In the first place, Goldwater was (you may have forgotten) an avowed hardline Cold Warrior who advocated military action far more aggressively than Johnson did, although later developments showed Johnson was less averse to military engagements than he let on in 1964. In the second place, to say that Democrats have engaged in fear-mongering tactics (45 years ago!) is not to say that there’s any real equaivalence here in which party has been more responsible in recent years for over-the-top fear-mongering to win elections. It’s not remotely comparable, despite what LBJ or Woodrow Wilson might have done back in the day.
In all fairness, lots of Goldwater’s people (including Brent Bozell, who ghostwrote Goldwater’s book for him) were strong proponents of a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviets, so it wasn’t as though LBJ’s campaign were just making things up.
I never understood why they had to go there, though- a simple “his name means urine, people- URINE!” would have done.
Plus I admire Goldwater’s late-life principled stances very much.
Well, there are punditti who, upon hearing Bush declare day to be night, would stumble around in the sunshine. How did the downtrodden masses react?
Oh, you know, torches, pitchforks, the usual…
Complain about how American Idol’s voting lines are always busy. . .
Well, since they already had the duct tape and plastic sheeting, they’d just cover up their windows so they couldnt tell day from night.
Well, if you’ve got to go back half a century to find similar behavior by Democrats, that alone should convince you of the hollowness of your own arguments.
Oh, no. I just picked the most fearsome, over-the-top thing I could think of.
Closer to home, I think both fear and lies have been a mainstay of gun control advocates’ campaign work.
Whatever it takes to use the false equivalence fallacy, right? You’d be lost without it.
Teapot dome!!!
Since in this thread I’m essentially defending Bush and Cheney from an accusation made based on evidence that doesn’t support the accusation… sure, you can point to plenty of posts that will defend Bush and Cheney. (While ignoring the fact that I’m willing to call Rumsfeld and Ashcorft scum).
But how about other threads, where I have defended Obama, or Kennedy, or Kerry, or Franken, or Biden?
I’m saying that I’m willing to take each situation on its merits, not respond in a partisna fashion.
Now what are YOUR creds? Can you point to significant defenses you’ve made of Republicans? At all? Anywhere?
Of course, as a conservative, I often find merit in conservative positions. Of course my record won’t be straight-down-the-middle of the aisle. But I have stepped up plenty of times to defend Democrats or their positions. THAT is what makes me non-partisan.
And you? What’s your record?
First of all, I think there’s nothing wrong with playing on fears, as long as they’re legitimate fears. If someone in America in 1940 had run on the platform that we needed to get ready for war, because the big war in Europe and Asia was going to find us whether we wanted it or not, that would have been raising fears - but quite reasonably so.
Raising fears that are completely out of proportion to the threats, or raising fears on the basis of nonexistent threats, OTOH, is a different story.
Similarly with dishonesty. It’s all bad, but there’s a big difference between stretching a point, and making shit up, even if they’re on the same continuum.
With that said, I’d like to see anything that the gun-control folks came up with that was remotely in the same ballpark as arbitrarily monkeying with the official terrorism alert level was, back when many of us were still taking it fairly seriously.
This sort of presumes that the sides are equivalent, doesn’t it? If, for example, the democrats really were the scum of the earth, with a marked propensity to engaging in the scummeriferous behaviors, then a non-partisan observer would criticize the democrats most strongly.
Unless you can objectively show that the sides are, in fact, equal on various legal and moral grounds, how can you use a poster’s failure to give props to both sides of the aisle as evidence of non-partisanship?
I don’t ask for equal props. But unless you take the position that in every single issue discussed ever, the Democrat has been in the correct position and Republican inthe wrong, I’d say it would be unusual to find someone who never once defended a Republican.
If you effectively never support an issue that favors the other side, then that’s pretty clear evidence of non-partisanship.
As somebody who rarely-if-ever compliments either side, I’m not entirely sure this is true - but whichever. For my part I don’t see the occasional defense of a dem as proof that a person is partisan; as before it depends on the actual spread of goods and evils. If as some people clearly believe the Democrats are in fact angels of light and the Republicans are in fact demons of darkness, then occasional defense of a democrat while usually staunchly defending the Republicans is hardly the impartial approach.
The question is not sincereity or lack thereof. Someone who defends Democrats and attacks Republicans on every issue that arises may well be entirely sincere…but still not fairly called objectively non-partisan.
As between me and Hentor, though, I’m simply saying that I can point to plenty of times I’ve gone to bat for the other side, and I don’t believe he can do the same. Based on that, I’m saying it’s more fair to call me fair, so to speak.
You know, Bricker, I’ve always believed that if one is trying to paint oneself as fair, it’s rarely effective (and usually pathetic) if one has to do the arguing oneself. I could cite my almost violent opposition to Clinton’s shenanagans, and Mrs Clinton’s shenangans, and my literally violent opposition to LBJ as signs of my complete neutrality on the political spectrum, but that’s far less effective IMO than someone like you jumping in to defend me from a charge of being a knee-jerk leftie titmouse. Reviewing your posts, for what its worth, I find you somewhat reliable (with a pronounced lawyerly tendentiousness) on legal matters, but even more reliably partisan (often ludicrously so, as here) on political matters. You extend Republicans every benefit of every conceivable doubt but exonerate Democrats only when the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor. If that’s your notion of “non-partisan,” so be it. It’s not mine, nor is it that of most observers IMO.
Gentlemen and gerbils: bugger Broderism, a fig for non-paritsanship. The non-partisan is a public gelding, a cipher, feh! and again, feh!
Doesn’t the obvious weakness present itself? Doesn’t the elephant in the room trumpet a peanut-scented fart and send you gagging for the door?
High Broderism assumes that both parties deserve equal consideration and respect, which, for about eight years now, has not been within light-years of the truth. I might say that my record over these years is a splendid example of non-partisanship, because I condemn the guilty in no uncertain terms, and am right far oftener than wrong. Wouldn’t that be the position of the non-partisan? Examines the facts without bias, and reports the conclusion that the Republicans, as a unit, as a force…are power-deranged maniacs, without scruple of compunction?
What then for non-partisanship? If an utterly non-partisan observer is likely to come to the same conclusions I do (with my somewhat leftish leanings…), then what difference did non-partisanship ever make? What does it matter where you begin in forming an opinion, so long as you follow evidence and logic?
I wipe my fundament with Broderism, and flush twice to make sure its gone.
I mentioned sincerity?
Suppose, to pull numbers out of my butt, that democrats were in the wrong 25% of the time, and repubs wrong 75% of the time. Then suppose that Mr. B supports democrats 50% of the time, and Mr. H supports them 100% of the time. In this scenario, both sides are exactly as partisan as each other.
As I said before, it depends on the actual spread of goods and evils.
My record is one of never having had a little fit at the mere idea that I had “demonstrated political leanings,” nor having ever protested that I was the most even-handed in my political views.
I do have a demonstrated, even avowed, political leaning. I am not the most even handed when it comes to politics.
Now, this is the consequence, not the cause of my beliefs and opinions about what is right and what should be done, but nevertheless, I’ve never claimed otherwise.
You however have. Quite recently. And humorously.