific bill that the President wants to fund it: that’s plain dumb! I mean who can explain that?

…Brought to by arguments Shodan wouldn’t buy for a second if this wasn’t Kerry we were talking about heh.com

How quickly they “forget”. Could it have been because of the “Leave No Defense Contractor Behind” 1.9 billion dollar slush fund included in the bill? Could it have been wanting more accountability as to where the money was going? Could it have been the lack of an exit strategy? Hmm???

The GOP conveniently “forgets” their own concerns with the bill too:
In GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag:

A new curriculum for training an Iraqi army for $164 million. Five hundred experts, at $200,000 each, to investigate crimes against humanity. A witness protection program for $200,000 per Iraqi participant. A computer study for the Iraqi postal service: $54 million.

Such numbers, buried in President Bush’s $20.3 billion request for Iraq’s reconstruction, have made some congressional Republicans nervous, even furious.

“President Bush should live up to his recent pledges to restrain spending, by . . . taking a strong stance that the new Iraq can and should pay for its own reconstruction,” wrote Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.), a freshman Republican, and Stephen Moore, a conservative economist, in an editorial for the National Review.

The discontent is relatively contained so far, said Jim Dyer, Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, but that is because few lawmakers have read the proposal’s fine print. As more details seep out, he said, anger is sure to rise.

Hey, Shodan, there’s that lazy reader problem again. Also, perhaps you’d like to respond to my post here where I listed some examples of Kerry’s courage and character in response to you - or did you not read it?

[Bambi_Hassenpfeffer]

@Shodan

Clinton had an atrocious record on national security, ranging from gays in the military

Others have covered the rest of your statements, but this one seems to have slipped under their radar. How dare you insinuate that integration of gays and lesbians into the military presents a national security threat! Do you have any sort of support for the outrageous claim that gays and lesbians in the military present a threat to national security beyond your bald assertion? Are you aware that a large number of gays and lesbians are now and have always been present in the military without presenting a significant threat to national security? I’m sitting in front of my computer actually sputtering right now. How can you say what you said?

[jshore]

Just for good measure, here is what Democratic Senator Robert Byrd had to say about the $87 billion funding bill, explaining some of his frustration at how little consideration they had for it and how his attempts to improve it were thwarted:

Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just one month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the Administration’s line.

Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: “I don’t have time. I’m completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.”

…

I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The American people should understand that we provide more foreign aid for Iraq in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the entire world! I attempted to remove from this bill billions in wasteful programs and divert those funds to better use. But, at every turn, my efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all support the requests of the Commander in Chief.

…

I shall vote against this bill because I cannot support a policy based on prevarication. I cannot support doling out 87 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of its use.

[Sofa_King]

I think that Senator Robert Byrd’s transformation from pointy white hat wearing, civil rights filibustering, right bastard to a civil libertarian, Senate historian, budget hawk foreign policy Oracle of Delphi has been one of the more remarkable changes since the day when Winston Churchill crossed the aisle. Byrd above all–no doubt because of the flagrant advantage he took of the political process in the dayswhen he was fighting the passage of the Civil Rights bill–knows that the Senate is supposed to be a place where the voice of the minority is supposed to be heard above all. I bet that voice, rather than the message, is for what he so tenaciously fights.

Having watched C-SPAN for about five years now without significant interruption, I can honestly say that Robert Byrd is one of the most eloquent and strident Members of Congress. I can admire him while I simultaneously loathe him for his past deeds.

When Robert Byrd bitches about changes in the pattern of deliberation in the Senate, he speaks not just with the voice of his senior experience, but with the experience of the entire Senate since its inception. It is his job to know, understand, and communicate the wishes of that deliberative body from its creation. So when Byrd speaks, we’d better listen, whether we like him or not.

[dropzone]

Since I firmly believe in the possibility of self-redemption I try not to let somebody’s past jerky behavior influence how I think of him today. Forty years ago Byrd was a major jerk but, as you noted, he has evolved beyond that into a statesman with just flashes of jerkiness. I can loathe the Robert Byrd of 1964 but, if I have heard correctly that every one of our cells (or is it atoms?) is replaced every seven years, that was six Byrds ago.

[Dogface]

“I concur with my colleague. The president has to be president. That means the president over the vice president and over these secretaries”

Senator Richard Lugar, October, 2003. Meet the Press

[jshore]

Well, DogFace, I consider myself “whooshed” by whatever point you were trying to make with that quotation.

[Merijeek]

@Shodan

wag the dog on the eve of his impeachment

It’s amazing the amount of thoughtless drivel someone can spit out.

When Clinton “wagged the dog” do you remember his target? Do you remember who the target was?

Come on, Shodan, pretend you actually read other people’s responses and answer this one.

See? I’ve even kept the post short, so as not to stretch too long for your attention span.

-Joe

[elucidator]

Now, just a second there! Its true that friend Shodan has shamelessly used slur in place of argument, but, hey! that’s his style! OK, so far we got “secrets to the Chinese” (treason, in other words), weakening the military by allowing gays to pull triggers (props to Bambi, I did in fact miss that little gem of mondo retardo), and the “wag the dog” scenario. All true, every word!

But note! Not once did friend Shodan allude to the Arkansas airfield devoted to smuggling cocaine, a scandal boldly exposed by the thoughtful journalists at American Spectator and that tireless patriot, Richard Mellon Scurve.

These are mere baseless and craven slanders. But that would have been unacceptable!

Hmmmmm. Might be time for a good, old-fashioned Pitting.

[Dogface]

@jshore

Well, DogFace, I consider myself “whooshed” by whatever point you were trying to make with that quotation.

I whooshed myself–that’s what I get for doing multiple-tab browsing and picking the wrong tab to paste something into.

[toadspittle]

@elucidator

(props to Bambi, I did in fact miss that little gem of mondo retardo)

Hey, hey. Can we leave the fancy latin phrases out? We’re not all lawyers here.

[Merijeek]

@toadspittle

Hey, hey.

This ain’t Shakespeare. Let’s use words we all understand, pal!

-Joe, illiberit

[elucidator]

Well, I just do it to add a little sophistication, y’know? Give it some of that ol’…oh, I don’t know…some *je ne sais quoi *.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Guys, you want to debate, do it here. You want to snipe at each other there’s a lovely Pit for you to do so in. I’m looking in your direction, Elucidator, merijeek.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Merijeek]

@Gaudere

[Moderator Hat ON]

Guys, you want to debate, do it here. You want to snipe at each other there’s a lovely Pit for you to do so in. I’m looking in your direction, Elucidator, merijeek.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Oh, please.

I put in a remark about Shodan’s attention span because of his habit of pulling a single line out of a long, detailed, and well-thought post and presenting his whole argument about that single fact.

It wasn’t sniping, it was a response to a particular poster’s “debating” style.

Considering the rules of GD, I don’t see how it’s at all inappropriate. Perhaps “lalalaIcan’thearyoulalala” should be moved to the Pit as well, seeing as GD is supposed to involve actual debate.

-Joe

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Technically, it was allowable, but given the tone and the comments by elucidator as well, I think you guys need to step back a bit and debate the argument, not Shodan. Also, questions about moderator decision belong in the Pit, not here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]