John, I think you misread me here. I’m not bitching that the GOP didn’t play fair in beating up on us, and as a result we Dems lost. I’m upset that the GOP was basically willing to dig a big hole and push the U.S. into it if it would enable them to beat the Democrats, and as a result we will all wind up losing this election.
Well, in fact Sharpton did address the Democratic National Convention in prime time. He also got thousands of dollars from the Kerry campaign in “consulting” fees.
The Democrats aren’t doing a great job distancing themselves from him, now are they? Not that it wouldn’t be in their interest to do so, considering the blood the man has on his hands.
Nor are they with Cynthia McKinney, now again congresswoman from the 4th district of Georgia. She’s a bit of a loon, to the point where her father and campaign manager blamed her 2002 primary loss on “the Jews”.
There is only one ex-Klansman in the United States Senate. Care to guess what party he belongs to? And far from keeping a low profile, he is the longest serving Democrat there, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and sometime President Pro Tempore.
Senator Byrd’s racial sensitivity was called into question as recently as 2001, when he dropped the phrase “white nigger” into conversation a couple of times.
Now, these fine individuals are still in good graces with the Democrats, in positions of power and influence. I haven’t heard much criticism of them coming from their side of the aisle.
Would you care to start, ElvisL1ves? You claim to be against extremism and bigotry, so here’s your chance to prove it.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Are you saying that the Republicans started the war in Iraq for the sole, or at least for the primary, reason of gaining an electoral advantage?
No, I was talking about the contemporary GOP approach to governing generally.
Though I believe a good number of things have been done during the occupation phase that have been intended to win our hearts and minds rather than those of Iraqis.
As I said, he has his uses to them - but still nothing that translates to actual support as a plausible presidential candidate, or even as a leader of a significant-sized faction.
You don’t want to go there, not if you’re supporting this president.
See the Sharpton comments, but at a much lower grade.
Care to mention, while we’re being “honest” here, how he has denounced it and regretted his past? Huh? Wanna go there, either?
Called into question by whom, exactly? Yep, that’s right, the RW yammerers in their normal daily quest for tu quoques. If you were being honest, a premise which is increasingly questionable unfortunately, you’d have noted Byrd’s apology for that, including a mention of old habits being hard for an old man to break.
Your turn. I’ll give you a start: Which party has separated itself from the white southern bigots, and which party has embraced them? Which party’s recent (and current) *leadership * includes such stalwarts of racial integration as Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond? How many blacks are there in each party’s representation in Congress? Which party’s President counts Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson among his closest advisers?
Who can you compare on the Democratic side? A blowhard preacher and one nutbag congresscritter. Pitiful. But typical of the “Yeah, but you guys do it too” mentality that will always keep you in the wrong.
Looked that way this time, too. But as long as the party in power is willing to fearmonger, they’ll be able to garner votes. Facts, reasoning, and principles didn’t have much to do with it, primal instinct did, and would again.
Who are in the American political arena? Who have any recognition or influence outside this board? You still refuse to name any names. but you still have the opportunity to do so. If, however, you won’t support what you say, and won’t retract it either, then what can anyone still bothering to read it think of the value of your statements?
Ah, Mr. Moto is up to his old tricks again. First he complains that the Democrats refuse to marginalize MoveOn like the GOP did to Pat Buchanen and then when somebody points out that Buchanen quit the GOP and not the other way around he says it’s no difference. The Democratic Party supported the Afghan war and continues to support it. So, for the record, do I (though I am upset about the typical Bushian incompetency with which it’s been handled). It’s Mr. Moto’s Iraq precious war that’s the problem. And, by the way, Moto, congratulations on the latest body counts. Oh, what a master plan that turned out to be. My sincerest congratulations. Why are we there again?
Now, about MoveOn. Do we have a cite for them officially opposing the Afghan War as an organization? It’s been repeatedly asserted that it did but I don’t recall hearing it and, frankly, I’m skeptical. I mean, they were VERY closely associated with Dr. Dean, no? And if they opposed it doncha think Dino woulda been hounded over it? Unless I’m getting my organizations mixed up, I smell one elephatine rat. Could it be that this whole issue has been nothing but a lot of empty noxious gas? I could be wrong but considering the source of the assertion I’d be crazy not to demand proof. I demand proof.
As for the Democratic position, I think it’s so simple I almost feel embarassed mentioning it. When it comes to fighting terrorism (which, by the way, as a resident of New York — AKA Target A — is far and away my biggest political concern) the Republicans are a bunch of hopeless clowns. They royally suck. Consider, Richard Clarke’s position was downgraded thus ending regular meetings on terrorism at the White House and Dick Cheney refused to meet with his terrorism people until after September 11th. President Clinton increased funding to fight terrorism more than any previous president (which John Ashcroft tried to REDUCE on SEPTEMBER 10TH — how’s that for timing?). In fact when President Clinton tried bombing Osama bin Laden to kingdom come do you know what the Republicans did? THEY ATTACKED HIM FOR IT! That’s right Operator. They attacked him for it. They said he was wagging the dog. Bush got numerous PDBs warning hiim about a potential attack in the days leading up to 911 including one entitled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE US and decided to stay on one of the longest vacations in presidential history. When the attack actually occurred the president sat on his ass doing nothing for ten minutes and then, like brave Sir Robin, went heroically into hiding. He let Bin Laden go, and went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks thus inflaming the entire world — including country’s whose help we need — against us. Our chemical plants are still exposed, our nuclear plants are still exposed and only 5% of all container vessels are examined by customs even though that’s the most obvious way to ship a nuclear device into the country to blow me up. When John Kerry mentioned this during the debates Bush’s response was to complain about the money it would cost. What does Bush have money for? The war in Iraq and a space shiled which keeps failing its tests even though they’re fixed. Of course the space shield is great for money-grubbing cronies which I’ll wager is the point.
And don’t get me started on Bernard Kerick. These guys are serious about homeland security? Haw!
Another point. Since Mr. Moto thinks polotical parties should disavow their more disreptuable elements then why didn’t he call on the Republicans to distance themselves from the Swift Boat Veterans seeing as the SDMBs thoroughly established that they were a bunch of liars?
Amazing that Kerry lost the election by 3 million votes, then, isn’t it?
“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”
Mohandas Gandhi
How so?
Such a substantial list of allegations, along with the inferences the author suggests we draw, is - if accepted - a damning indictment against Bush. Yet voters, by a three million vote margin, chose to keep him in the White House.
Thus, “Amazing that Kerry lost the election by three million votes,” eh?
It’s amazing people keep smoking, or start the habit, even though there’s overwhelming evidence it’s unhealty. What’s so incredible about a lot of people being wrong against all reason?
Nothing incredible about it at all, Loopydude. It is, after all, the best explanation for both terms of the Clinton presidency. 
Except, as you guys love to keep pointing out, he never won a majority.
You may have missed the moment when Bush called Kerry’s service honorable, but I don’t think the rest of the electorate did.
Now, you may not believe this act of distancing went far enough. That’s a fair judgement.
Fact remains, though, that even this minimal sign of disapproval hasn’t been seen in the Democratic Party toward any of those politicians I named, nor MoveOn.
I am aware of Senator Byrd’s attempts to distance himself from his Klan days, and his apology for his unfortunate remarks a couple of years ago. I am also keenly aware that, had Senator Byrd been a Republican, these steps wouldn’t be enough to convince anybody that he wasn’t a racist. Trent Lott’s treatment in the media and on these boards after considerably tamer remarks is proof of that, at least to me.
You can also jump through as many rhetorical hoops as you wish, but the fact remains that Sharpton is a racemongering bigot who has incited deadly riots and other acts of violence. The Democratic Party hasn’t told him to take his act elsewhere, though, preferring instead to use the man when it suits them. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that some folks find this association distasteful.
Similarly distasteful to those that favor national security is the association of the party with MoveOn. MoveOn has been coy lately about their past opposition to the war in Afghanistan, but they haven’t to my knowlege disavowed their position after 9/11 explicitly opposing actions against the Taliban.
Yes, peace and prosperity are so overrated.
(A loss of credibility and respect worldwide! A record-breaking deficit! A war started on lies! A quagmire for America’s servicemen! Croneyism in every Cabinet office! A struggling economy! A nation further divided! All this and more are yours if you simply Vote Republican!)
Are you suggesting voters make a choice based on a rational assessment of competence? That would be a very forward suggestion.
If they could do that, they wouldn’t have lost the election.
If the Dems want to win the White House, they will have to run a conservative Democrat. Not a liberal Democrat, not a “progressive”, not a moderate Democrat. Moderate for the Dems does not mean moderate to the rest of the country. A conservative Democrat. And that means, in large part, strong on defense, and strong on foreign policy.
Telling the world that you will get UN permission before you do what you consider right is not a sign of strength. I know you all don’t like to hear this, but it is the truth. The UN is weak, corrupt, self-serving, and stupid. We have twelve years of examples of the UN doing nothing much about most of the major crises of the period. They did nothing about Rwanda, they did nothing about Saddam and the inspection regime, they did nothing about North Korea and its WMD, they did nothing but give out hot air and resolutions and help Saddam steal from the oil-for-food program. And here we had the late Democratic candidate saying he wants to play “Mother May I” with the UN. And then you all are all shocked - shocked, I tell you! - when he loses.
What should the Democratic position on Islamic terrorism be? How about this:
[ul][li]We will do what we think is right, with the help of the rest of the world, or without it. If the French don’t like it, they can go pound sand.[/li][li]Most Muslims are not terrorists, but a big chunk of them are, or sympathize with the terrorists. Don’t mess with us. If you do mess with us, be prepared to regret it.[/li][li]Israel has every right to exist. That is not going to change. If you don’t like that, tough. [/li][li]Basically, we don’t give a tin shit what the Prophet Muhammed said, or what shari’a law teaches, or any of the rest of that. We don’t have to. We have secular government, and we try to treat our women as equals, and our culture has actually achieved something since the conquest of Byzantium. Get used to it. [/li][li]It is not our problem if people prefer McDonald’s and blue jeans to burhkas and madrassas. Get used to that, too. [/li][li]Terrorists have a lot of things in common. Sure you have differing ideologies, but you are pursuing the same ends by the same means. That makes you all our enemies. We don’t care about your doctrine except insofar as it makes it easier to understand you so we can kill you better. [/li][li]We will do what we can to encourage the kind of economic activity that might undercut the terrorist base of support, but there is only so much we can do. If your goverment or your culture is keeping you down, that is not our fault. [*]We have our own interests to look after. If you don’t think of how what you do affects us first and foremost, don’t expect us to.[/li][li]Basically, don’t do anything to piss us off. You can have your stupid government that stones women for being raped or makes it illegal to own a kite or whatever, and by and large we will leave you to it. It’s stupid and wrong, but we can’t be the world’s policeman all the time, unfortunately. So we won’t invade you. Unless you piss us off. So don’t piss us off.[/ul][/li]
Let’s see the Dems put this into their next campaign platform. Maybe you will do better than last time.
Regards,
Shodan
Gee Shodan, if we Democrats were only just like Republicans, you might not dislike us so much? Is that all it takes?
Give me a break. The most liberal Democrat in the Senate lost by less than 3 percent of the vote. We hardly need to start taking pointers from arch conservatives about how to reform our party. Liberalism was not what determined the outcome of the election; it was the exploitation of fear. Too many Democrats like former NY mayor Ed Koch were consumed by fear of terrorism or the desire to get revenge for it. Bush appealed to both of those baser instincts. You are fooling yourself if you think it had anything to do with the relative merits of conservatism versus liberalism.
Fear, maybe you are fooling yourself by misunderstanding Shodan. The “relative merits” are irrelevant.
Shodan was just being helpful and polite. Conservatives are unfailingly polite, as a rule - do you forget December?
For the coarser minded, the bottom line is: You are either with us, or against us. Might makes right. Winner take all. And most importantly:
Resistance is futile.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Happy New Year.