All right, knock it off, you guys! Moto is trying to give us respectful and proper funeral rites, and the corpse keeps kicking up a fuss!
Our party has collective panties?!? Nobody told me about them!
[Desi Arnaz voice]
luci!!!
[/Desi Arnaz voice]
Only if you equate Republican with neocon. Personally, I don’t see it. I see a tiny minority of the latter, and a whole lot of the former. If you think the so-called neocons are going to bring the Republican party crashing down, that might be an arguable point. But I don’t see that happening, either. There’s really no evidence that these so-called necons have any long term hold on the party, so we could just as easily see the few neocons that there are just fade into the background while the Republicans maintain power, at least in Congress. The presidency is a fickle institution, and could easily go either way in the next election, having little if anything to do with so-called neocon issues.
No, dispite the way the headlines phrased it, Bush didn’t even come close to distancing himself from the charges of the SVs. He rather bizarrely suggested something that his own party and he himself had previously declared was unconstitutional and everyone knew would never happen (i.e. that these groups shouldn’t be allowed to spend money on political speech).
Who’s biases are at work here, hunh?
Kerry specifically condemed specific ads by MoveOn.org attacking George Bush’s service. Fact.
I agree, the mudslinging on both sides was pretty bad. But there was a real difference in emphasis: the official Kerry campaign itself was nowhere near as negative as the Bush campaign in terms of how much it spent promoting its own views vs. attacking the other guy. The Bush campaign loaded up very early on to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper and so on, and throughout the campaign, the Bush website was dominated by anti-Kerry headlines, while the Kerry website was dominated by laudatory things about Kerry.
It was the 527s that made up the difference in nastiness on the Democratic side, but as virtually every commentator has noted, the fact that they weren’t connected with Kerry’s campaign meant that they weren’t as coordinated or effective.
The name of the organization is the Democratic Party.
“Democrat” is not an adjective. I believe you mean to refer to the Democratic nomination and the Democratic “propaganda machine” respectively.
Sorry. Just getting annoyed with this little linguistic game.
When you’re speaking of the party, it’s just “Democrat.” Democrat with a capital ‘D’ is not an adjective but a proper Noun. “Democratic” with a capital ‘D’ is not a proper morphology for the name of the party.
Can you still use “The Democracy”? Or am I 150 years out of date?
As I’ve said in other threads, the logistics/personnel situation is a flat out shame. But be that as it may, it doesn’t make a general draft…does it? Hasn’t happened YET??? So, again…you really do think it will, ehe? When exactly 'luce? Shouldn’t they be getting started soon…or do the evil Republicans plan to throw untrained draftees directly from the draft board into Iraq?
THAT punches my ‘absurd!’ button.
I’ll believe it when I see some evidence that the administration is doing more than paying lip service to it. And overturning RvW isn’t the same thing as making abortion illegal…even if, in the highly unlikely event Bush et al (or more accurately the SCotUS) does try and overturn it.
Look, I’m as opposed to doing EITHER as you are…I’m pro-choice to my bones (its a libertarian thing about freedom of choice). I just don’t think its going to happen…and that it was scare-mongering. And its certainly not the sure thing howled upon by various groups associated with the Dems during this last election. As with the draft this was intellectual dishonesty propagated to generate fear…or hell, maybe it was flat out stupidity based on said fear. After all, perhaps this crap has actually gained a foothold in the minds of some folks I would consider exceptionally intellegent normally. I guess time will tell which of us is correct…but my money is on 4 more years of RvW as the law of the land, and an America that continues to allow abortions…and many more after that.
Again, my ‘absurd!’ botton is mashed to the floor.
Well, since the President STILL hasn’t actually announced what (if anything) he actually plans to do, at least afaik, I’d say that its STILL a bit premature to speculate. However, Bush’s ‘big plan’ was from a BIPARTISAN committee (as far as the ‘privatization’ thing goes)…as I’m sure you are aware of. HE certainly didn’t come up with it (its on Factcheck btw :)). Again, fear tactics and intellectual dishonesty…or stupidity and blind fear. Not sure anymore after this.
No, I don’t think, based on what FactCheck.org has posted, that it was ‘an even break’…my point was that you can see that there were exaggerations and misrepresentations all around. If you want to take it that there are more Bush exaggerations than Kerry, and this ‘proves’ that Bush lied and exaggerated more than Kerry did, or to broaden it that this means the Republicans and all those associated with them bashed more than the Democrats and all associated with them…be my guest 'luce. It wasn’t the point I was making.
BTW, I’m really glad the site is still up…its one of my favorites. I also used them many times since they put the site up initially.
Why should I ‘lay a glove on any of the things’ you posted in your first paragraph 'luce? I’ve already given my opinions on most of them in other threads…myriad times. And honestly, they were mostly the same ole same ole Dem attacks. Yawn. But, you know, in the interest of trying please:
Led us into war under false pretenses? While I think there is some merit to this, I also think that the Dems have over played it. WERE all of GW’s assertions ‘false’? Certainly he mischaracterized the data and more importantly how firm it was…but at its heart I remain unconvinced that Bush et al REALLY didn’t think Iraq had WMD. However they get no pass from me on that mischaracterization…again, its one of the reasons I didn’t vote for the man.
The Pubbies are demonizing a harmless minority that only want what everybody else gets for free? Ah, the gay marriage issue? Well, again, I’m all for both civil unions and eventually full gay marriage. Unfortunately the majority of my fellow citizens currently are not. You can try and spin this as the ‘Pubbies’ ‘demonizing’ them…but the facts are facts. This issue seems to cross political lines whether you (or I) like it or not. My hope is that eventually my fellow citizens become more reasonable and take a good hard look at how unfair they are being. And I think they WILL…just like they did for other minorities in the past.
**That the President is an overprivileged mediocrity that shirked his duty and then lied about it? ** Certainly he is overprivileged. Its debatable how mcuh of a mediocrity he was or wasn’t so I won’t get into that…it will break down on partisan lines as the myriad ‘debates’ started in this forum about how stupid he is/was.
I certainly DO think he shirked his duty during Vietnam…BECAUSE he was one of those overprivileged types who think they are entitled. I think he did it because he could…and he had no real sense of his duty to his country. However, I don’t think it really has much bearing on how good or poor a president he is to examine his past. After all, I think (and you do too if I don’t miss my guess) that Clinton was a fairly effective president…and he didn’t exactly shine as a youth. Same with Kennedy (well, you probably think he was a great president anyway).
How a future president spent his youth doesn’t really have any bearing on how good (or bad) a president he will become IMO. I’ve always felt this way actually…whats funny is how you partisan types on both sides can go back and forth on this issue. I look at the 'Pubs and their outrage over Clinton’s record…then look at the 'Dems and THEIR outrage over Bush’s. And again, I’d laugh if it didn’t make me want to cry more.
That the President is a man who fucked up pretty much everything he touched, was bailed out of failure after failure after failure by rich friends, and then…mirabile dictu…became a Leader of Men? Well, again, this is debatable…and irrelevant IMO. So, Bush wasn’t a brilliant businessman. And Truman was a failed shoe salesman wasn’t he? And Kennedy basically didn’t DO anything at all (except serve in WWII…mainly because of the death of his brother and his fathers insistance if memory serves). Sorry, but again, this breaks down along bullshit partisan lines as far as who is qualified and who isn’t based on their past. The important issue is: Is he qualified NOW. No? Well then, folks should have voted based on THAT…not on his supposed past record.
Is that all you have? Some drive by character assasinations of Bush, a misrepresentation of the complexity of the gay marriage issue and another Bush Lied! assertion?? Why not get into some REAL issues…like the actual job Bush has done.
Instead you (like the Dems) harp on trivialities (IMO)…Bush shirked his responsibility during Vietnam! Bush never did well in business (oh the irony of this coming from some liberals is almost too delicious :))! Bush is no leader of men!! Bush hates gays and wants to twart their rights (ignoring the fact that the majority of the citizens of the nation are still opposed to this also). Bush took us to war under false pretenses…he LIED AND PEOPLE DIED (and women cried, and I sied because all the clothes were tie dyed, when really Bush should have been tied, tried, pied and fried…).
Of all your bitches this is the only one that actually relates to the job Bush has DONE since he was in office (I dont’ reguard the gay marriage thing as coming solely from Bush, since I think that the majority of US citizens agree with him right now, and also since though he is president he doesn’t have direct effect on local measure in the various states…I’m sure you disagree)…and the only one with any merrit. And if the Dems hadn’t insisted over and over and over again that Bush LIED!! about it all, instead making the point that he was wrong, that it was an intellegence failure that HAS to come back to roost with him, and that even if the intellegence was true we still shouldn’t have gone into Iraq…well, I think they would have been a bit stronger on this issue.
Or, I could be wrong about everything. I freely conceed this…my own filters and bias says that the (US) center is where its at as far as winning in America, and that running to either extreme is likely to set a political party on the road to losing. Perhaps the American people are poised to run to a party coming from the left…and moving further to the left if folks on this board get their way. Hey, I was wrong about Bush winning (I didn’t think he had a chance in hell…but the Dems surprised me and once again snatched defeat from the jaws of sure victory)…maybe I’m wrong about this as well.
-XT
Seeing as they are the ones currently pulling all the strings at the WH, it’s hardly a stretch to say that the neocons are the face of the Republican Party. Moreover, in so far as foreign policy is concerned, there is no alternate plan – or perhaps you haven’t been following the shakeup in Bush’s cabinet? Care to guess what ideology got all of the promotions? So much for “fading into the background.”
For good, or more than likely, for the bad of all involved, the Neocons are in control of the executive branch of the Republican Party – and thus the destiny of your nation.
Agree on the former statement; utterly differ on the latter for reasons already stated. The Party and your nation is in their hands.
Primer should you still need one at this late stage. Please note date of same: 29 September 2002.
The president’s real goal in Iraq
The fact that the whole delusional Project is in the process of crumbling as we speak is what I was referring to in my earlier analogy. And I predict it’ll take large segments of this Administration and their acolytes in its wake.
Only a matter of time before the Republican Party has to file divorce papers on the neocons. Not going to be pretty from the inside, but I admit I’ll be enjoying every minute of it.
Here’s the DNC website. The heading plainly says “The Democratic Party” It has always been thus.
And throughout the site, Democratic is used as an adjective to describe the party’s policies and candidates.
This business of calling it the “Democrat Party” is a recent bit of subtle linguistic gamesmanship brought to us by Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. (They just love to emphasize the “rat” at the end. Plus the word “democratic” has more positive associations than they’d like to allow us.) The whole thing is really annoying.
[/hijack]
I stand corrected. I’ve heard “Democrat party” used so often in the media, I just assumed it was a deliberate grammatical affect on the part of the Dems themselves. I confess that I’ve never noticed the “rat” sound but the the desire to lop off any positive associations with the word “democratic” makes sense and sounds just like them.
Thanks for the correction.
No, just five years. 
That’s what’s really annoying. Fox has been using this phrasing for a while, of course. But now a few members of the more traditional media have begun to pick up on the usage. (I saw it a few weeks ago in Newsweek, fer cryin’ out loud.)
Just doing my part to try to stamp this out.
The Republicans who are looking at their crushing 51% victory and acting like it’s going to last forever are either not seeing or are deliberately ignoring the obvious: the Republicans won by turning out their base, and they turned out their base in large part on the issue of gay marriage. (You can argue about the size of this effect all you want, but we’re talking about such a slim margin here that it’s absurd to think it doesn’t account for the difference.)
Within a generation or so, anti-gay bigotry is going to go the way of other popular bigotries in America–it will become marginalized and at least publically unacceptable. If this means that the Republicans are going to win elections for the next twenty years, then so be it.
And again, the slide in Democratic fortunes predates by some years the existence of gay marriage as any kind of issue. Not to mention the fact that plenty of Democrats oppose gay marriage as well.
I’m not looking at that 51% as a huge victory. The Democrats, on the other hand, have lost this election for the Presidency and the Congress, the last congressional election, the elections before that, and so on.
How many losses are you going to rack up before you decide there’s a problem?
“They” are pulling the stings because whoever has any power gets lumped in with the so-called neocons-- it’s proof by definition. Are you going to tell me that Condi Rice is a “neocon” now? When exactly did she join the club? Even if I were to accept the idea that such a club existed, it wouldn’t include Bush (or Tony Blair, the other world leader 4-square behind the Iraq War, btw).
The conspiracy theory of a cabal of plotting to turn the US into a modern day Roman Empire is just that-- conspiracy theory nonsense, like almost all such theories are.
This could easily go the way of the Clinton’s healthcare reforms, but I have a feeling that this could be the first and last nail in the coffin. The banks don’t even want to do this. Imagine a bank administering literally millions of accounts that have very little money in them during the first years. It would bust them.
Democrats need to jump on this like white on rice, start running ads now to counter the propaganda machine we are about to be saturated in. The People need to know that this plan increases deficits and lowers benefits for just about everyone working today.
This, to me, is a good place to start.
Who said anything about a “conspiracy”? It’s all right here in black and white and out in the open.
As for it being a “club,” the only pre-requisite is that you agree with them. Thus the Condi for Powell trade.
I’ve never heard (or at least never noticed) anyone saying “Democrat Party”. It’s always been “Democratic Party”. I did a google of the former, expecting per your assertion, to find lots of FOXNEWS cites. But I didn’t get any. The only common theme I saw in the cites is that it seemed to be an expression used by Southern politicians, like this CNN story: Mississippi lieutenant governor joins GOP:
Can you back up your claim with some evidence? I’m not saying you’re lying, I just haven’t seen it myself.
It’s a think tank. There are dozens.
So why didn’t Bush just start out with someone from “the club” in the first palce?