Newsweek's Meacham: "[L]ong time" since Dems have let Americans know they share their values
On the April 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham repeatedly suggested that Democrats are out of step with "American value[s]." Meacham claimed that Democrats "are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values ... whether it's religion or guns or life" and that "Democrats are living in terror of ... look[ing] as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because ... that's an American value." In fact, recent polling indicates that Americans think that Democrats are more in line with their "values" than Republicans.
Following is Meacham's response to host Tim Russert's assertion that "Democrats seem to have been relatively careful in their response" to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003:
MEACHAM: I think you have Democrats who are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values, that it's a party that understands and believes -- whether it's religion or guns or life -- that they, too, are in tune with the public. And it's -- the Democrats have a long history of being able to do this, but it's been a long time since they have.
Later, Meacham again invoked the idea of "American value[s]" while discussing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) April 19 statement that "the war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything":
MEACHAM: I think we're in this odd moment where everyone wants to support the troops, but move away from the mission. And the Democrats are living in terror of -- and I think that's the reaction to Senator Reid's comments -- is to look as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because that is a -- to link all these things together -- that's an American value. That's something we should all share.
But as Media Matters for America noted, a March 7-11 poll by The New York Times and CBS News found that 46 percent of respondents said the Democratic Party "comes closer to sharing [their] moral values," while 41 percent favored Republicans. Furthermore, recent polls show more Americans agreeing with Democrats on specific issues such as gun control and the Iraq war:
- Guns. As Russert noted on Meet the Press, an April 17-19 Associated Press/Ipsos poll found that 55 percent of respondents would be "more ... likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws." The same poll found that 47 percent of respondents favored making "gun laws" "more strict," 11 percent of respondents wanted the laws to be "less strict," and 38 percent wanted laws to "remain as they are." Additionally, according to Gallup: "Fifty-one percent of Americans in a January 2007 poll say gun laws in the country should be more strict, while 14% say less strict, and 32% say they should remain as they are now."
- Iraq. An April 5-9 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 48 percent of respondents said that President Bush "should sign a funding authorization [for the war in Iraq] that includes a timetable for withdrawal," while 43 percent said he should veto the bill. Similarly, when asked whether Congress should respond to a veto by either continuing to demand a timetable or passing a bill without one, a narrow plurality of respondents -- 45 percent versus 43 percent -- opted for the former. As Media Matters noted, the Times/Bloomberg poll yielded these results despite skewed wording that benefited the White House position on Iraq. More broadly, an April 9-12 CBS News poll found that 58 percent of respondents believed that Congress should "allow funding for the Iraq war only for a finite period of time," while 29 percent of respondents said Congress should "allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit." Nine percent of respondents "want[ed] all funding for the war blocked no matter what."
Additionally, Meacham asserted that "Democrats are very touchy about" the issue of gun control because the Republican victories in the 1994 midterm election were, "in some quarters, blamed on ... President [Bill] Clinton's anti-crime legislation," which included an assault-weapons ban. Meacham further asserted that "people close to the Gores blame the loss of Tennessee in 2000 ... on the gun issue." While Meacham cited analyses of the 1994 and 2000 elections, he ignored Clinton's re-election in 1996. As Media Matters noted, Clinton campaigned on -- and even ran ads touting -- the ban on assault weapons. Moreover, the ban remained popular right up to the Republican Congress' decision to let it expire in 2004. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted at the time found that 61 percent of Americans were "dissatisfied" with the expiration, while only 12 percent were "satisfied."
From the April 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: One of the reactions in Washington was a discussion of gun control. Subdued discussion, I might add. Here's the poll of the American people by the Associated Press. "Do you support a presidential candidate who favors stricter gun control?" More likely, 55; less likely, 32. Look at this breakdown by party: Democrats 69 to 21, Republicans, less likely, 50 to 34; independents, 50 to 34. And yet, neither party seemed to be very enthusiastic this week, Jon Meacham, about gun control. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, this is an article from Newsday, the Long Island newspaper:
"Rudy Giuliani this week issued statements on gun control and late term abortions that differ sharply from his previous positions, opening him up to flip-flop charges by activists. The gun control switch seems particularly stark. As New York mayor, Giuliani didn't just support tough controls -- he became former President Bill Clinton's go-to Republican to lobby a GOP Congress to back an assault-weapons ban. Later, Giuliani joined a lawsuit against gun makers and called for a" quote " 'uniform law passed by Congress' to regulate handgun ownership."
That's not part of his agenda now.
MEACHAM: No, and I think you saw what the Democrats -- there was a lot of a kind of a deafening silence, in a way, on the gun issue most of the week. You know that in 1994 the Republican blowout was to some extent, and in some quarters, blamed on the crime bill, on President Clinton's anti-crime legislation. I know that people close to the Gores blame the loss of Tennessee in 2000, and therefore the loss of the presidency, on the gun issue. And so I think the Democrats are very touchy about this, and the Republicans are, rather predictably at this point, playing to the base. It's an inevitable conversation that comes up after one of these horrible things. We have a piece in Newsweek this week by [New York City Mayor] Mike Bloomberg [R], who is -- argues, "Let's enforce what's on the books. Let's crack down on illegal guns." And I think you'll see more of that moderate Bloomberg-[California Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger [R] wing of politics taking the lead on this.
RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, in fact, The Washington Post reports this:
"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for handg-- tighter gun controls, the NRA has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill."
[...]
RUSSERT: Jon Meacham, perhaps it was Virginia Tech and other issues that captured the news attention, but this decision by the Supreme Court was significant, and yet again, the Democrats seem to have been relatively careful in their response to it.
MEACHAM: Well, you're right. We had a week where some of the most fundamental questions in our national life, in our politics were changed to some extent. The -- this is the first Roberts court sign that the long-feared liberal -- liberal fears that the court was going to turn right on these issues -- this is the first time that there's actually evidence that they will. Although, as you know, the country is against this procedure, and there's popular -- against that. The people are against it. I think you have Democrats who are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values, that it's a party that understands and believes -- whether it's religion or guns or life -- that they, too, are in tune with the public. And it's -- the Democrats have a long history of being able to do this, but it's been a long time since they have.
[...]
RUSSERT: A Democrat got in some hot water with his fellow party members as well. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats, talked about the war in Iraq and the funding, and this is what he had to say.
REID [video clip]: I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost.
RUSSERT: Several Democrats called me, Jon Meacham, and said, "We don't want -- we do not want to be debating whether the war is lost or not."
MEACHAM: Right.
RUSSERT: Senator Reid went to the floor and tried to fix it the next day. But what is the significance of that comment, and what's the state of the debate?
MEACHAM: I think we're in this odd moment where everyone wants to support the troops, but move away from the mission. And the Democrats are living in terror of -- and I think that's the reaction to Senator Reid's comments -- is to look as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because that is a -- to link all these things together -- that's an American value. That's something we should all share. We should be -- in the political culture at the moment, we should be supporting the troops in the field. We should be taking care of them when we come home. That's become a very live political question.
"long time"
Yeah, since at least last November...
Nov 7, 2006 8 PM to be exact.
Demoncraps have no values, morals, or character. They like appeasing the enemy and wishing defeat on American troops.
and America agreed... thus, americans are aiding and abetting the enemy... ALL AMERICANS ARE TERRORISTS!!
And your "character" and "morality" are as transparent as hot air when you hit and run with no substantive debate points beyond generalizations. Such value, no value.
You forgot how they support gays, whose desire for marriage erodes our society's moral fiber and forced God to cause 9/11.
Hey, GOPLOVESTOGETAMERICANSKILLED
Its the ReNAMBLAcans that have no honor, intelligence or decency. That is why they are so comitted to getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Its because only by trying to satisfy their insatiable bloodlust can they get their really small thingys hard.
Gee thankx for the "heads up" fella...you & your blowhard brethren could just as easily substitute: Bush has “no values, morals, or character. [Bush likes] appeasing the enemy and wishing defeat on American troops.”
Then again, you’re just another “Chicken Little” amidst that gaggle of neo-mawkish, chicken hawks clucking after their gobbling gander.
Well, his screen name is a bullsh*t Rush Limbaugh talking point...what do you expect?
Hey GOPLOVESTOGETAMERICANSKILLED
Its better than the ReNAMBLAcans who in their infinite bloodlust keep following the lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy.
OK.... so these managing *editors* say whatever the hell they want, facts and polls be damed- and people wonder why informed people say the MM is biased towards the right...
MR. L:
The Rightwing has gone to enormous expense and effort to CREATE their own "REALITY". It has all been done rhetorically, through the repeating of false "conventional wisdoms" that then become the baseline narrative for all discussions.
That the Mainstream Media (like this Meacham character) are STILL acting as if the false GOP world is "reality" shows the extent to which the rightwing has poisoned the discourse in America.
The Rightwing STILL wish us to believe Republicans are "the FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE ones", who are "not only BEST at defending America, they are the ONLY ones who can defend America." The Rightwing STILL wish us to believe the GOP are all about "FAMILY VALUES", and support "CHRISTIAN" morality. Despite the crushing evidence of REALITY, the rightwing wish us to believe that GOP policies are "BETTER" for the poor, for minorities, and for working Americans.
The Polls ... thank the Lord ... show that AMERICA does not buy this false framing any more. But the MEDIA is still in the bag for rightwing propaganda. REALITY does not affect the mechanical citing of these FALSE talking points, over and over again, like a sick mantra.
So, these carnival barkers had a crowd for a brief while, and they could make their claims about their "MIRACLE CONCOCTION" ring true, at least rhetorically. But the barkers are still perched on their Soap Boxes, spouting the same product propaganda, and the crowd has wandered off. At some point, the carnival barker has to admit to himself, he is all alone with his bullhorn ... NOBODY'S LISTENING ANY MORE.
This propaganda campaign is, in essence, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Rush Limbaugh was their spearhead. Once they learned that the Republican base would buy the crap he was peddling, they saturated talk radio with Limbaugh Parrots. Their whole paradigm, as you've so aptly pointed out, is built on a fabric of lies.
I like Will Rogers coment about his political afilliation."I'm not a part of any organized political party. I"m a Democrat."
The inability of them to, dispite everything shrub could have been champained against with, connect emotionally with the public. There is the issue of acess yes, but as hard as it was even a glimst of an offering to stir the soul, or other parts of your anatomy, as advised, would I would hope have struck some sparks. Emotional champaigns can show some of the darkest parts of political combat. The possiblity of winning without it, emotional engagement are, I would think at best chance rare.
Meacham: " I think you have Democrats who are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values, that it's a party that understands and believes -- whether it's religion or guns or life -- that they, too, are in tune with the public. And it's -- the Democrats have a long history of being able to do this, but it's been a long time since they have. "
__________________________________________________________
Re-read this statement again. The "Broad American public" is the key to his point. He's talking about the hot button issues that are the biggest dividers in this country, abortion and gun control. Want to turn a nice party into a donnybrook? Just get a passionate follower on the soap box on either of those topics.
I think some of the above posts are falling into the "one issue" voter realm (which I concede is the issue at the time), but there are other issues that will come to the front as the election cycle gains momentum. That is what I believe he was alluding to.
Democrats are living in terror of ... look[ing] as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because ... that's an American value.
Because, you know, the Swedes, the Canadians, the Japanese - they hate their troops. Only Americans support their troops. Clearly.
Hey, in a post-9/11 world, you either love Bush or hate the troops.
NOW I KNOW why the Dixie Chicks had to be attacked with such fervor and hatred.
Bush's support, at that time, was SO FRAGILE, so tenative, and so unlikely to be maintained by his actions in office, that ANY criticism, no matter how slight or petty, could not be tolerated.
It was a tribute to the GOP acknowledging REALITY that they worked so hard to make it TREASON to question Bush in even the slightest way. They KNEW that if even the slightest leak appeared in the DAM of "competence" they had built around Bush, that the flood would come rushing through, and the game would be up.
I honestly didn't understand the tremendous uproar that resulted from the Chick's small remark. It seemed out of proportion, WAY overblown. But now I know the TRUTH: the rightwing knew all along that Bush was like the house of cards, and the slightest breeze would bring it crashing down.
I do feel dumb for not recognizing that the GOP knew then what I DID NOT know: That the BUSH SUPPORTERS had to go ballistic at EVERY criticism, because they knew Bush was so very WEAK, he couldn't weather ANY criticism. The Chicks, with an offhand comment, had the POWER to bring the Bush Administration down, because it was a boulder propped up by a toothpick. Amazing.
I'm starting to think of that as sort of a blackmail thing. If you don't give Bush what he wants, <mobster voice> the troops might meet with some sort of unfortunate accident. </mobster voice>
SAGRA:
Your view was also presented by Paul Krugman. He has correctly identified this "standoff" between Congress and the President as a "HOSTAGE CRISIS".
The President is holding our troops Hostage, and unless he gets what he wants, THEY will be punished. HE, Bush, doesn't care a whit about the hostages ... that's the entire point of threatening them. He is betting that Congress will back down, BECAUSE they care about the troops, and Bush does not.
So, if Congress "cuts off funds", and doesn't give in to Bush on every item he demands, then Bush intends to leave the troops stranded in harm's way and without any material support. "Don't MAKE me do this to the troops," Bush says, AS IF HE HAS NO CHOICE.
Another word for BLACKMAILER is ... yes ... TERRORIST. And make no mistake, Bush is holding our troops hostage, threatening THEM if he doesn't get his way. Bush is behaving EXACTLY as a hostage-holding terrorist would do. And America is not supposed to GIVE IN to terrorist demands ... right?
Holding the troops hostage? I think that goes directly to the heart of what the Republicans are doing right now. I would like to see the Democratic candidates pick this up run with it while making the case that our long term national security hinges upon energy independence, quality affordable education, healthhcare for all, closing the gap between the rich and poor, a clean environment and the restoration of our international reputation.
This is an example of media bias? If this is the best MMFA can come up with, maybe they need to find another purpose in life. The Media Research Center can find 20 legitimate cases of liberal media bias in the time that MMFA can massage one example of bias.
Maybe it's time for Brock and the gang to do something useful with their lives, such as charity work.
20 cases of Liberal bias, huh? How about you pick any 5 you want and show us the links that factually support Media Research Center's claims. Go ahead. Make our day. LOL!!
You can visit their web site. The documentation is far more credible than MMFA's.
Credible? Give me a break!
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/dishonor/07/MediaExcellenceAward.asp
1st Annual William F. Buckley Jr.Award for Media Excellence:
Rush "Friggin'" Limpnoodle
Since you've opened the floor on credibility
Should we point out that a few days ago our friend Kevin wrote that Limbaugh's crack (about the Virginia Tech gunman being a liberal) was absolutely accurate? Yes. Of course, Limbaugh attempted to get out of his embarrassing position by claiming that it was obviously a joke, and blamed MMFA for not seeing through it.
Well, Kevin, you obviously didn't see through it, either, but instead championed his words as though they were gospel. I think that does rather severe damage to your own credibility.
It's well known that Dan Rather always tilted his head to the left when talking about George Bush. I think he also tended to raise his eyebrows when quoting a Dick Cheney lie.
If you had any facts, you'd show them. And no "Al Franken said one homophobic remark 30 years ago" bs, MMFA has documented people who get paid handsomely to say worse stuff on a daily basis.
Democrats are living in terror? Of what, another landslide victory in 2008?
If Democrats are living in terror (TM), what are Repubs feeling these days? Their preznit is a delusional madman, and their political wagons are solidly hitched to his crazy *ss as he charges toward the edge of the cliff.
Democrats and all Americans should be terrified -- at the prospect of almost two more years of leadership that openly disregards facts, morality and rationality. Long ago we have stopped fearing for our politcal hides, and have come to understand that something far greater is now at stake. As Krugman says in today's Times, this President is holding about ~150,000 Americans hostage, daring us to make him abandon them in Iraq with an unspoken but implied threat that he would never withdraw them, even if the "war" is defunded! Now THAT is the last straw, and ample evidence that Bush and Cheney must be impeached and convicted.
IMPEACH... and CONVICT! Cheney first!
I think several posts above, including the first, sound the same chord you do... but you included the word "terror" (which is a word that struck me as strange, when I read it in the transcript in the item) when you said:
"Democrats are living in terror? Of what, another landslide victory in 2008?"
...very good, that struck the chord all the way to the common sense: In 2006, Democrats nation-wide scored history-making election victories on November 7 (there were two different 'firsts' in U.S. History on that day)...
...and so yeah, right, of course, what better way would you characterize the Democrat's disposition, after having received such history-making support from the American People, than by saying they're "living in terror"?
Funny.
But as funny as the word 'terror' is there, there's another poster above who notes, how Democrats don't necessarily connect well 'emotionally' with People sometimes... and that's true, and maybe even that's what the guy who said 'terror' was alluding to: That certain political issues are traditionally difficult for Democrats (difficult, not 'terrorizing')... and the poster above seemed to instinctively refer to 'emotion' with regard to those issues.
And that's true too: The issue of regulating the sale and use of firearms is emotional, and so isn't the other issue, involving the SCOTUS this past week (an issue the emotions of which, too few Democrats seem to appreciate).
But if anybody thinks that what Democrats need to do is start getting 'emotional', or winning over the 'emotions' of People, that's not true: These 'emotional' issues are presently the bane of American Politics... the issues of Immigration and capital punishment and the regulation of the sale and use of firearms, and the issue addressed by the SCOTUS of late, these issues are not what concern the bulk of the American People, right now or at any other time...
Or how else do you explain the histroy-making election results of November 7, 2006, which involved those issues NOT AT ALL?
It's not that the American People want these 'emotional' issues better accounted for at election time, but that they'd rather those issues were better placed... made less of a priority... than the issues of National Security and Justice.
How else do we explain the history-making election results of November 7, 2006, which were all about National Security and Justice?
Too many People (me included) are too tired of seeing so much made of 'emotional' issues, at the expense of what's truly important to us: National Security and Justice.
And we're right tired of seeing Democrats baited into, and being led around by, these 'emotional' issues...
It's not necessary to don hunting gear, or to go about vainly invoking the LORD's Name... that's not what it's about these days... that's what Republicans do (and you saw what happened to them 11-07-06).
The biggest problem is that the Democratic Party is too afraid to cut loose the one-issue-one-song carpet chewers who make the whole party look bad because they fear "alienating" someone- so instead they keep the laughable noisemakers in the forefront and alienate almost everyone. There is no singularity of purpose- the Democratic party is a vehicle to be ridden and hijacked by any and every left-wing-fringe-fanatic to give them an audience. MMFA is in the same cut and classification.
The Dem's didn't win on their own merits in 06- they got in based on "anybody but Bush", and that's the premise that will be used to run a candidate in 08- thing is though, that come '08, you won't have Bush as a boogeyman to use. '06 was a marginal case of proving tht when you've been in the frying pan long enough, you don't care if you jump into the fire.
I guess what you call "one-issue-one-song carpetchewers", to be the certain 'single issue obsessives' who contribute so much money (but 'alienate' so many people), to (and from) the Democratic Party nation-wide...
...although I'm not so good a guesser, and don't trade in such weird terms, as to know why they're "carpetchewers".
But either way and by whatever words, they (those 'single issue obsessives') do separate the People's (Democratic) Party from the People... they do 'alienate'.
And that's too bad... and we do what we can, to salvage our Government from the grips of the crooked, and the incompetent.
But what's your rant against Democrats?
Is it a rally for Bush and McCain and giulianni et al?
I'd choose mere incompetence anyday, over such criminals and frauds and fools as that.
I have a better hope and confidence in Democrats nation-wide, as that...
A better hope and confidence, that they may be steered better to their well-meaning course (by way of a better, more well-meaning discourse), than your rant serves...
...serves the criminals and the frauds and the fools, that are Bush and McCain and giulianni.
You do seem to serve the point I was making quite well.. (and for your elucidation, a 'carpetchewer" refers to the fanatical, ranting, out of control biting of a rug when someone unstable doesn't get their own way or tries to use it as a means to intimidate- please reference the term in the context of a certain WW2 dictator)...
I'll comment "inline" with what you said here, so the points and rebuttal lines up. My reply will be in plain text, so as to follow the exaggerated method used on MMFA to reinforce the outrageousness of a comment several times in an article by repeating it over and over :)
_______________________________
I guess what you call "one-issue-one-song carpetchewers", to be the certain 'single issue obsessives' who contribute so much money (but 'alienate' so many people), to (and from) the Democratic Party nation-wide...
...although I'm not so good a guesser, and don't trade in such weird terms, as to know why they're "carpetchewers".
THe carpetchewing has been addressed. An example of the carpetchewer that I refer to is the likes of Al Sharpton (and Uncle Jesse, not of the Dukes of Hazzard variety), Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Moore, with a smathering of lesser effective celebrities and pundits such as the Dixie Chicks. These one note, one synapse people make your party look bad to any persone who takes a measured view of reality in terms of cause/effect action/reaction.
But either way and by whatever words, they (those 'single issue obsessives') do separate the People's (Democratic) Party from the People... they do 'alienate'.
And that's too bad... and we do what we can, to salvage our Government from the grips of the crooked, and the incompetent.
Would that be "People's Democratic Party" in the sense of China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam (did I leave any out??).. if that's how you view it, no wonder you alienate everyone.
But what's your rant against Democrats?
Gee but I thought it was obvious- no single unity of purpose, internal divisiveness, too chicken to cull the outrageos, singing that we're "Not Bush"... do I need to elaborate further? The good ideas that your party has gets buried and shouted down by your nutcases, and the party doesn't have the cajones to do anything about it.
Is it a rally for Bush and McCain and giulianni et al?
No. You perceive me as a threat to your political ideology so you assume that I have to endorese all of the above. It would be like me assuming that you're going to vote for Hilary because she's a woman or Obama because he has a mulim name. Thank you very much- your own limited dogma won't let you think outside the left side of the box.
I'd choose mere incompetence anyday, over such criminals and frauds and fools as that.
Funny how in the past the left (depending on which suits their versioning better for the moment in time) have declared Bush incompetent, stupid, related to chimps, etc, yet will the next day decry him as an evil genius. Please pick one or the other and stick with it?
I have a better hope and confidence in Democrats nation-wide, as that...
A better hope and confidence, that they may be steered better to their well-meaning course (by way of a better, more well-meaning discourse), than your rant serves...
again you prove that to you, discourse means agreement. I'm offering an observation that the Dem's are they're own worst enemy, which time has proven to be something of a truism, and you can't accept the reason or the reasoning based on your perception of the source.
...serves the criminals and the frauds and the fools, that are Bush and McCain and giulianni.
I thought you wanted reasonable discourse... shall we mention the fraud, fools and criminals of the Clinton era, or would you rather I find you a nice carpet before we continue? :)
have a happy...
OK, I will have a happy...
As for your response to my comment, it's great for the word-by-word analysis you gave it... (way out of proportion to the word-by-word construction I gave it).
Thanks for the feed-back.
As for that feed-back, I see it defines 'carpetchewer' (thanks), and mentions 'WW2 dictator' and 'exaggerated method' and 'Al Sharpton, Uncle Jesse, Dukes of Hazzard, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and the Dixie Chicks' (Yikes! I'm on 'Celebrity Squares'!)...
...and we have 'synapse' and 'a measured view of reality' and 'cause/effect action/reaction' and 'China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam' (Did you leave anything out? How would I know? ...since I never mentioned or even thought, of those nations in my comment)...
...and 'chicken', 'cull', "Not Bush", 'nutcases', and 'cajones'.
I don't know what to say... you said it all.
And I do enjoy such a spirited analysis of my words (which I hardly make myself... and I take those words personally, I do!).
And I will have a happy...
You too.
"..the left (depending on which suits their versioning better for the moment in time) have declared Bush incompetent, stupid, related to chimps, etc, yet will the next day decry him as an evil genius." (MissDee)
Miss Dee, I thought I'd just pick one piece of low hanging fruit from your disjointed post. If you have the time, could you please give an example of anyone from the left ( or anyone from anywhere, for that matter)ever referring to Bush as an "Evil Genius" ?
I'd like to know who these people are.
<> Dee must be referring to all the "conspiracy theories" about Bush. Everybody knows that Bush isn't behind any of these conspiracies...he's just a puppet.
I agree that Bush is not really running things, I just picked a random bit of BS out of MissDee's post to point out what a bunch of righty hallucinations she'd posted. I wasn't expecting documentation.
Well, huntington, if what I say isn't of any consequence, why does it annoy you so unless it happens to strike a chord with you? Might I suggest as a test of your convictions that you try dumping what you have to say on some place like Ann Coulter's forum or Debbie Schlussel's blog and see how well you fare out.
Got cojones? lol
it's been said that the only thing radicals hate more than their extreme opposition is the moderates between them. :)
you have a happy too now, ya hear?!
Stike a chord? You are being made fun of. Dont you get that you are embarassing yourself with your incoherent rants made up almost exclusively of baseless assertions culled from rightwing talking points.
I have yet to see anything come from you that wasn't some diversionary nitpick, ad-hominem attack, or simply a auto-play recording of the party's talking points. Yeah, I'm outnumbered here, and you probably will keep on keeping on with your well indexed list of phrases from the left's handbook "How to keep yourself from being convinced that we're not right and like it". Don't worry. I'll still keep pointing and laughing.
ANd here you go- try here for starters-
http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel09102004.html
http://www.lostbrain.com/opinion/brandon/bush-evil.html
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=71&num=11678&printer=1
There's three and I'm working off the top of my head...
(Psst... with google around all you really need is a good memory or at least not have a selective one.. .:) )
try it for yourself- three key words.. BUSH EVIL GENIUS ... I got at least 50 significant and relevent hits out of just that simple combination. and by the way- all the links above are lefty sites.
again, have a happy.
From Lost Brain, maybe you have found an example, albeit an obscure and comletely satirical example.
Did you read the articles you posted? From Counterpunch and Axis of Logic, the title reads: "Bush's Evil Genius." It's about Karl Rove, genius, and they're both the same article written by Doug Giebel.
Try again and have a happy!
Bush won't be around in 08 but conservatism will.
If Bush hasn't proven the failings of conservatism than nobody can. Now, before you run as far from Bush as you can and say he's not a true conservative just take a look at his record. Like a good conservative he has chipped away at social security, broken up labor unions, ballooned the military budget while simultaneously striving to privatize it. He directed tons of tax dollars to abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which will curb Medicare/Medicaid spending by $11 billion over the next five years.
He has, in true market fundamentalist fashion, deregulated all government agencies and has ordered every department of government to assess points of cooperation with faith-based initiatives.
Not only has Bush been a catastrophy for the world, conservatism has worn out its welcome with working Americans and their families.
Liberals simply have a better way: Effective govrnment, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility.
Meacham say there was " a deafening silence" from Dems on the issue of gun control for most of the week. I think that rather than being afraid of the issue, the Dems simply had the decency to avoid making this tragedy a political firestorm while the bodies were still warm.
Most decent people would rather allow the victims' families time to grieve, and the nation's wounds to heal, unlike the right-wingers who immediately siezed the opportunity to blame the victims for being part of the "culture of passivity", and for not being "man enough" to throw their bodies in front of the killer's guns rather than "allowing themselves to be lined up against the wall and executed". It was the right-wingers who immediately used this tragedy to rally support around legislation that would allow drunken frat boys to carry concealed handguns on campus.
to Kevin1007
The idea that the media is biased against liberals is so funny! That insanity is what attracted me to this site. The connection with reality is tenuous at best. All it takes is a simple statement of opinion to generate all sorts of name-calling. Great fun.
Lets make sure we get this right, Its not just ANY OPPOSING opinion that gets the name-calling going, its usually the IGNORANT, DITTO-HEADED, NOT-BASED IN ANY FACT, LIBERAL GENERALIZATIONS/ATTACKS "opinions" that usually inspire name-calling and COUNTERattacks from the "liberal" posters on this site.
I can dig that. The old "he hit me first" argument. Nevertheless, I think that Meachem had a point. We (Democrats) used to be competitive in every state in the nation. If Kerry or Gore could have won a single southern state things would be different in this country.
Many people hold democratic values concerning the role of government in our society. Alot of these people will not bend on abortion, gun control, and homosexuality. It used to be that southern baptists were overwhelmingly democratic. The parties unwillingness in the past twenty to thirty years to try to appease this faction of voters as proved to be our undoing. In some ways, the ultra left wing of the party has demonstrated an ability to ruin it for the rest of us. A good example is the assertion that the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality in the public classroom is o.k. or taking extreme postitions on school prayer. People who would otherwise always vote democratic especially in the south just can't handle this. The point is that these issues are local and state issues. Certain factions of the Democratic Party have made it a mission to include out of mainstream radical social policies into the party platform. Lyndon Johnson, one of the greatest liberal social politicians of all time, would be rolling over in his grave at the currrent Democratic Party. We could make the party a 60% majority if we realize that we can't force the social agendas of a minority group of people on the nation as a whole.
How do you change the common percpetion that democrats aren't flag waving god fearing americans? We all know that the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on that but the perception on a whole is there. Changing that perception is the key to the parties success.
"A good example is the assertion that the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality in the public classroom is o.k."
Yeah, God forbid that we teach our kids not to hate homosexuals! Unfortunately, there are quite a few Troglodytes in the Democratic party, also.
I think you kinda justified his point there, when you related "not accepting" to "hating." I hope you don't hate everything and everyone you don't agree with...would lead to an angry life.
THere's a vast difference between teaching to accept differences in lifestyles and culture, and presenting such things as having to be "embraced" by some socially correct mandate. That's how liberals in general and the Dem's in particular alienate most people who are in the mainstream. You present the complete (and equally erroneous) antithesis to the bigot, and to most people that's equally as scary. If it's wrong to impose homophobia on the average citizen, it's equally as wrong to impose homophilia as well. Tolerance and Enthusiasm are NOT the same thing, as much as most of the rabid social advocates would like it to be. You marginalize people that way through over-compensation instead of moderation.
Really well put.
Who is forcing you to accept anything?
No one, because I won't let them. However, When push comes to shove, the axiom across the board for all "minorities" be it social, racial or whatever, is clear in the message that those who "aren't for us are against us, and even more so if you aren't one of us, you're against us." - This is exemplified in the toutings of all the "one note singers". An example is this link, which I've excerpted as well below:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070331/METRO/703310346/1006/METRO01
Quote form the Detroit News:
"
Tip reward offered in gay man's death
Norman Sinclair / The Detroit News
<!-- EDITORIAL: end headline area --><!-- ALL: Begin main story well --><!-- ALL: begin inside right column for poster ad, photos, related links --><!-- ADVERTISING: begin poster area -->DETROIT -- Despite a medical examiner's ruling that Andrew Anthos, 72, died of natural causes, the Triangle Foundation, working with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case.Anthos' death on Feb. 23 touched off national and local outrage when it was reported that the activist was a victim of a hate crime. Police investigated his death as an assault after he was found with a head injury in a snowbank outside his apartment near downtown Detroit.
"Triangle Foundation stands in full support of the family of Andrew Anthos, whom we still believe was the victim of a vicious anti-gay assault, which ultimately led to his death," said Melissa L. Pope, the group's director of victim's services. "In addition to Andrew's statements about the attack to his family while on his deathbed, there was a witness who provided police with a sketch of the man we believe attacked Andrew.""
Now, the man was proven by autopsey by the medical examiner to have died from a complication of having had arthritis for many many years, yet somehow the "well he mighta been killed by a hater" has to stay in the news no matter how ridiculous this is. Is this what you consider to be responsible, non-looney positioning on an issue? I sure as hell am offended by it because it foolishly holds onto the notion that all non-gays have to hate gays.
Yeah, mainstream Americans find this kind of inequitable pandering to be not only offensive but scary. The inequity of this sort of behavior isn't limited to just gays- pick your "oppressed minority" and you'll see the same behavior exhibited there. I think you can find your own examples if you think about it (hint: Imus v. women basketball players in contrast with Uncle Al Sharpton v. Upstate NY state police offices raping Tawana Brawley v. Duke Lacrosse Players). There's no moderation of thought at all- pure emotion built on guilt, and that's wrong.
"In addition to Andrew's statements about the attack to his family while on his deathbed,"
So, we have a deathbed statement that disagrees with the coroner's findings. This is the most outrageous thing you can come up with? The propostition that someone may have been attacked because he was gay somehow imposes on your rights? Unless you can show that someone has been wrongly convicted in this man's death, I don't see what your beef is, other than your ruffled "sensibilities".
Or is it the mere notion of a "hate crime" that has you all lathered?
No it's the misapplication of the word "hate crime" to stir up emotional, guilt ridden, gut-feeling apprehension and revulsion. It's disingenuous, and I'd like to know who the attacker was that gave him Arthritis.
<sarcasm>
I'm half Cherokee. I have type 1 diabetes. Let me at that no good (*^(&^ who inflicted it on me. It's genocide I tell ya! . Come on! I'm a minority! Jump on board. Don't you feel ever so guilty!..
</sarcasm>
Let's end the ridiculousness of the whole victim mentality. I think most people don't really give a rat's rear enough to oppose "gay rights" (didn't someone earlier scream about conservitives co-opting acceptable words and twisting their meaning?) but I think they sure get sick and tired of it being wrung and turned into another way to try to minimalize and marginalize the majority of the populace.
I think most people don't really give a rat's rear enough to oppose "gay rights"
I don't think you're right, and why the scare quotes around "gay rights?"
Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought it was protocol on here to use BOLDS for scare quotes. I put it in quotes since it's a "co-opted" word. I didn't want anyone thinking I mean "happy people" in error...
<sigh>
I know of no LGBT activist, however radical, who expects "enthusiasm" for her or his lifestyle choices. I'm not even sure what you think that means... Republicans marching in Gay Pride parades? Buying rounds at Hamburger Mary's or the Manhole?
The radical demand of the pink lobby is acceptance into society, to wit: the right to marry and to raise children, equal rights in the workplace, the ability for their spouses to make end of life decisions.
If this, in your mind, somehow equates to "enthusiasm" of an unseemly nature, I would submit that this says more about you than it does about the Left.
Eh, I can't speak for the original poster, but I found your reply to be a bit disingenuous. I certainly don't think that advocates for the lifestyle are asking those against it to march in a parade, and I don't feel that parents objecting to materials being presented in class that specifically support lifestyles alternative to the mainstream are "hatemongers" or "phobic".
I support full marriage rights for gays/lesbians under the current Constitution, btw, if for no reason other than all of our states chose to name a secular institution after a religious one, and now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
"Enthusiasm" was MissDee's word, not mine.
Similarly, I don't know what "specifically support lifestyles alternative to the mainstream" means in the context of your reply. What do these "materials" you speak of teach? That homoesxuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice? How would you describe a parent who opposes this premise?
Parents, certainly, have the right to teach their children what they will, but society has the responsibility to protect all its members, especially those the most at risk of abuse.
This is a perfect example of how the Right has hijacked the language...sort of like "partial birth abortion" or "family values". If you try to teach children that homosexuals are just people, like everyone else...they screech that you're "forcing the gay lifestyle on them".
Oooook, youre DEFINITELY right about the "family values" thing especially.
BUT:
Seriously, seriously. I think it's a mistake to take away the option of a medical doctor performing an abortion because then a dad with a clothes hangar is going to do it, but if you called partial -birth abortion by any name that included a reference to the procedure, it would sound worse than "partial-birth." Maybe "brain-suckind fetus death?"
There's a medical name for it, which I can't recall. The bottom line is that it's an extremely rare procedure used to save the mother's life during a late term miscarriage, when internal bleeding on the mother's part necessitates quick removal of the fetus. The Right has repositioned it as an elective late term infanticide.
IDX or Intact D&X, also known as Intact Dilation and Evacuation or Intact D&E or Dilation and Extraction or D&X.
0.17% of all abortions in the US in 2000.
Nerzog, you know I agree with you 100% on this. I think Achris's point was that it didnt resonate in middle America, and you jumped directly to portraying it as not hating homosexuals. Now I think that IS the point of the program, but its not the way its seen nor portrayed for the very reason you stated earlier. So the topics point is that Dems arent SEEN as projecting middle American values even when we are. Tolerance is absolutly a VERY American value. So Achris point, which I think arguable, is we are losing the language and rhetoric wars. I didnt read the post as saying we were WRONG, on any of the issues he raised. I might have misread his intent but thats how it seemed to me.
Achris said this, in regard to how the left has ruined things for Democrats:
"A good example is the assertion that the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality in the public classroom is o.k. "
Essentially, this sounds like Achris doesn't think that teaching tolerance of homosexuals is okay. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
You have a point, though, either way. It is the perception that is the political problem.
You are reading it wrong, sir. My point is that when it comes to economic policy, education, labor, and medical coverage to name a few most Americans agree with the Democratic party. Again, we could have a 60% majority in this country if not for the perception of the Democratic stance on social issues. I used the example of the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality in the public classroom to make that point. There are millions of voters in this country who believe in traditional values. Studies have shown that these folks would always vote Democratic if not for their perception that the party wants to force non traditional values on them. There are millions of people who vote Republican not because they agree with huge tax cuts for the rich or outlandish defense spending, but because they fear that Democrats will use the government to force others to accept social policies that they don't agree with. That is a reality. We have let the radical element of the party set the standards for the moderate wing, who is by far in the majority. Middle Americans don't want public schools teaching their children ideologies which may conflict with those taught at home. It's not the governments role to do that anyway. I firmly believe in the idea that "promote the general welfare" means the government has a responsibility to make life better for everyone. But that doesn't mean that the government has a responsibility to teach us what is right or wrong, especially if those teachings are developed by a group whose thinking is in the minority.
I have no problems with homosexuals. I believe it is a lifestyle dicatated by genetics. I abhore bigoted treatment of any group. The issue is how much are we willing to change our societal views towards traditional values and ideas to accomodate a small minority of people. I don't know the answer to that. I do know that for whatever reason there alot of people who will resist such changes. As long as we as a party bang the drum to the beat "change your mind or the government will make you" we are not winning any hearts and minds to the other good things Democratic policies could do for this country. I just don't think you can force things on people, especially if they have long held traditions and values. On the issue of homosexual marriage for example, I believe that those who keep pushing this issue are going to have to bend to the majority. But, will they? Or, will they continue to try to force feed Americans an ideology they just won't accept at this time? Again, this is a prime example of how the radical element of the party has turned millions off to the Democratic Party. Most Americans have no problems with civil unions. This should be done on a state by state basis. How many could we bring into the fold If the Democratic Party led the way on such a compromise? People resent the government telling us what to accept. Sometimes you have to take what you can get and work for the future.
WOW an actual cogent argument well stated. Who are you and what have you done with Missdee. Sorry, that was mean I just couldnt resist.
yes that was mean, but not unexpected- no offense taken.
The method works like this- "take one brickbat, apply firmly the opposition's head and then say 'now that I have your attention' "...
I'm basically a moderate who detests extremists on both ends of the spectrum. That's why I find most of what's on here so amusing and occasionally disturbing. THis place laughing at Rush Limbaugh is like Rush Limbaugh laughing at MMFA.. LOL
Here's the difference. Rush Limbaugh lies for a living, MMFA doesn't.
and Let me guess that Clinton didn't inhale, and the DNA on the blue dress wasn't his?? Hillary made no money on whitewater, travelgate, and the mass pardoning at the end of the Clinton reign.. er... administration were all meritorious... There's still swamp land in Florida for you too.
Get a clue-- THEY ALL LIE- when you bindly hold to the party line, it makes you either a complete sucker or a total sell out. If that's the best response you can come up with, then no wonder your messages don't resonate with mainstream america.
Now get this- Rush Limbaugh is entertainmnet, plain and simple, No one takes him as anything but that! He's a buffoon. Trust me- you have more to fear from the likes of Ann Coulter- she's smart and will usually "hit you where you ain't" as they used to say among the Dixiecrats.. lol
. Here's another news flash for you- MMAF is a tool of the leftist extreme of the democratic party, right out there with moveon.org (even though you vehemently deny the Soros money being here).
THERE's your real difference.
Just to take a random bit of nonsense from your screechmonkey inspired and extremely incoherent stream of conciousness talking points. In fact the Clintons LOST money on Whitewater. About 50,000$. lost. Thats what an investigation which cost tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayers money, and done by their political enemies, says. If you really want to accuse US of being brainwashed YOU shouldnt be such a propaganda parrot. YOU define brainwashed.
Screeching? let me point somthing out to you. the investigation only came to the conclusion that they couldn't prosecute the Clintons, and that was by inference because of the "umeritorious legal interference" provided by the Clinton's attorneys. The only claim to the Clinton's having lost money was by the "bastion of moderate views (yeah, right)" the NY Times, which made that statement during the noises unfolding during the 1992 election campaign. Then there's all the surroudning "coincidences" such as the McDougles taking one for the team, Vince Foster being conveniently dead all of a sudden, and then the mass pardonings at the end of the Cliton regime.. man, if you aren't indoctrinated I don't know what is. It seems to me that if you had that much suspciious behavior on a Republican you'd all be dancing in the boondocks. Oh yeah, you have.. sounds an awful like the same kinds of "funny stuff" with Scooter Libby, but it only is supposed to work that way if you're a Dem going after a Republica, right?
At least keep your score card straight, okay? If the Washington Times was the only place that said Cheney lost money in Haliburton, you'd be rolling on the floor laughing, just as I am over your assertions over Whitewater...
next talking point from the left handbook?? :)
Well I am an extreme liberal who doesnt detest anybody who is reasonable, sincere doesnt lie and accepts reality as a baseline. Not on the right or the middle. But thats me.
I disagree. That was not my point. I in no way put forth a policy idea. I merely stated the obvious, which is; Americans in general don't want ideologies taught to their children in schools which conflict with what is taught at home. I agree with you that is where the far left liberal wing of the party has went wrong. You misinterpreted my posting.
THere's a vast difference between teaching to accept differences in lifestyles and culture, and presenting such things as having to be "embraced" by some socially correct mandate. That's how liberals in general and the Dem's in particular alienate most people who are in the mainstream. You present the complete (and equally erroneous) antithesis to the bigot, and to most people that's equally as scary. If it's wrong to impose homophobia on the average citizen, it's equally as wrong to impose homophilia as well. Tolerance and Enthusiasm are NOT the same thing, as much as most of the rabid social advocates would like it to be. You marginalize people that way through over-compensation instead of moderation.- misdee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I've never encounterd a liberal in general or a democrat in particular who seeks to make me embrace 'homophilia' or abortion even. Who are these people, what are their names? I know specific gay persons in my circle of friends who simply want avoid getting beat-up. I know of politicians like Obama and Edwards who simply wish to extend and preserve equal rights and pirvacy rights to all citizens.
And I think you're wrong about everyday Americans, especially in the South, who won't let go of the gay issue. Folks on the whole accept and even embrace the rights of tax paying citizens to enjoy full inclusion in the American experience. I think it's your conservative carpet chewers like Laura Ingraham, Limbaugh, Hannity, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, James Dobson et al who keep chewin' on the same gnarled 'special rights' territory.
and I'm sorry that you don't "get it". THe real issue is that the left lets their extremists control the impression on middle america. How often does the Democratic party wail and cry over that "huge red blob" in the middle of the country and all you're hanging onto is the extreme left and right coasts. No wonder you all fear global warming. You'll lose all of your constituancy in one large tsunami... The point is that when activists are shown marching, chanting sometimes rioting, and to take it to the "gay" issue, holding a gay pride parade in San Francisco where you have lew gesturing, obscene costumry and so on, what impression does that give to the average hardworking traditional values kind of guy who still comprises and covers most of the geography of the US?
What do you think Joe American's going to think when the local GLAD starts making noises about gettting in the middle of the St Paddy's day parage on Main Street USA ?
My message has been throughout this thread that as long as you let your loonie extreme lefties provide what seems to be the policy and impression of your party, you'll always been sitting there saying "What the hell happened" every four years.
And the "XXXXX rigged/stole the election" is getting a little thin. I doubt it will work for a third time and be convincing except to the most die-hard among you...
That's a hoot. I mean really very funny.
You trying to tell me a small subset of homosexuals, which the mainstream media flaunts in favor of the majority of gay people, in an annual parade represents some sort of influential qabal that has hijacked the left? Check yourself, son. Get back to me when the right kicks the office of Faith Based Initiatives (FBI, funny acronym,eh?) out of DC and initiates the Office of Gay Pride.
I AM your average hardworking Joe, living in America's bread basket and I say that all men are granted certain unalieanable rights from their Creator. It ain't my fault that your authoritarian culture vulture conservatives keep chewin' that unequal rights carpet.
Here's the truth: Folks in this country really don't care how anyone else is living their lives so long as they do not impinge upon their personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's when these malcontent coservobots, who seek to shift the responsibility from their failing authoritarian agenda onto the shoulders of a liberal society that foments disdain for my fellow liberty loving liberals.
It is the efforts of liberals like Mother Jones who fought for workers rights and child labor laws who made this nation great. It's liberals like Martin Luther King who struggled for equality that made this nation the home of sweet justice. They were called radicals and extremists of their day, yet we are better because of them.
Liberals continue the struggle to secure freedom and liberty for the disenfranchised. I am proud to be a liberal who will not accept the marginalization of my out of the mainstream neighbors. If that makes me extreme then so be it, I will not sacrifice my values to appease some right-wing blowhard rhetorician.
Okay, I'll comment here in a linear fashion as well. Yours are in bold, to add to the shout factor again, as seems to be the policy on MMFA.
_____________________________________________________________
That's a hoot. I mean really very funny.
You trying to tell me a small subset of homosexuals, which the mainstream media flaunts in favor of the majority of gay people, in an annual parade represents some sort of influential qabal that has hijacked the left? Check yourself, son. Get back to me when the right kicks the office of Faith Based Initiatives (FBI, funny acronym,eh?) out of DC and initiates the Office of Gay Pride.
Your reading comprehension skills must be dulled by a case of "disleftia"- that's where only certain words are preceptible if they fit the left and then they get scrambled by the neurons into something that makes sense to you, totally devoid of original meaning. Yes, I am saying that Average Joe American, who doesn't really care what someone does as long as it doesn't negatively affect him, won't care enough to go out of his way to oppose it. It's when the militant presentation is made, accompanied by the disingenous practice of guilt infliction is waved around, it scares the bejeezus out of him. THe mainstream media is EXACTLY what I was talking about in this presentation. Get more attention and media whores behind any cause and this is the result.
I AM your average hardworking Joe, living in America's bread basket and I say that all men are granted certain unalieanable rights from their Creator. It ain't my fault that your authoritarian culture vulture conservatives keep chewin' that unequal rights carpet.
and if you actually do feel that way, then you should be cognizent that (mutuallY) someone else's rights stop where your nose begins. this is just a diatribe to spray paint conservatives.. It's the same old opening tune to the opera.
Here's the truth: Folks in this country really don't care how anyone else is living their lives so long as they do not impinge upon their personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's when these malcontent coservobots, who seek to shift the responsibility from their failing authoritarian agenda onto the shoulders of a liberal society that foments disdain for my fellow liberty loving liberals.
Didn't I say exactly this, but without talking about "democrits, Dhimmicrats" and other disparaging and oh so clever names taken ad-lib from some rant site like this one- again, you're just striking up the same one track minded band here... only liberals love liberty huh? right.. I'll keep that in mind.
It is the efforts of liberals like Mother Jones who fought for workers rights and child labor laws who made this nation great. It's liberals like Martin Luther King who struggled for equality that made this nation the home of sweet justice. They were called radicals and extremists of their day, yet we are better because of them.
Here comes the battle hymm of the republic next? oops! sorry.. "republic" is so close a word to (gasp) republican.. it's time to "Rename that tune" <sigh>
Liberals continue the struggle to secure freedom and liberty for the disenfranchised. I am proud to be a liberal who will not accept the marginalization of my out of the mainstream neighbors. If that makes me extreme then so be it, I will not sacrifice my values to appease some right-wing blowhard rhetorician.
Nice rhetoric. Too bad it has nothing to do with the conversation except give you another deflected way to bash republicans..
I wasn't yelling, I wasn't even mildly perturbed.
This is a tiresome exchange. You've failed to persuade or refute and the dumbest aspect is that you complain about not being treated nicely after you toss around snarks and pejoratives like Julia Childs tosses salads. Too bad you gotta be a jerk and then whine about being treated like one because, more than likely, we have a good deal of commonality on many issues.
Lastly, do yourself a favor by stopping with the 'radical' anybody talk. You may fancy yourself a moderate but you happen to be a radicalized moderate unable to see the error of your own ways because you're so blinded by your own aggrandized sense of proportion and righteousness.
ACHRISPAGE:
You have a point. Politics is a trade off. Many in "the South" wish to discriminate against gays, wish to demand that every pregnant woman carry to term, and wish for everyone to be armed without any government "interference".
To GET politicians who support these views, "the South" is willing to accept preemptive wars with no justification and no end, DEFICIT SPENDING in record amounts with no end, super-secret NON-ACCOUNTABLE government which simply loses all the paperwork when legally challenged, an "open border" policy to provide cheap labor to big agri-business (and maids for the wealthy), losing well-paying manufacturing jobs to overseas slave labor, and ever increasing prices on gas, utilities, local taxes, prescription drugs, health care, and colleges. As a bonus, their envoronment can be degraded to provide further wealth for the annointed industries.
So, "the South" ... and every average American ... agreed to a royal screwing in order to be homophobic, mysogynistic, and violent.
Such a deal!
Thats a very good analysis. I would argue that perhaps the opposite. The fact dems have run to the middle and in fear of the percieved rightwing shift in America tried to sell themselves as republicans lite turned off many Americans. In my job I work with different people all the time. I might work with the same guy twice a year or not for three years. We are alone together on for between six and twelve hours and we talk. Most dont really care about politics yet want to vote. They choose a political candidate the way the choose a mechanic. With the idea that THEY know more about it than he does. What he wants to know isnt intricate details about tax policy but do they BELIEVE they are right are they willing to FIGHT for THEM. I am one that believes the Democratic Party caters so little to liberals that we are completly ignored. I left the party for that reason though I still vote Dem 90% of the time and third parties the other 10%. I havent seen a Republican I would vote for, not that there arent decent ones but I dont agree with their polcies, since Anderson ran as a third party candidate in 1980. I am one that believes most voters dont care what you believe until they believe you care. And by triangulating and seeking the middle obsessively they have lost that aura of caring enough to bet it all. Dems need to be willing to lose an election or two on principle. Saying THIS is more important than whether I get elected because its RIGHT. I also am one the believes the Democrats are different from the GOP in this way. They NEED the left and the middle. They need the moderate voices to bring us dreamers back into the fold. To rein us in. And the moderates NEED us dreamers for our energy and ideas. Why would people vote for the message that we are mostly LIKE the GOP but not as mean? WE have the right symbiosis and one of the Democratic partys great strengths its diverstity is also one of its great weaknesses because of its propensity for forming circular firing squads. When it makes that symbiosis work the GOP cannot win against the Democratic party. History has shown this even today after conservatives have had such a winning streak there are more people registered as Democrats than as Republicans. No one expects us to be lockstep like the GOP. The left part of the equation and the moderate part blaming each other is a big problem. I say this to my far lefty friends too. When we realize we are going to disagree here and there often a lot but WE share a common vision and common values far beyond what we share with the GOP, allow ourselves to argue about which policiy vehicles are best in good faith, without rancor, understanding that its JUST an argument about the vehicle and we agree on the destination, a better country and a just society. When we do that the Dems are unbeatable. WE havent been able to do that for a while.
"Morals" and "values" are inconsistently defined in the socially conservative and liberal realms, so i don't see much point in debating it, since nobody can agree on the terms.
Don't worry guys...I think the repubs won't be able to win again on "values" voting...their old-man social conservatism has driven away moderate socials like me, and I don't see what generation (I'm 24) behind me will have enough idealogues to push Repubs to the forefront just on "principles".
I always wondered whatever happened to Illya Kuryakin. Now I know...
I heard that he was recruited by T.H.R.U.S.H.
achrispage6992;
Many years ago, I was a registered Democrat. I voted for McGovern in '68, as a matter of fact. In 1979, I went to the Iowa caucuses as a Democrat, and b/c of my views on abortion, the chair of the caucus took me aside and asked me to go down the street to the GOP caucus. Iowans are very civilized people, it was a friendly conversation. But it made me realize that people like me, who were more liberal than Truman (for instance) were no longer 'liberal' enough for the Democrats.
I left, and I've never been back. Things have gone steadily downhill for the Democrats since (try defending Leiberman on this site).
What poses as 'liberal' among the Democrats (like many of those who use this site) today is a 'liberalism' wearing a brown shirt. There is no room for disagreement, no tolerance of any idea not the 'party line,' just an amazing roiling and irrational anger. It reminds me very much of having a discussion with a rebellious junior higher. Shout at those with whom you disagree. Call them names. That will prove your point!
As a case in point, here's a reply to my last post: "Its not just ANY OPPOSING opinion that gets the name-calling going, its usually the IGNORANT, DITTO-HEADED, NOT-BASED IN ANY FACT, LIBERAL GENERALIZATIONS/ATTACKS "opinions" that usually inspire name-calling and COUNTERattacks from the "liberal" posters on this site." - dtrain30519427 / Tuesday April 24, 2007
To keep the temperatures 'normal,' I would remind readers that the esteemed Senator from Nevada is now claiming that the Iraqi military mission has been accomplished. I guess he agrees with the banner behind President Bush on the aircraft carrier! Just a few days ago, all was lost!
Nice to see that you've bought into the Rush Limbaugh fantasy that liberals base their decisions on "emotion" and conservatives use "logic". It's nonsense, of course, but it makes for good rhetoric. The Democratic party is no more enthralled to its radicals than is the Replublican party.
And you still haven't said anything to refute my point. You quoted me, and then your implying that I called someone a name, tell me.. who in this thread did I call a name? Also, its pretty apparent that your new to this site. Read some more articles and commentary before you GENERALIZE that "FAKE LIBERAL" posters on MMFA cannot tolerate opposing points of view. Do you even know who Tommy and Jeter2 are? Do you know who leatherhelmet is? Solon? Irony 101? Nice try.
Congratulations
You are the best argument I've heard yet against the theory of evolution.
As an aside, I'm delighted to hear that the mission in Iraq really is accomplished after all. So let's bring the troops home. Now.
Here's an interesting story. Warning: Barf Bag recommended.
http://www.thecoveherald.com/page3.html
very well stated.. moderate and measured views here are rejected as being the next thing to fascism.
Nonsense. Spend some time actually engaging in dialogue here before you tar everyone with the same brush.
I've spent a good deal of time reading what's been on here before I ever posted a word. I take it your idea of discussion with people once again comes down to that no one can say anything that's in oppostion to the popular view here. and here I thought that liberals were such proponents of the 1st amendments. yeesh.
The guy was a jerk. Some of my most liberal friends are anti abortion. I have no problem with that myself. I understand and disagree. The idea the some radical leftwing cabal has highjacked the Democratic party is however a delusion. I left the Democratic party because as a liberal I was completly ignored. Taken for granted. They KNOW people like me arent going to vote GOP so why bother listening. As for Lieberman the problem with him ISNT that we disagree with him but that he feels free to demonize us FOR disagreeing. It wasnt enough for him to disagree with us about the war rather he had to tell us we HAD to support Bush and his policies or we were aiding the enemy. YOU have done your share of mischaracterizing and being rude then acting like the attacks on YOU were uncalled for. YOU feel free to call Reid an idiot and worse but heaven forbid that anyone call YOU a name. This is a tactic we associate with rightwing trolls since we see it from them day after day. THEY come in calling us names, insulting us without mercy then snivelling like there is no tomorrow that anyone migh actually return the favor.
Solon,
It is not a delusion. The party of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson is gone. The only successful Democratic President in recent times is Clinton, and he governed from the middle. He says so himself in his book. Being liberal is certaintly nothing to be ashamed of, I consider myself liberal as it is defined in Webster's. But, come on, rabid socialism is not liberalism. And some, I'm not syaing you, have infused or tried to infuse that into the Democratic party.
It is absolutly a delusion. I am not a socialist, just very liberal. Where are MY views being pushed by the Democrats? As I said I left the party because I felt I was being ignored and my support AND money were being taken for granted. I would say Kennedy was both Liberal AND successful. Clinton was an amazingly gifted politician. However his successes did not really carry over to successes for the Democratic party he had very thin coattails. The idea that the Democratic party has been taken over by a cabal of far lefties is definitly a delusion. When did they run Paul Wellstone or Barney Frank for President again? How well did Kucinich do and how much support did HE get from the DNC? No its spin not reality
Solon,
I'm not sure what your views are. We obviously have a totally different take on what far left is. I guess as my age dictates I see "far left" much differently than you. In my day (I know that sounds so terrible) the policy obligations presently taken on by the Democrats in terms of gun control, abortion, homosexuality, would be deemed radically far left. That leads me to my point. I'm not saying that these currrent views are wrong. I know that they intend to show progress and the intent of changing minds on such social issues is good, but, the current view of the party in terms of these particular issues have alienated millions of voters who would otherwise be Democratic voters.
I'm sorry edrossinoelwein, that is not where I'm coming from. I firmly believe that the Democratic party has much more to offer in the way of economic policies, education, health care, and yes even social policies. My point is that the party is perceived as too far left by alot of Americans who would otherwise vote Republican. The reality is that only on a few social issues has the party been hijacked by radicalism. And if you voted for McGovern in 1968 it had to be a write in vote. I am tempted to guesstimate that you are being quite disingenuous with your background. Even I am not old enough to have voted for Truman. If not, I will take your statement as an honest mistake and leave it at that.
achrispage6992
Sorry; I voted for McGovern in '72, the first presidential election I was old enough for. The party of Truman (who was fairly liberal) wouldn't be tolerated by the party of Kerry/Clinton/Pelosi/Reid. They would run Harry out of town. (Truman was a hero in our home, hence the reference to him.)
Certainly the Democratic party has been 'hijacked' by radicals. But the problem that most Americans (of course, I live in 'flyover' country) have with the Democrats is that most of what they propose is socialism, pure and simple. Mrs. Clinton's health plan is a pretty good example. It wasn't the Democrats who rejected her health plan, it was the nation as a whole - I hear her husband could read a poll. That's why it never saw the light of day.
What a suprise, the New York Times and CBS News found that most Americans identify with the Democratic Party when it comes to morals and values.
You cannot get two more left leaning media outlets than the NY Times and CBS. I wonder if the went further than the Upper West Side of NY City to conduct their poll?
Typical righty response - when polls show what you don't like, attack the poll takers.
Again, the best poll taken was last November. And it was a complete sweep - no sitting Dems lost their seat - NONE!
and most polls are as much value as the old polltaker's joke- "excuse me sir, are you married or are you happy?"
if you can't skew the results, skew the demographics on the poll and the questions. Most polls could prove that people think that Mahatma Ghandi was Russian if you set it up right.
If you think a poll is flawed, look at the methodology and question anything you think is invalid. How were the questions asked? How was the sample selected?
Given that the national polls before the election tracked pretty well with the actual results, I don't think that your blanket condemnation of all polls stands up to scrutiny.
and you are naive if you really think that every poll isn't set up to cover someone's agenda.
How many announced poll results actually provide the statistical model that was used? you can kill a poll's value simply by how you apply chi-square to t-tail a histogram if it suits your needs. Most people aren't statisticians and wouldn't know a histogram from a histimine tablet or even the differnece between mean, median and mode... and that's on the back end process of statistics.
How many poll questions have been carefully crafted to put the one being polled at a disadvantage so through either obfuscation or presenting something easily misinterpreted the results can be flawed?
You can't use the single instance of the polls tracking to the results of one election as any proof against it. Look at how many times the MSM has used exit polling to predict a win and how dismally they've failed. Just look to the last two presidential elections to see that in action, and exit polling is pretty straight forward- ask who did you vote for? and make another tickmark. No nuance there, but most of the opinion and favorability polls are skewed by the designer of the poll.
YOU are totally niave period. You think your delusional fantasies define reality and your baseless assertions have some dim connection to reality.
is that response a quote from the lefty handbook again? I see nothing coutner assertive in anything you say except for name calling.
That is the key IF you set it up right. Without evidence there was any flawed methodology the argument is self serving hogwash. Probability and statistics is not a new science. It is KNOWN how to get a representative sample. Polls are all we have to judge opinions. They are SOME evidence, people arguing that the polls are wrong because they dont like what they said have WHAT evidence to back up THEIR wishful thinking? Amazing mind reading powers?
Ludicrous. Want to see left leaning? Try the Nation magazine or In these Times. The NYTimes is sooooo left leaning they were a leading cheerleader for the war and regularly give editorial space to Cal Thomas, William Safire, William Kristol and many other rightwingers. Tell me when the Washington Times publishes an editorial by Noam Chomsky. You have no point.
The Right has spent a couple of decades loudly mocking liberals for caring about healthcare, poverty, women's rights, racial equality, the environment, education, religious freedom, & etc. We still care about all of those issues, and we know that Democrats care about those issues -- but if they talk about them out loud they'll be descended upon by a bunch of obnoxious MSM bullies. Like, for example, Limbaugh's Michael J Fox impersonation.
And now that they've won, and that which we value doesn't get mentioned on the Sunday news shows, they do what the amoral Right always does. They complete the marginalization by claiming that Democrats don't have any values at all.
Unfortunately for them, the bullying and marginalization doesn't have that much affect on people's fundamental values. I feel bad for our kids growing up in such a pseudo-fascist environment, but Democratic parents teach our kids our values. They don't watch the Sunday new shows anyway.
Or maybe its just a shock to you that a majority of American's generally DON'T identify with these so-called values:
"All GAYS BAD", "GAYS IN THE MILITARY WORSE", "GAY MARRIAGE, JUDGEMENT DAY", "ALL NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS BAD", "ALL CONTRACEPTION BAD", "SEX BEFORE YOUR MARRIED BAD", "MORE GUNS GOOD", "MORE WAR EVEN BETTER", "PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOL GOOD", "ALL ABORTIONS BAD", "EVOLUTION BAD", "CREATIONISM GOOD", ""
Here's a key one.
"LEGISLATING ANYTHING FROM THE BENCH THAT 'CONTRADICTS' THE BIBLE BAD"
"LEGISLATING ANYTHING FROM THE BENCH EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS GOOD"
How interesting. We've suddenly been inundated with "former Democrats" who were driven into the arms of the Republican party because the "libruls" became too strident. I guess that happens...it happened to Strom Thurmond. In fact, before the Civil Rights act, the Southern States were mostly Democratic. This, of course was because Lincoln was a Republican, and the South was still mad at him over that whole Civil War thing. Once the Republicans evolved into the Bible Thumping party of the oppressed white majority, these Dixiecrats suddenly felt more at home there. Funny how things change.
Here's some more gems:
"PRO-LIFE GOOD", "DEATH PENALTY GOOD", "ANTI-WAR, ANTI-AMERICAN/ANTI-TROOP (that means BAD)", "DEMONSTRATING AGAINST WAR POLICIES, TREASON", "MAINSTREAM MEDIA BAD", "FOX NEWS, MIRACLE", "BIGOTED RADIO HOSTS, GREAT", "TV BIGOTS, GOD SEND (Excuse my pun)", "FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT BENEFIT MINORITIES, BAD", "FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT BENEFIT CHURCHES, GREAT"
A bit off-topic, how any party can support frying convicts but get mad about aborting a cell that has divided 4 times is beyond me.
Then again, supporting unrestricted partial-birth abortion rights and being vehemently against euthanizing a serial killer is a little weird too.
If late term abortions were done for ANY reason other than protecting the health of the mother I would be stridently against them. I watched testimony before congress in which a doctor said it never happens. I also remember that the GOP could have passed a late term abortion bill loooong ago by putting in an exception for the health of the mother. They wanted the ISSUE not the solution. Anyway thats how I see it as someone who supports choice AND is against the death penalty.
Well, I don't really see how, if the mother's life is in jeopardy, there's any "choice" involved but to save her life.
But that's just me. I didn't say "pro-choice and anti-death penalty" btw, I said "pro unrestricted PBA".
I dont either but the GOP wouldnt allow it as an amendment to their bill. I personally dont know anyone FOR unrestricted late term abortions, I am sure they exist, but I dont know them.
it's a matter of somethng called "personal responsibility" that seems strangely absent as a concept among the far left. In the case of the convict "frying" as you say, the individual has been convicted of a heinous enough crime to warrant it as a penalty and still "chose" to commit said crime. In effect if you know you'll get burned by a hot stove and grab it anyway, why should you scream foul when you get burned?? In the other case, (again going back to personal responsibility at the root)- you have a potential life- still unable to make choices, but the choices that individual could make will never be known with an abortion of convenience. In the same vein, in this day and age, is there ANY excuse for a woman to become pregnant unwantedly? I'm not talking rape, coerscion, health of the mother. I'm talking seer callousness and lack of responsibilty. yeah, the system will give me a pass.. it's okay...
In both the death penalty and the "abortion of convenience" it's a matter of personal responsibility.
See the problem with the death penalty and abortion is that the right professes that abortion is against the teachings of the Bible but not the death penalty? Inconsistent much? Personal responsibility in the case of the death penalty is a distraction because it has nothing to do with determining the proper punishment of convicted criminals in accordance with laws of the land. Clearly, demagogues on the right think that legislating bible scripture is perfectly legal, but stay strangely silent on the one law that IS clearly against the bible's tennets. They are trying to have it both ways.
Partial birth abortion is a very rare practice, but you'd be surprised to believe that (IF that procedure is as described) I support the partial birth abortion ban EVEN in the event that the mothers life is in danger. But not for the reason's you might think. It has nothing to do with biblical teachings. I believe (if the baby is still alive), that the mother would want to baby to live if her life was suddenly in danger while she was delivering. What mother in her right mind would really want to kill her living baby to save her own life? Killing a living fetus late term to save the mother is clearly wrong regardless of of your religious beliefs I think.
Perfect example how the Managing Editor of a major corporate magazine is absolutely desperate to spin right-wing talking points.
Doesn't matter what the American people actually say, it will not penetrate the minds of right-wing "Managing Editors."
Religion & life + guns = ???
= militant Demagoguery