 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 12, 2006
By: THE NEW CONGRESS....Did Democrats win last week by running a bunch of conservative candidates? I think Michael Tomasky gets things just about right in his LA Times piece today:
There were some socially rightish candidates who won on Tuesday, but their numbers were pretty small and it's unlikely that Democrats are going to focus much on social issues anyway in the upcoming congressional session. Instead, they're going to focus mostly on the Iraq war and on economic issues, where there's a considerable amount of common ground among all Democrats, new and old. There's a lot of talk about "interest groups" all demanding their due now that the election is over, but I doubt very much that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to allow them to dominate the agenda. Expect a full plate of technocratic populism and foreign policy oversight instead. —Kevin Drum 1:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (211)Comments
technocratic populism Here we go again with the media and others playing "concern troll" for the Democratic Party. We better shape up and go all right wing or we are doomed, doomed. But you know what? I've got another little idea. Look, let's put this all in the proper perspective. It is the Republicans have lost big. It is they who are in shock, and are confused. I'm don't doubt but that they have no idea what to do, which way to turn. It's time for us, the Democrats, to play the role the Republicans have enjoyed for the last 6 years. We should become their Concern Trolls. We should explain to the Republicans what they can do to command, once again, the respect of the American people. We should communicate to them the Democratic principles, values, and practices they should adopt to revitalize their electoral prospects. We should describe ways they can, in the right trick lighting, almost resemble Democrats, even though they can never attain that exalted status. I think it's just the least we can do for them. They've pitched in and done it for us for these many years; now they can reap the benefits of OUR altruism. So why don't we give it a good college try? (Actually, there is a genuine problem here. What SHOULD a Republican do to change his party? Say that he refuses to pursue reckless wars, and will take diplomacy seriously? But then how is he different from a Democrat? Is he going to proclaim that he's going to stop passing tax cuts, or that he will actually cut spending? How is that going to sound Republican, or find a way of working? About the only thing I think they might manage to agree amongst themselves to change is actualcorruption. In principle, they could be the same party and NOT be corrupt -- though it's hard to see how in practice they would manage it.) Posted by: frankly0 on November 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKThe circular firing squad has already begun. Kos is going after Carville, Carville is going after Dean, Dean is just lurking about being crazy, and the interest groups are already demanding their bit-- the Democrats have to please the grave-robbers, the baby-killers, the troop-haters, the terrorist-appeasers, those that value spotted owls over humans, those who want racism in college admissions, those who want illegal immigrants to vote, etc., etc., etc. While republicans spent six years trying to govern, democrats spend six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they managed to eke out a victory. However, they can't humor all the interest groups without horrifying the mainstream. So, they either lose the support of NAMBLA and the communists, or they horrify the American people. Either way, they disintegrate in 2008. The Democrats have been sliding to irrelevance for a long time; 2006 merely delayed the inevitable. Posted by: American Hawk on November 12, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKHeath Shuler -- one of those 'conservative democrats' we have been hearing so much about in the media is in the NYT today talking about the function of government as 'helping people who can't help themselves' --- compassionate yes -- but conservative, not so much Posted by: artemesia on November 12, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKThe people of the United States are the only issue of concern for the next Congress. What are the Middle Class in 2006 except people with Chinese goods and a pantry of food they keep in a banker's pantry? The correct path for Democrats is that which it has always been--taking care of as many of the masses as we can, with an eye towards bettering the lot of the whole.
ah: While republicans spent six years trying to govern funniest line of the thread, so far.... Posted by: mr. irony on November 12, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKProblems posting today-- My point above should have read: What are the Middle Class but barely disguised poor people with Chinese goods and food stuffed into a banker's pantry? The whole post was lost, then reassembled badly by myself. Anyway, taking care of Americans is the way of the Deocratic party. Taking care of the poor is the way of my religion and the American way. . . Posturing to lead the way forward is predictable outcome of multiple success stories and a good thing. I love the 100-hour blitz. The remaining hours should look to our wounds as tempered judgement should do--all things in their good time. Posted by: Sparko on November 12, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINKProblems posting today-- Ah, Kevin. That's right, the Democrats aren't conservative. What they are are a bunch of liberal secularist, materialist, humanistic, deconstructionist, Darwinist, communist, socialist, athiestic French lovers who would prefer to hold hands with terrorists and understand them instead of loading the guns and taking it to them. The dems would prefer to kill babies rather than to educate them and nurture them through Bush's NCLB and Christian programs. The Dems would rather pry money from the cold clutches of dead people and give their hard-earned money to some fat welfare queen living it up in federally funded New Orleans. The Democrats would rather form an unholy union with spoiled, flighty Hollywood actors and force their nihilism and athiesm on the hard working people of this country. You guys are gonna get creamed in '08! I'm gonna enjoy that. Revenge is a bitch, ain't it? Posted by: egbert on November 12, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKI enjoy egbert's parodies, but sometimes he goes much too far for credibility. Still, they're good fun! Posted by: shortstop on November 12, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINKInteresting to see how the media finds the Democrats to be so moderate/conservative. Seems like only last Monday they were happy to parrot GOP talking points claiming that they were all trotskites. The position of the Senators on social issues is utterly irrelevant. Neither the House nor the Senate is going to have a single vote on one of Rove's wedge issues. Nor is their position on Iraq particularly important. Outside the administration only Joe is an appologist for the original decision to invade. Everyone realizes that that was a collosal mistake. The only question that matters is how to withdraw without causing an even bigger screw up. None of the Democrats elected this time support keeping permanent bases in Iraq for the purpose of defending Israel. Only Joe thinks that is possible and that is because he is too stupid to realise that its impossible. Posted by: Phill on November 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKI withdrew a bit from the tender mercies of Political Animal just prior to the election since I saw no purpose in engaging in debates over theory when the concrete would be demonstrated so soon and conclusively. I feel much the same about threads like this. Many of the "newbies" are going to spend the next month deciding how to be the public servants that they wish to be. I'm hoping that some of these known unknowns lead to some pleasant suprises. Posted by: Keith G on November 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKWhile republicans spent six years trying to govern, democrats spend six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they managed to eke out a victory. Needs editing.... [While] republicans spent [six years trying to govern, democrats spend] six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they [managed] failed to eke out a victory. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 12, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINKThe Democrats really lost this election. Even though they won the seats, they did it by tricking the voters into thinking they were advocating Republican ideals. In 2008, the people will realize they've been had, and then the Republicans will go on to acheive permanent majority status. Posted by: Jeffrey on November 12, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKHawk, have a cup of STFU to wash down a capsule of Fuckitall. You lost. the American people have spoken. We are tired of cradle-robbers and terrorist creators, of insane tax policy and those who disrespect the military to the point of abusing the troops. Get over it. You are going to survive our reign just as we survived yours. Barely. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKIf by conservative Democrat you mean someone who opposses bringing the troops home how, advocates market solutions to the health care crisis, and promotes the priciples of international trade -- tben yes, I think it's pretty obvious the conserative Democrats have expanded their position in the party. Posted by: smedleybutler on November 12, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKI always thought that when dumbfuck right-wing douchebags like American Hawk said "special interests" it was code for "black people" (which is code for "macaca" which is barely veiled code for something else). Posted by: Something Polish on November 12, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKthis fits better here: http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-dems-eng0517.htm I think it's a winner for the Dems. I dislike some of the provisions, as I did with the Republican measure, but on the whole I'd support it. Except for this and a few already well-formulated plans, I don't expect the Dems to propose anything soon. Mostly they'll hold hearings and investigate. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 12, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK...it's unlikely that Democrats are going to focus much on social issues anyway in the upcoming congressional session... That's really the key, isn't it? You can be a pro-life Democrat who in good conscience would vote to ban abortions. But as long as you vote for a leadership who would never let that on the agenda, well, welcome to the tent. Posted by: Grumpy on November 12, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKI'll take a conservative Democrat over a conservative Republican any day. Bring it on! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKYou can be a pro-life democrat and prevent far more abortions through reasonable economic, health, education, and social policy than any republican who banned abortion while reducing access to contraception, gutting sex education, and moving the nation toward a more social darwinian economic system. Posted by: jefff on November 12, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINKI'll take a spotted owl over a Latvian pigeon any day. Posted by: Zany Cut-up on November 12, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINKI am really tired of the reich wing disparaging environmental protections. Species lower on the food chain, and the health they enjoy in the ecosystem is an indicator of how well we will be doing on down the path. Duh. Ever heard of the canary in the coal mine? Think before you spout off in the future and maybe you won't look quite so fucking ignorant. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKfrom http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15675318/site/newsweek/ There was no bigger issue than the war, which Rove had pushed as a winning theme for the GOP. . .
What many are uninclined to address is that some forms of incapacity are idiosyncratically optimal in narrow areas. I read somewhere that professional boxers were found to have less of some kinds of pain receptors, certainly a benefit in their field that would give them an edge over, oh, me with my exceptionally normal pain receptors. If a boxer were to put himself forward as an expert in how much something hurts he might generate a lot support from people with an agenda of their own who would argue that as a boxer he hurts people all the time and gets hurt a lot himself so he ought to know. But, clearly with his specific incapacity he's the last person we should listen to about this. It's like that with social conservatives and religious maniacs and Republicans in anything that involves social relations, who, like boxers, are really enthusiastic about exploiting their specific incapacities. (And that is probably why conservatives, pretty universally, like to see politics as sports.) Posted by: cld on November 12, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKKevin's going to great lengths trying to prove that something happened other than "throw the bums out". Posted by: Foundation of Mud on November 12, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKLove the idea, frankly0. Yes, let's have Donna Brazile, Carville, Dean, Trippi, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, Lieberman, and everybody else talking about what those Republicans ought to be doing to save themselves. It'd be spectacular. Forget all the punditizers, those people have just had their world turned upside down and can only come out with garbled old scripts and recycled memes from long ago that all come out in a jumbled hash. It'll take them some time to reload their stock of cliches and get them in order. Dems should, and I hope will, get back to what made them Dems-- looking out for the little guys. That'll scare the bejabbers out of all those Republicans who worship at the corporate throne, which will be fun to see. And I'm predicting right here that Pelosi will surprise just about everybody and be a superb speaker. Forget about that "San Francisco liberal" BS. She grew up reading the Congressional Record, for cryin' out loud, and understands the institution inside and out the way it should be. She'll show the minority how a speaker can run the place without trampling all over them, even giving them a fair shake, and still steer things the right way. It's a tough job, looking out for the House and leading the majority party at the same time. Gingrich and Delay were bomb-throwers who didn't give a fart about the institution or its constitutional responsibilities, and Hastert is a non-entity who can't be bothered to see why he should care about any of that. I don't see Pelosi that way at all. She wants to rehabilitate the institution itself. A tall order, and more power to her. I enjoy egbert's parodies, but sometimes he goes much too far for credibility. Still, they're good fun! Parodies? Hope so. But I could show you a letter I received from a close kin, which slaps all those labels on me with serious venom, although, believe me, some of them dont apply at all. I could give you direct quotes directed at me from Republicans in my neighborhood just because I was recently out canvassing for some Dem candidates. My favorite was You Democrats just take our tax money and give it to the niggers. Ive been hearing that one for decades, but it had been a while. And yes, one of my points is that folks like that seem to have gravitated to the Republican Party. Congratulations for somehow making them feel at home. Pundits have Tester and Webbs positions wrong too, especially regarding abortion. Both are pro-choice. And Casey, who they have been playing up as strictly anti-abortion really isnt. Ive heard him interviewed and he's about as weak an anti-abortion politician Ive ever heard. Im not even sure he is, I think he may just be personally opposed. He said himself, he's not his father on that issue. Posted by: Jonesy on November 12, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKIs there any way we can get a better class of troll here? I mean, how many times can they predict doom for the Democrats and be utterly wrong? Shameless and sad. Isn't it time for them to go away and write their book? Posted by: TomStewart on November 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKCan you tell that to Lieberman? He seems to think that partisans on both sides lost and it's now time for Bush and him to take their turn governing. Can we give him a the chair of the subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts and leave it at that? Posted by: rewolfrats on November 12, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINKYou can be a pro-life democrat and prevent far more abortions through reasonable economic, health, education, and social policy than any republican who banned abortion while reducing access to contraception, gutting sex education, and moving the nation toward a more social darwinian economic system. You mean like Clinton did in the 90s? Posted by: gq on November 12, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKAs a Concern Troll, my first advice to Republicans would be to educate themselves with regard to the New Patriotism. First tenet: do not send young people off to fight wars that you can only seem to drum up support for by lying. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on November 12, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKI think Dems were elected to pursue populist policies and for oversight. We'll see how the 100 hour plan goes for the Dems. My guess is that it will be extremely popular and give them momentum. Posted by: gq on November 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKone - two - three - four! Thank you! The circular firing squad has already begun. Kos is going after Carville, Carville is going after Dean, Dean is just lurking about being crazy... No, that's a Repub talking point, and therefore, nonsense. Carville is old history. Dean has been vindicated and now the Brits want his help. (h/t Avedon, Sideshow) ...and the interest groups are already demanding their bit... Yeah, Dems will serve their biggest interest group...most Americans like the middle class, small businesses, our troops, etc. Repubs are the party of the South and serve their favorite interest groups: white evangelical extremists, lobbyists, and Repub cronies. ...the Democrats have to please the grave-robbers, the baby-killers, the troop-haters, the terrorist-appeasers... You're confused or a liar. That's what Repubs do. See here and here and here and helping to appease Hezbollah here. You got a problem with a free democracy in Iraq that's anti-Israel? Take it up with Bush. ...those that value spotted owls over humans, those who want racism in college admissions, those who want illegal immigrants to vote, etc., etc., etc. See, now you've exposed yourself once again as a Limbaugh dittohead trained in radical disinformation. Squawk away, parrot. You lost. Dems won. Not one Dem incumbent lost their seat. But Repubs did. The Democrats have been sliding to irrelevance for a long time; 2006 merely delayed the inevitable. Bwah ha ha! Thanks for the yucks, loser. Posted by: Apollo 13 on November 12, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKWell done! Otto, go whore your blog at TLB's site. You guys can have a circle-jerk over there. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKfrankly0 on November 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM Good idea. Not one Dem incumbent lost their seat. Worth repeating but correctly...Not one Dem incumbent lost a seat. Posted by: Apollo 13 on November 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKThat LA Times article was the first time I'd seen anyone expecting the Democrats to expand abortion rights. Most people seem to realize that there'd be no way to pass that type of legislation... unless it's set up to trap Bush and other Republicans. Posted by: wilder on November 12, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKWell done! Well done! Is John McCain still on suicide watch? Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKOur sock-puppet blog-whore isn't even posting working links. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKHe's doing it politically, Dwight. He has formed an "exploratory committee" to start raising money for a run for the oval. Personally, if Hagel runs, he has my support. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKI laugh at American Hawk's analysis. The day of Karl Rove style political shananigans are over. The curtain has been lifted and the GOP has been shown to be the scared little cowards that they are. Now that you are in the minority in the house and senate, Hawk, you'll get to see how a real government is run. Don't worry, we real Americans will protect your rights along with everyone else. Why? Because we are the real party of values. Posted by: D. on November 12, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKThank you! GC: Hagel's your choice over a Democrat? Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKWhen I lived in Kansas, and Nancy Kassebaum was my senator, I crossed the ballot to vote for her and I worked on her campaigns. I do not appologize for that, as she was a good senator for the state of kansas and for the country. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINKD. I have some hope for the new government. Hope springs eternal. A divided government seems to work better, and certainly fits into the founder's scheme better. I voted for Casey in PA over Santorum. I am curious to see if Senator Robert "uber-pork" Byrd of "secret hold" fame gets a committee, or if Alcee "impeached" Hastings gets the intel committeeship. If so...business as usual. Same government, different animal mascot. Still, at least it will be divided. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINKHey Mike! How the hell you been buddy? haven't had the pleasure of your input for a while. I was afraid you were on a carrier in the Gulf! Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINKBeen busy indeed. And as someone else upthread pointed out, didn't see any need to comment on theoreticals when the realities would be here soon enough. I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it. I'm curious: Which Democrat (or what type of Democrat) would force you to crossover to Hagel? I mean, if you stuck a gun to my head and told me I had to pick between McCain and Hagel, the choice would be easy. But I am going to assume that the Democrats do, in fact, nominate someone, and I don't see John Paul Stevens staying at work much beyond 2008 . . . Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINKI talked to people on Whiteman and Leavenworth after the Kerry gaffe, and consensus among them was that they were more offended by a C-in-C too stupid to get that the joke was about him than they were at Kerry's slip. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINKI promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINKHillary. I would love to see her on the Supreme Court, but I do not want her as president. If she won the Oval, 2010 would be a backlash so extreme that we would be crying for the good old days of 1994. Hagel appointments would not scare me too bad. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINKAs I recall Mike, you are not a fan. neither am I, for that fact. i didn't vote for him in the primary. I didn't vote for him in the general. I voted against aWol. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK"Enjoyed watching Santorum go down" Are there any videos? Posted by: A Guy Named Foley in Rehab on November 12, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKI'm not saying she would not do a good job, mind you, I just think that she is too polarizing. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKYes, Hagel's choices wouldn't be insane, but I have to believe that his choice to replace Stevens would move the Court further to the right. Oh, and Mike, contrary to some people's hopes, Kerry's "gaffe" proved meaningless. Now, George Allen's gaffe... THAT was monumental. Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKWhen the time comes to make my decision about what horse to back for 2008, Supreme Court appointments will definitely weigh heavily in the equation. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK"Kerry's 'gaffe' proved meaningless" If only someone could have sent word to Russert and Paula Zahn about that. If only rdw would return, he'd tell us what to do. Yes, he and Mrs O'Hara will know what to do. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 12, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKThey are not thinking about it until tomorrow when they get back to Tara. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKI have read this thread and it seems to me that some of the rightwingers (I would call them trolls, but after Tuesday it is clear they didn't keep us off the bridge) are utterly unwilling to examine the reasons they lost. Folks, the Republicans lost because they thought of themselves as Republicans first and Americans second. Citizens just caught on. There would not have been an Iraq war if the President and his team had considered what was best for America as opposed to what was best for his election chances, or maybe his oil company friends. Katrina would have been an opportunity to prove just how much they cared about all Americans if when looking at the weather reports they had started moving relief supplies toward New Orleans. If the President had looked at the original news clips from the scene and said "where the f*ck are the relief workers. Kick the tires and light the fires, I am going down there." Instead he went on air guitar photo ops and told his people to figure out how to blame the Democrats. If Denny Hastart when he first heard about Foley's problem "I am Speaker of the House. I have a duty to those pages. I don't give a damn who his contributors are, that SOB has to go and go now." The Republicans might have won if when confronted with Senator Stephens threat to quit if he didn't get his meanless bridge to nowhere, if they had resoundingly said, "don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way back to Alaska." We can go on and on, but the last 6 years, and especially the last 4 years, is a never ending string of Republicans putting themselves and their party above the needs of the American people. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 12, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKJust a little shout out to our pal, Hey American ChickenHawk! By the way, pal stands for Personal Ass Licker. Posted by: Ralphy D on November 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKI'd turn that around Ron Byers and say I'm afraid its the Dems that are looking like they learned nothing and forgot nothing during their time in the wilderness. A smart Dem majority would be magnanamous and let Bush pick his own team for the last two years, instead you're like dogs that can't stop chasing cars with the anti-Bolton jihad. To the swing voters that just put you in power that looks petty and petulant, because it is. A smart Dem would have denounced the German grandstanding about Rumsfeld [much as Charlie Rangel did with Hugo Chavez] and said the American people are trying to address our problems and that they [the Europeans] should butt out. This would show [fool?] the public that you do have some sense of patriotism. Ah, but I'm sure I'll get several thousand other opportunities to to advise you over the next two years. Here's one more and then I'll go -- tell your new congressmen to rent their new houses, they'll be moving back home before they pay the closing costs. Posted by: minion the friendly troll on November 12, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKDumdsfeld is an arrogant embarrasment who should be tried as a war criminl. Now THAT would be Patriotic! Posted by: Ralphy D on November 12, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINKWelcome to the well deserved two year long melt-down of the Democrats. The voters have given them a rope to hang themselves. Of course Democrats exist to please the voters. After 2008, Republicans will rule the country for at least the next hundred years. Posted by: Jay on November 12, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKminion of the friendly troll I am afraid some of the Democrats might want to follow your suggestions. Hopefully most won't. They were elected with a clear direction to drain the swamp and clean up the mess. I don't think the American people are going to be too upset if GWB's feelings are hurt, or if Dick Cheney is told to shut the fuck up. Maybe the Republicans should now retire to their think tanks and figure out that PR doesn't trump real results. Any party who says "government" is the problem should never be given control of government. The Republicans proved just what they believed. Hopefully the American people will remember that the phrase "the government that governs best is the government that governs least" is really a call to thoughtful, deft handed government, not for taking government apart. Government is necessary. The Republicans would do well to keep that in mind. They should also keep in mind that government doesn't belong to the winning party, it belongs to the people. The winning party is just the caretaker. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 12, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKMinion, Arguably the D's won because people were dissatisfied with how things are going, including internationally. Sitting back and letting Bush pick his own incompetent people isn't exactly showing leadership and giving people a reason to vote for you in '08. But thanks for playing. Posted by: ReaderK on November 12, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKPetulant at not allowing Bolton? he couldn't make it through a Republican senate. That is why he is there on a recess appointment now. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINKHey Minion! Any chance you can get your Club for Growth friends to target Susan Collins and Gordon Smith? For all the talk about how Lieberman-Lamont turned out for the netroots, not enough is said about the far right's whack job on Chaffee, forcing him to embrace Bush in the primary and mortally wounding for the general election. At least Lieberman is caucusing with the Dems. I don't think Sheldon Whitehouse is going to be helping out the GOP anytime soon. Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKHow exactly is a two-year melt-down of the Democratic party well deserved? We have been out of power for six years. Don't write the epitaphs before the seats are even taken. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINKThe Democrats don't have to launch a suite of socially progressive legislation straight out of the gate. Simply by not promoting a raft of socially regressive legislation they will effect a profound change in Washington. I'm feeling better and better about this election. At last we have a group in office to protect American people from the Republicans. It's like a load has been lifted off my shoulders and I can breathe easier. Posted by: JohnK on November 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINKBolton is the neo-con poster boy. He hates the UN. He loves the notion of America run amuck, threatening everybody if they don't do exactly what we say, and that is just when he is talking to our traditional allies. We need a professional diplomat at the UN not a refugee from some neo-con think tank. Civics lesson time, the new Senate doesn't start until January. The current (109th) Congress is composed of the guys who just lost. I am not sure, but I don't think there are enough Bolton votes to get him out of the Republican controlled foreign relations committee. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 12, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINKI'd like you guys to mark this page and bring it back up the day after the 2008 elections. When we were confronted with a cesspool of corruption and dysfunction at the UN that blocked any action on Darfur, North Korea, etc. -- you guys chose to attack John Bolton for wearing white slacks after Labor Day. I'd think a better policy would be to to to the Prez and try to negotiate some bipartisan reform proposal to be delivered at Turtle Bay, but that's why I'm a Republican and not near as smart as you. Posted by: minion on November 12, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINKlast sentence should have said ... to go to... Posted by: minion on November 12, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKUm,uh,duh, I thought repukes stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller gov? The effin deficit is larger than ever, and the gov is more bloated than ever! Why would anyone want those crooks in charge? Posted by: Ralphy D on November 12, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKGreat work! Nice site! Well done! I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself. I fail to see how that is "drumming up hatred for a war hero." Seems pretty respectful to me. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKI'm growing pretty happy about this election, too. Franky's suggestion kicked ass. I love the idea of a Democratic Concern Troll Squad :) Everybody seems to agree that the CW on the "new conservative Democrats" is wrong; here's my take on why: The election was primarily a rejection of the radical right wing. It was a strong repudiation of extremism on taxes, war, social policy and culture war politics. It was essentially the entire country vs the Bush backwashers. According to the NYT WIR, Republican party figures are interpreting this, *universally* (this is key), as not a slap in the face to their conservative ideals, but rather to a Republican Party grown ineffectual and corrput. This just superficially true enough to delude these guys into thinking that purifying the party and making it even *more* conservative will allow them to win again. I truly, truly adore this. Republicans are in lockstep about this point, evoking Reagan and Gingrich. It's sort of like how DLC types felt about the Deaniacs driving the Dems off a cliff -- only the difference is, the Deaniacs proved prescient on the most important issue of the election. The Repups are claiming, IOW, that they can't win by evey *trying* to be moderate. What *planet* do these guys live on? Reagan, the old beloved granfatherly figure, didn't have the heart to drown entitlements in the bathtub. The GOP made an ass of itself with impeachment, and redeemed itself by compromising with Clinton. Successful American politics *always* governs from a broad consensus on policy (which I won't call "the center" since such a thing doesn't exist). Thing is, partisan lefty Democrats have a *lot* to be thankful for -- and no, old-school laundry-list interest-group politics doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with it. Our Democrats may disagree with us on some hot-button social issues (certainly with me personally on gun control), but the core group of policies they *will* be pushing for is substantially to the left of anything that came out of Denny Hastert's "majority of the majority" in congress. So while it looks like some socially conservatives and neoliberal Dems won some high-profile races -- it's really pragmatic-minded liberal Democrats who are setting the agenda. And suprise, surpise -- the majority of Americans like the issues that we pragmatic liberal Dems are offering :) Go us :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK"I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself. I fail to see how that is "drumming up hatred for a war hero." RSM November 12, 2006 at 6:41 PM "Seems pretty respectful to me." Got to agree with GC here, much as I tend to strongly disagree with RSM I also have a decent sense of his views because of that conflict. I know exactly what he thinks of Kerry because I have been one of the ones that most strongly went after attacks on Kerry's military record at this blog. I respect military service, especially voluntary, and particularly when it contains a record of courage under fire and intelligent decisions under fire, particularly when it saves lives that otherwise could/would have been lost. Kerry fits that description, always has. The problem for too many people is that they confuse the way Kerry opposed the Vietnam war with what kind of service someone that acted so could ever have given instead of actually researching the record and discovering that even those that disagreed with his anti-war activities among those that actually served directly with Kerry respected his record/actions while in Vietnam itself and his awards. Red State Mike certainly wasn't trying to stir that pot, but I have to say RSM certainly seems to want to by launching this clearly unprovoked, unsupported and undignified attack on Red State Mike, one of our few non-Trolletariat conservatives at this blog. I have no use for such and I register my objection to it in this post, as I would argue Global Citizen did with her comment. As to the thread topic itself, no one interest/voting block has any basis to claim that "they" won the election for the Dems, well aside from Bush and the GOP leadership that is...:) That though will not stop the advocates/supporters of many traditional such blocks from trying to claim that it was and therefore their agenda deserves special attention/focus from the new Dems Congress. This is inevitable in politics regardless of what the actual facts/numbers in the votes and exits poll data have to say on the matter. The most important thing here is to not let any of those myths take hold as conventional wisdom. This was a broad spectrum repudiation of the GOP agenda from everyone outside of their core base from far left to center right independents/moderates. This was a sea change in that going into the election the GOP held majorities in the House, Senate, Governorships, and State Legislatures. Now that is true in all four cases for the Dems, and they gained like at least eight legislatures, and six governorships along with no Dem incumbent being defeated neither at the federal level nor for governor. This is apparently truly an unprecedented event in American political history (at least no one appears to have come up with another example of this despite several days now that I have heard/seen) This feels like a true realignment beginning, and the Dems are well positioned to make a generational shift in their favour. The next 2 years may well determine the shape of American politics for the next couple of decades thanks to the utter destruction of the reputation of the GOP as good on defence (Iraq, execution of) fiscally conservative (record deficits and massive additions to debt) and managers of the economy for all (see insecurity of middle class and the great risk shift leaving many middle class one disaster away from poverty and working poor one paycheck away from homelessness) and being the party that represents the average America (see repudiation of Bush/Rove base ideology/culture wars and way of operating politically). It is a very bad time to be a GOPer and a very good time to be a Dem. The Reagan Dems are coming home as demonstrated by Webb and the GOP is becoming more extremely conservative as well as an almost total southern party. The GOP as it currently exists appears to be on the brink of oblivion, and it will take a while for the new GOP coalition to form just as it did for the Dems, and it will not begin before the GOP stops worshipping at the alter of being ideologically pure (whatever the particular shape of it, it has branded the GOP as the party of elitist extremists trying to social engineer America, something the Dems had been perceived/branded as for some time to the advantage of the GOP) as the foundation of being a Republican. Oh yes, I fully endorse Frankly0s suggestion at the beginning of this thread, fair is fair after all:) My favorite was You Democrats just take our tax money and give it to the niggers. Ive been hearing that one for decades, but it had been a while. My favorite is when I hear that coming from white folks on welfare. Now *that* is hilarious. Personally, I hope those people keep voting Republican. I really don't want them in the same tent with me, no matter how big. I see Red State Manson is back... I guess it makes sense that you've been counting the seconds until I reappear, since you even went through the bother of naming yourself after me. I'm honored, in a way. You are probably doing the best you can. Hat tip to Scotian and GC for their bipartisan-ness. I look forward to Jim Webb being a respected voice on foreign affairs from the dem side of the senate. He was a great warrior and a great SecNav. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINKkerry's unforgiveable sin seemed to be pointing out that americans committed atrocities in vietnam. I'm certain that whoever blew the whistle on the 14yo Iraqi girl who was raped, and subsequently executed along with her family, is similarly a traitor to red state mike ... and if that person decides to run for office in the future, will be promptly swiftboated at that time. mike's concept of what constitutes "respect" for the troops is, at best, the misshapen product of his own ignorance and racism. so yeah ... despite the benign "I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself" ... red state's position on kerry is simply a reflection of his own immorality, and he should occasionally be reminded of that. Posted by: Nads on November 12, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKdespite the benign "I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself" ... red state's position on kerry is simply a reflection of his own immorality, and he should occasionally be reminded of that. Not only that, but what Scotian and GC have seemed to overlook is that RSM started out with, "I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it," immediately before he claims that he promised not to discuss Kerry again. Seems to me that he is the one stirring this pot on this topic by employing Wingnut Troll Tactic #4577: open a topic, get a swift kick in, then declare the topic closed. Really, folks, don't fall for this crap. Nads, I hope that Jim Webb, Viet Nam vet and Navy Cross winner (one below the Medal of Honor), performs admirably for our country as a democrat. Here's the citation for his actions WEBB, JAMES H., JR. First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein.) FMF Date of Action: July 10, 1969 Citation: The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK Disputo, if I could delete the post I would. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure webb will perform admirably. I'm uncertain as to the relevance of the above quote to your dismay at past american strocities. I'm sure killing soldiers in combat doesn't count as a war crime. Posted by: Nads on November 12, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINKMike, I can't wait until the Republican swift boat machine really gets started on Webb. I would imagine they will tell you Webb wrote his own citation and wasn't even in the theater of operations on the day of the above cited action. Who you going to believe Mike, the Marine corps or the Republican noise machine? That could be your choice. I guess my problem with all the Swift Boaters is that they were obviously political tools taken seriously by media types claiming they were trying to be fair. Fortunately it will be 6 years before he has to run again, unless the next President picks him to be Sec Def. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 12, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKRon Byers Nonsense. He was unswiftboatable. If they could've, they would've. He ran against one of the obvious 2008 presidential candidates. Maybe Lieberman/Lamont had greater press, but only maybe. They pulled out all the stops available to them. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 12, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINKThis is my last post of the night, and I hope my last post on Kerry. I wish folks like Ron Byers that defend this clown so strenuously would take a dispassionate look at the facts that the SwiftBoat people brought to light. Yes, Kerry was a hero for his actions on the day he got the Silver Star -- but he would not have been awarded that medal in any other war but Vietnam. The dryrot that affected the whole war by that point resulted in any officer - especially an Ivy League graduate - being puffed for publicity purposes. What the Swifties most objected to was Kerry's self-promotion in the days before and after his Silver Star -- his volunteering to write all the after-action reports, where he appeared as a Walter Mitty character almost every day -- his denial, then duplicitous reapplication for his first Purple Heart for being hit by a splinter the size of a pencil lead -- his seared recollection of Christmas in Cambodia, which was a preposterous lie. Face it, Kerry has about as much credibility as Al Sharpton, and the fact that your party nominated him completely cancels out the boner my party produced with GWB. Posted by: minion on November 12, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINKthose who fail to recognize the monstrosity of the War On Iraq need to be reminded that the blood of every Iraqi and every soldier is on their hands, and that there has been no greater mechanism for undermining our national security than Bushs unprovoked, unauthorized and unwise invasion of Iraq. Agreed. These assholes deserve to stand trial for war crimes. In my household we have been agitating against this stupid waste of life and treasure since 2002. As to Webb - they tried. They leveled charges of kiddie porn, but the book they skimmed is required reading at the academies. And as for trying to push Gates through before the new congress is sworn in: Webb and Gates have a long and rancorous history. He woun't make it out of committee if Webb is on SASC. I don't understand why anyone on the Left is bothering to push back against the ridiculous meme coming from the Right that the Dems won by being more conservative. I don't see a downside to allowing that to float around. Go on, let the GOP fool themselves into thinking that the election was a vindication of their platform, and that it was just evil Dems stealing conservative votes that caused them to lose -- they'll be even less prepared next election. i have a question. i have posted some of american hawk's gibberish elsewhere because it is so idiotic, and someone asked me what he meant by democrats being 'grave robbers.' now, i know his stuff makes no sense, but ususally i can figure out what he's referring to in his typical lunatic fashion. can some one someone tell me what the fuck he is talking about in this instance? your puzzled pal, The estate tax is grave robbing in the mind of the fever-swampers. TYou counter that idiocy by pointing out that every child born in this country is $30K in debt from their first breath. Call them cradle robbers. In every sense of the word. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK癌症 中国康网 Yesterday, it all seems soooooooo yesterday. The Thread on November 1st, 06 named by Kevin, "Kerry and the camera" - 202 comments. The Deep Thoughts tread of Nov 2 with 206 comments, many of which were about Kerry. The myriad of posts of Kerry being brought up by the trools on other threads, which had nothing to do with Kerry. In fact, the trools were encouraged to keep bringing up that topic, as it held Iraq front and center. One of the interesting facets of the trools harping on Kerry's supposed disrespect for the troops, is that not one of has posted on the losses our troops have incurred. Not once have they posted about the loss of limbs, massive head injuries and the like - Not once did any one of the chicken livered swine mention anything about Veterans Day. These ChickenHawk trools never show any concern about the troops except to cheerlead "Stay the course", or whatever bilk spews from the wee widdle cINc. And, now may we close the subject? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 12, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINKGreat work! Well done! "Not only that, but what Scotian and GC have seemed to overlook is that RSM started out with, "I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it," immediately before he claims that he promised not to discuss Kerry again. Seems to me that he is the one stirring this pot on this topic by employing Wingnut Troll Tactic #4577: open a topic, get a swift kick in, then declare the topic closed. Really, folks, don't fall for this crap." Posted by: Disputo on November 12, 2006 at 9:13 PM Please do me the courtesy of recognizing I know how to read thank you very much. I know exactly what he said and you are reading more into it than I think is fair to do. Kerry did make a serious gaffe and left it hanging for several hours to a day (depending on how you define explaining it). When he made it I was one of the very first here to comment on it and point out that according to CNN's report (this being the following day from the original bungled joke) it was easy to see how someone could have dropped "us" without realizing it. However, the way it came out it did sound like a shot on the troops themselves and he should have come out faster to apologize for inadvertently creating that appearance even though he never would do such a thing himself. If he had done that there would have been nothing for the GOP to work with. Now I was glad to see his strong response, and it was a travesty what was done with that mangled punch line and his complaint was square on the money, but he did end up saying what he said and he did wind up having to apologize for that in the end. So making the comment Red State Mike did is perfectly fair given that context, then he followed up with basically saying that was all he was going to say regarding Kerry. That is not starting something, unless one is hypersensitive and/or looking for any excuse to start fighting with him or anyone that dares speak of Kerry's blunder as being on the warpath. While I can see the resemblance to various wingnut rhetorical strategies one has to be careful not to always assume something is what it looks like at first glance/blush. I have never agreed with Mike regarding Kerry's record as he well knows given my rather strong views on it expressed during the whole SBVfT obscenity. Mike and I rarely agree on much of anything. For someone in military service I find some of Mike's positions taken in the past incomprehensible as well as reprehensible. However, Mike is also one of the few real conservatives I see show up here at all regularly and while yes he sounds like a Kool-Aid drinker on more than a few occasions at least he is a real person from all appearances as opposed to the Trolletariat bot personas/caricatures we keep getting like Chuckles and his sock puppet brigades to name one example. In any event in this case I genuinely see RSM overreacting and really being unfair given what had been said to that point regarding Kerry by Mike. If Mike had pushed it, or made a snarky remark about how he agreed in some way with the disgrace Bushco made of that gaffe then I would agree with the response he got from RSM was fair, but that is not what he did. All he said was that he saw no thread on the topic of Kerry's gaffe, period. Then he said he would speak no more of Kerry, probably because when he does several of us have jumped all over him for it and he is tired of it and sees no point in doing so repeatedly anymore. Therefore I said what I said, I stand by what I said, and I disagree that I overlooked anything in this matter. Sorry.
Red State Mike, I do not consider and have not considered you to be any part and parcel of the above mentioned trools. I may disagree at times with your positions, but you have served and are serving honorably. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 12, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKSorry Mike, but your citation about Jim Webb's 1969 Navy Cross is meaningless. You see, Minion just told us that "The dryrot that affected the whole war by that point resulted in any officer - especially an Ivy League graduate - being puffed for publicity purposes." Unfortunately, that would also invalidate McCain's medals as well, so I guess he won't be calling himself a "decorated war veteran" during his 2008 presidential run. Hagel was a sergeant when he received his awards, so I guess he's "unswiftboatable". Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who can dismiss any medals or service awards, especially those earned in combat, has never suited up, and their bloviating on it just shows their lesser nature. By the way, I have been engaged in some of those debates with Mike. I knew precisely what I was saying and why I was saying it. My reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINKMinion I have no brief with Kerry. I do think he was swiftboated unfairly. If you don't like that he opposed the Vietnam War, fight on that ground. Near as I can tell none of the meaningless charges made by the swiftboaters about his service actually stood examination. In any event the President, Vice President and damn near everybody in the administration took a pass on service in Vietnam. At least Kerry went. If after all that has happened since 2004, you still believe anything spewing from the Republican noise machine, God bless you, you need all the help you can get. If the Turd Blossom Republicans ever, one time, told the truth about anything I might pay attention to the noise machine. Near as I can tell it is all made up all the time. I think alot of Americans agree with me. Your day is done. Anyway, if in the future you want to characterize my position on some subject do it accurately. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 12, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINKGlobal Citizen, my post was a riff on the idiocy of Minion, not a dismisal of medals nor a statement on their relevancy in evaluating someone's worthiness as a political candidate. Posted by: Dwight on November 12, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINKNonsense. He was unswiftboatable. If they could've, they would've. He ran against one of the obvious 2008 presidential candidates. Maybe Lieberman/Lamont had greater press, but only maybe. They pulled out all the stops available to them. Oh ho ho--that's rich. Are you really trying to make the case that Webb was "un-Swiftboat-able?" The central tenet of using a "Swiftboat" style attack on a Veteran is to MANUFACTURE charges against that Veteran that are of a dishonest nature. I don't care who you are, where you served, what medals you earned and what the citations actually said and I don't care what your records, your friends, or anyone else says about you--ANYONE can be Swiftboated. ANYONE can have their military experiences turned upside down by someone who lies about what that person did or didn't do. Welcome to American politics in 2006: no matter who you are, they can Swiftboat you. To think that a dishonest tactic couldn't be used against a Veteran is laughable. These sumbitches would Swiftboat Audie Murphy and Alvin York if they could. I'll accept that Webb had a stellar service record and that he probably wasn't in the same category as Kerry, but come on. When the standard is to make shit up, it's not hard to see where they would go that route against someone like Webb. By the way, the first guy who was "Swiftboated" was actually McCain in 2000 when the Republicans tried to get out the story that McCain had mental problems and was "The Manchurcian Candidate." Posted by: Pale Rider on November 12, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINKActually Dwight, I was directing that to someone up-thread who tried to explain my intent (I'll handle that, thanks) and to minion himself. You and I have no problems, unless me liking Chuck Hagel is a problem for you? :) Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINKYou and I have no problems, unless me liking Chuck Hagel is a problem for you? :) I don't know how I feel about someone like Hagel. On the one hand, he's honest about his dissension with the Bush Administration. I know that the reality of Nebraska politics means he's got to be conservative. I guess I would respect him more if he had voted against the torture bill. That's probably a weakness for me right now, but I think that bill will be considered a major event in American politics, and I hope there's accountability for the people who voted for it (and a bit of luster added to the reputations of those who voted against it.) Oh, and they'd Swiftboat his ass in a heartbeat. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINKAnd now you see what I mean. Red State Manson put out the clarion call for liars like minion to bring back their smears on Kerry Yeah, I don't think there's a whole lot of enthusiasm for a Kerry run in 2008. I also don't think Red State Mikey put out a call on the batphone to his henchmen. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINKI have big, big problems with the torture bill, and if Tom wasn't retired I would probably have ended up incarcerated because of it. I have faith that the accountability express is rolling down the pike. The thing that pisses me off even more is the fact that this country abandoned a soldier to a militia. When Tom went to the balkans, this was back in the pre-cell phone and dial-up days and we didn't have daily email contact and phone calls. I stayed sane knowing that should the unthinkable happen his country - our country - would not abandon him, he would come home. Feckless, faithless and criminal. That's about the kindest thing I can say about this administration. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINKunless me liking Chuck Hagel is a problem for you? No. I mean I wouldn't vote for him, myself, as I have no use for anything in the standard GOP playbook (and I'm not saying you do, either), but Hagel's no Brownback (or Inhofe or Coburn or Stevens or. . . fill-in-the-blank) Pale Rider makes a good point above regarding the torture bill, but unfortunately, there are a few Democrats who came up short in that regard as well. Hagel was one of the republicans who people thought might break ranks. Posted by: Dwight on November 13, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKI was disappointed that he did not and I let him know. The email I received back actually addressed my points one by one. My own senators sent me form-letter emails thanking me for my support. So I fired one of them on Tuesday. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINKbut unfortunately, there are a few Democrats who came up short in that regard as well. Globe can attest to the fact that I wish every single one of them would go down flaming in defeat the next time they face the voters. She's on a roll, guys-pay attention. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINKJust doing my self appointed job to fight for truth justice and the American way - and that means electing Democrats and firing the wingnuts like Jim Ryun. I worked my ass off in that campaign and I have never lived a day of my life in the KS-02. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINKThe email I received back actually addressed my points one by one. Anything you can share? I realize the hour is late, so maybe you can elaborate the next time the issue is brought up. Posted by: Dwight on November 13, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINKI filed it, I didn't delete it. It is late. Next time it comes up I will make a concerted effort to put up the content. He did state that he "agonized" over the decision and wasn't sure until the last minute how he would vote and that he hoped he had done the right thing but could not be 100% certain. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINKSeems to me that Max Cleland in 2002, like John McCain in 2000, was another early victim of slimy, dishonorable, Republican swiftboating. They were practice runs for the swiftboating of Kerry. As Pale Rider says, no one is immune from Republican slime attacks. Posted by: N.Wells on November 13, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINKGlobe: If you're still up and about -- do you remember briefly any of the arguments he used for it? I'm still trying to put that together with Lautenberg and Corzine ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINKNo, they would set their grandmothers on fire in the public square if they thought it would bring a few votes their way. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINKGlobe: Yeah, but all the granny torches they could dip in gasoline didn't save 'em this time :) I love how Webb got a bounce and led for the first time after they tried the "pornography" trick on his war novels ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINKHe said something about being reassured that torture would not be employed, and hoping he hadn't been taken. I really should find the file before I elaborate his position. I used my academic account to send those emails, thinking that the ".edu" might be a little more respected than "hotmail.com" and I can't get to my school email account from home. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINKPale Rider Uh, yea. To swiftboat is to find a whole bunch of Bubbas that you served with that then come out and denounce you. The implication being that if your band of brothers that you fought side by side with and had the best look at your integrity don't trust you, no one should. All the things you listed are just plain old smear tactics, not swiftboating. They've been used since time immemorial in US politics. Now if the GOP could round up a group of Webb's brothers in arms who served directly with him and get them to denounce him, that'd be swiftboating. Realistically, do you think that could ever happen? Get his platoon to come out against him? Get McCain's squadron mates or fellow POWs to denounce him? RSM Point to something constructive done by the Republican Party in their last decade in power. Two great supreme court picks. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: I agree with you about the difference between swiftboating and smear tactics -- but I will disagree about McCain in '00. It was a form of proto-swiftboating, because it took one of McCain's biggest bigraphical assets -- surviving the Hanoi Hilton -- and attemted to jujitsu it into a liability: McCain the mentally damaged "Manchurian Candidate." What they did to Clelland with the Osama ad is closer to generic smear tactics. Nothing really to do with his service per se. The McCain slander was even more pernicious. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINKMcCain the mentally damaged "Manchurian Candidate." I've said before, and I'll say it again, I've always held that against Bush. I bet McCain hasn't forgotten either. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: Don't agree with you there. And that's one of my favorite aspect of the Democratic victory. We're going to stop nominations cold, so we can fill the bench with a Democrat as president in '08 :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINKNo Red State Mike, I just dont like you. Red State Mike: Don't agree with you there. I'm just baiting RSM-tard. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINKRSM: Look, I'm not exactly a military type. I'm more your generic peacenik Howard Dean supporter. But this sort of personalized "baby killer" rhetoric is just way over the top and reminds me a little too much of what the antiwar movement did to returning veterans after Vietnam. Soldiers and airmen don't define the mission. They go where they're told. Now I've argued with Red State Mike about Mideast strategy and tactics. While I've disagreed with him vociferously, he's not any mindless bloodluster. I really don't know where you get this from, and it seems to me like you're pushing it over the line. Look, I'll tell you as well. John Kerry was a *horrible* presidential candidate. Running as a war hero in a war that he led the resistance movement to was totally idiotic. You would *expect* that a 90-day wonder college boy lieutenant would stir resentment in the enlisted grunts, and dig up the class issues that have simmered in our military forever. That was just a dumb strategic move, and any consultant with a brain should've seen the swift boaters coming. Kerry should've run as the Reluctant Warrior instead. If he didn't try to run away from his antiwar leadership, maybe it would've circumvented that whole set of issues. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINKI think it is an oversimplification to say that pilots "kill without consequence of conscience." My husband wasn't a pilot, but he had his own struggles of conscience maintaining the guidance systems on TitanII's (explosive payload equivalent to 100 million tons of TNT) and never took his mission lightly. I disagree with Mike on policy but I can't characterize him as riven with bloodlust. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINKBob, don't waste your time. He's a mindless hate-bot. Totally predictable, and therefore carries no information. He sprang into this cyberworld naming himself after me, and has drawn his entire reason for being from me. I'm touched. I can't imagine how tough it has been on him that I haven't been posting. He has absolutely nothing to say otherwise. An almost perfect vacuity of thought. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINKOops. One too many zeros. Stuttering finger I guess. Titan II's *only* had a payload equivalent to 10 tons of TNT. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINKI can't characterize him as riven with bloodlust. I am however riven with the need to go to bed. Nice chatting with you GC, Bob, Pale, Scotian, P3. RSM-tard, you can breath now. I'm going. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINKNight Mike. Sleep well. I'm headign to bed myself as soon as the rebroadcast of Face the nation is over. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINKWhat they did to Cleland with the Osama ad is closer to generic smear tactics. Nothing really to do with his service per se. Bob, you're forgetting Ann Coulter 's hit job on Cleland in early 2004: i.e. "Cleland is not a victim, he blew himself up while drunk." Which got the juices flowing and put the circumstances of Cleland's war record in play. The goal was to try to lessen public sympathy for Cleland and mitigate criticism of how Chambliss and the GOP treated him. I know, I know, its Coulter. But like Limbaugh, she serves the purpose of getting smears out there without any official Republicans getting their hands dirty. She makes an outrageous claim; her critics denounce her, and in the "he said/she said" media environment that exists today, the public is left thinking that the truth must lie somewhere in between. And Coulter has done her job. Doubt has been created. And an opponent's perceived political strength has been knocked down a peg. Posted by: Dwight on November 13, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINKWhat happened with Cleland was unconscionable, and if I am wrong about the whole god/heaven/hell thing Chambliss and the rest will be swimming the backstroke in a lake of fire for all eternity for that action alone. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINKWell I'll be. According to Josh Bolton the Dems are now in a "very tenuous position" and should tread lightly. Who knew that winning was really losing? On that note, I bid you all sweet dreams. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINKGood design! Great work! I just wanna thank Candice, Jack, Keith, Ian, Otto, Ethan, Roy, Lisa, Alice, Fawn, Vincent, Abby, Phyllis and Joan for their contributions to this discussion. They offered no strawmen; engaged in no baiting, no backpedalling, no dismissals; required no defense from respected regulars. You will always be welcome. Posted by: Foundation of Mud on November 13, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINKFoundation of Mud: Hey! You forgot Gloria, Gina and Ben! Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINKGood design! Thank you! Dwight: Well-taken point about the Coulterization of Clelland. One of the beauties of this campaign is that Rush tried that on Michael J. Fox and it completely backfired ... RSM: Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you about the Kerry gaffe, too. It *was* a gaffe. Howard Dean said "John Kerry made a blooper. Bloopers happen." And Howard Dean, gods bless 'im, knows something about bloopers. Kerry didn't merely leave out a pronoun. He botched the entire delivery. He admits this. It's stupid to run from it. And sadly enough, it *does* play the class resentment that's always been in our military. It's not so much that Kerry's point is wrong -- it isn't. We're taking troops with lower and lower standards. The guy who raped that Iraqi girl and killed her family was going to be discharged with a personality disorder. We're letting in skinheads, granting waivers to criminals and people who are less than mentally stable. The problem is that America (like most countries with a proud military tradition) has a tremendously powerful military mythology. Soldiers are always "noble heros," always "the best America has to offer." Say anything other than these words as a politician -- and you're dead in the water. You don't support the troops -- in fact, you harbor a secret contempt for them. So Kerry's remark revealed something which intelligent people have always known about the military but keep quiet about -- that it serves as a social safety net of last resort, especially in regions of the country with a lousy economy. And this is, you know, terribly terribly unfair. It's both un-meritocratic and un-egalitarian. We're letting "the help" fight our battles for us. And as true as this is -- it is a profoundly un-American notion. Kerry didn't mean to make that point, of course. But the fact that many Americans think it without being able to say it is what gave RushCo the imprimitur to make it the major news item for three cycles running. Until Dick Cheney (in effect) said "fuck the voters -- full steam ahead" and changed the subject back to Bush assholery on Iraq. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 3:17 AM | PERMALINKGreat work! Nice site! Uh, yea. To swiftboat is to find a whole bunch of Bubbas that you served with that then come out and denounce you. The implication being that if your band of brothers that you fought side by side with and had the best look at your integrity don't trust you, no one should. All the things you listed are just plain old smear tactics, not swiftboating. They've been used since time immemorial in US politics. John O'Neill, the ringleader of SBV, never served one day in Vietnam alongside John Kerry. And: On Crossfire, O'Neill claimed that there "are more than 60 people that served with John Kerry that contributed to this book." In fact, only one man who served on John Kerry's boat, Stephen Gardner, is involved with Swift Boat Vets or Unfit for Command. While the group's members are veterans of the Vietnam War and may have served at the same time as Kerry or even on boats near Kerry's, only one man who served on John Kerry's boat, Stephen Gardner, is involved with Swift Boat Vets or Unfit for Command. And Gardner was not present for the events that led to any of Kerry's medals or any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts. Again, I don't think you get the whole picture-these people will say or do anything and the truth doesn't matter. The actual records don't matter. What matters is political expediency and nothing more. Now if the GOP could round up a group of Webb's brothers in arms who served directly with him and get them to denounce him, that'd be swiftboating. Realistically, do you think that could ever happen? Get his platoon to come out against him? Get McCain's squadron mates or fellow POWs to denounce him? See above-they don't need to even find someone who was in Vietnam at the same time as Webb. All they have to do is start the ball rolling. At this point, it's a safe bet that if Webb starts to really emerge as a possible leader of the movement to investigate what is really going on in Iraq, they'll probably try to do something underhanded to discredit him. RSM, you're projecting. Really. And I disagree with everything Red State Mike says. Calm down or go somewhere else. Posted by: kgb on November 13, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: I was going to go after you for something you claimed, but Pale Rider has dealt with it in his post at November 13, 2006 at 9:05 AM. Only one person served on the same boat as Kerry and was not present for the actions that got him his medal, and O'Neil has the credibility issue of having said the opposite of what he claimed in the SBVfT at the time and since then until the 2004 election cycle started up in earnest. That demonstrates that so long as the definition of "served with" someone is having fought in the same war at the same time as the other that anyone, even Webb could have had a swiftboat style attack launched on them. What I think does make Webb far less susceptible for that was his time as Navy Secretary under Reagan, because to smear him that way would also leave the Reagan legacy open to smearing, and that would not sit so well with many American conservatives. In any event the SBVfT were liars from beginning to end, never had any evidence to support their claims on Kerry's military service, were forced to acknowledge they couldn't be right (Remember the one accuser whose own Bronze Star was from the same incident under fire as the one Kerry had that the accuser was saying Kerry was never under fire for?) but by then the political damage was done, which was the entire point of the exercise. RSM: You are the one showing themselves to be filled with bile and hatred here with the heavily inflammatory and emotionally loaded writings you have dropped into this thread. While I find Red State Mike often wrong and too reliant on the GOP POV as accurate he has demonstrated from time to time the ability to go beyond talking points, which is why he is one of the few conservative posters here I will respond to regularly. I certainly don't tend to agree with him, I think he is out to lunch on a few things, and I think his hatred of Kerry is based on more fiction than fact where Kerry is concerned. That said though he has shown himself to be a more reasonable poster here than you have. You need to deal with your anger and obsession issues going by your actions here today, and I see no further reason to pay you any more mind.
Hey Scotian and Pale Rider. I like ice cream. Do you? Yes! We agree on something. Thanks for saying that although I am wrong in almost every possible way, I am at least tolerable. Heh. Off to the airport. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 13, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINKHey Scotian and Pale Rider. I like ice cream. Do you? Yes! We agree on something. I could make a smart-ass comment, but discretion has gotten the better of me today. How about we all just agree to disagree and hope certain people who post here just go the fuck away? Hmm? And, yes, I realize a lot of folks would like to see me return to my retirement status. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKI am not one of them, Pale Rider. i'm glad to have you back. Never leave us again! Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINKI am also not one of them Pale Rider. While I do find your style at times a bit abrasive you do make interesting arguments and contribute to the discourse by doing so, which is my standard for whether I find someone worth reading (even when I think what they are saying is out to lunch some of the time, hence my defence of Red State Mike). I long ago realized that without being able to agree to disagree all we would have left are echo chambers, and that serves the use of no one other than pure propagandists. Posted by: Scotian on November 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider, Missing in action - Could rdw be on a fact finding mission with McA? Collecting data in the seamier side of Thailand and Malaysia? The looney by day meets looney by night. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 13, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK"When the crimson of the night, meets the red of the day, ba-ba, babababah, bah bah" Nah, back to the blue of the night, meets the gold of the day" Posted by: der Bingle on November 13, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINKThree more of our troops will not be at morning roll call. Thanks for mentioning it, trools. When your Roll is called up yonder for patriotism, where will you be, trools? You are such "Patriots"! Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 13, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKI did have a problem with the cahracterizations beign made by RSM. Any guesses as to who it was? I have an idea. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKRSM is one of our regulars who has the ass for Red State Mike. Smelled like "Hostile" to me. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINKYes, Hostile/RSM, we should all join in for a huge DD-214 burning. Somehow, we all believed, perhaps, just a tad that we, even without being in a shooting war, were even protecting your sorry rear end. How could our leaders, mine was Kennedy, have deluded us? And, now, if we could disband the Portland, OR police force as well. Sharpen your pick fork, H-RSM. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 13, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKYeah, he probably doesn't even own a pitch fork, but he does have a little fork he uses to be so picky. Posted by: stupid git on November 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKGreat minds think alike. Hey, now. This is Political Animal we're talking about... Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider's style abrasive? Which style? Anyone going back more than a few months has seen a whole range of arguments, tones and voices from him. He's usually right and he's never boring. And when he's in the mood, he's funny as hell. Count me among those who made Hostile in the RSM posts. I am never sure whether Hostile's for real or an attempt from the right to personify the "loony left." I don't much care, though, either way--I usually just skip his/her posts. Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKThat sounded more caustic than I meant it to. I should add that skipping posts is a handy tool for anyone who doesn't care for another poster's contributions. I assume that plenty of people skip mine as well. Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKIf Hostile is really a foam-flecked lefty, married to a big-box non-denominational evangelical then that is one wierd dynamic they got goin' on there. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKI appreciate the love, all, but maybe I should just tone it down and ease up on the trolls, you know? Maybe I should be friendlier and easygoing and try to see all the sides of the discussion. Maybe I should be more open and tolerant to what is being discussed and not be so quick to jump in and throw punches. But then I see what's going on with the blatant anti-Semitism on that other thread, and I go, Naaaaaaaaaaaahhhh... Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKThat was over the top. That sock-puppet brigade is one for the books, isn't it. Thanks for your help with them the other day, by the way. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: I said I found his style at times abrasive, but then I find that true of a lot of posters here that are also making very strong and substantive arguments. It is purely a subjective and personal opinion, and it is also tied into my dislike of heavy aggression/sarcasm as a form of debate/argumentation. Now, when I compare PR's work to the average here then no, he is not terribly abrasive and I have no trouble saying that. I also remember when he first started here and he could be more than a little confrontational, which I understood then and now to be a result of the frustration of watching Bushco and the GOP destroy America on so many levels. Remember, I am a mild meek mannered Canadian that comes here, I was not raised in a political environment as combative as America's has traditionally been, and that things that are normal to even civil by those standards can feel a little harsh to someone from my background. I meant no offence by saying I have found PR a bit abrasive at times, but it is how he can come off to me. I certainly don't expect though that just because he and his style can feel that way to me at times that this is true for anyone else, the thing about a subjective take on something is that it can be (and often is) unique to the person expressing it. Oh, and don't forget the latest personality to emerge from Chuckles..."Jeffery/Jeffrey" is now an orthodox Jew and us reform types aren't "real Jews." I must tell my Rabbi and my Bubbe and my mother that we are not real Jews. I guess our relatives who died at Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz weren't really exterminated, either. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK...maybe I should just tone it down and ease up on the trolls, you know? Maybe I should be friendlier and easygoing and try to see all the sides of the discussion. Maybe I should be more open and tolerant to what is being discussed and not be so quick to jump in and throw punches... And maybe you're no more able to resist fucking with a deserving ass's mind than Bushco can resist deceit, graft and corruption, Clinton can resist a thong bikini or I can resist coffee ice cream. Be who you are...embrace the jerk slayer within you when he wants to come out and play. Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKScotian, darling, I wasn't intending to give you a hard time; I apologize if it came off that way. You have your style and Pale has his (several) styles and both of you are good listeners and valuable contributors here. Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKRed State Mike writes: To swiftboat is to find a whole bunch of Bubbas that you served with that then come out and denounce you. The implication being that if your band of brothers that you fought side by side with and had the best look at your integrity don't trust you, no one should. All the things you listed are just plain old smear tactics, not swiftboating. They've been used since time immemorial in US politics. Then digs himself in deeper: Now if the GOP could round up a group of Webb's brothers in arms who served directly with him and get them to denounce him, that'd be swiftboating. Realistically, do you think that could ever happen? Get his platoon to come out against him? Get McCain's squadron mates or fellow POWs to denounce him? Whoops! Major blunders in this post. Many writers who have taken a serious look at the Kerry/Swift Boat fiasco have pointed out in plain English that the guys who served directly with Kerry back him up, declare that his medals are legit, and defend his honorable service. Kerry commanded two Swift Boats while in Vietnam which had two different crews. Guess what? All are big Kerry fans except for one crewmember. Now a bad ratio for an officer who led under pressure. People with even a cursory knowledge of Kerrys political career know that these guys have gone to great lengths to support numerous Kerry political campaigns through the years and have shot down all the lies spread by his detractors who want to revise his military career. They have been amazingly loyal to Kerry. This is not a complicated issue. These are real guys with real names and faces. Kerrys detractors in the Swift Boat ads are also real guys. They have been identified ad nauseum as guys who did not server directly with Kerry. Some served in Vietnam at the same time and some didnt. Some served on other Swift Boats and some did not. What they have in common is that they dont like Kerrys politics. Another thing some of them have in common: they claim the creators of the Swift Boat ads misled them. What about the officers under which Kerry directly served? They all gave him outstanding officer evaluations. A couple of them really embarrassed themselves by becoming associated with the Swift Boat ads. One, after reversing and contradicting himself a few times, admitted that it was he, not Kerry, who had some explaining to do. Another, who happens to live in my current home town, is a Republican who has embarrassed other Republicans with his outrageousness on this matter. Give it up Mike, and admit you dont know what you are talking about. I can attach names of real people to everything I mention above. You cannot, because when you do, I could repeat what so many have already. I can point out how your swiftboaters did not server directly with Kerry. Be a man, do a bit of legit research, and acknowledge you have been wrong. You have been obsessed with this issue for too long. Its disgraceful to trash someones military record when you dont know what you are talking about. You have your style and Pale has his (several) styles and both of you are good listeners and valuable contributors here. Apparently, that's not the case, darlin'. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKApparently, that's not the case, darlin'. Well, maybe you can work on that. Don't give up hope! Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKYes, Pale Rider, by all means, keep hope alive!!! Posted by: Global Citizen on November 13, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKI would, but apparently I'm not that talented. :{ Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK"Scotian, darling, I wasn't intending to give you a hard time; I apologize if it came off that way. You have your style and Pale has his (several) styles and both of you are good listeners and valuable contributors here." Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM It is ok, when I posted my response I had not seen your post at 12:53 PM, and I know that you were not trying to give me a hard time. I wrote the clarification more the benefit of others reading our exchange than for your need specifically. I am the last person to give someone a hard time for a style given my rather long winded style and how that comes off to some here. It is just I have a hard time with some peoples' tendency to equate emotionalism with reasoning, as in the more emotional they get that means their argument somehow also takes on more weight/substance. Now while PR certainly doesn't fall into that category a good example would be RSM's contributions to this thread. I just am not a fan of overly aggressive behaviour in debate, it is one thing to strongly defend an intellectual position, it is quite another to let one's emotions run wild in the process. I tend to believe that if people could learn to make the distinction between emotional positions and intellectual positions and deal with each accordingly communications would work far better between those that come from different POVs. That is of course purely my own opinion. Red State Mike: I have to agree with little ole jim from red state and his post on November 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM on this one. You can be as critical as you like about what you think of Kerry's anti-war activities once he was out of the Vietnam theater, but to take your disgust at that and smear it onto what is clearly an honourable service record is very disturbing coming from someone in the military and claiming to value/respect military service. This is why so many of us including myself came down on you like a ton of bricks when you did so. The SBVfT were quite possibly the slimiest political dirty tricks operation in American history to date, and given the long disgusting record of such operations in American political history this is really vile indeed. I'm totally against dirty tricks. Totally. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKI would, but apparently I'm not that talented. It's all that genuine, bona fide, real-thing anger holding you back. Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKIt's all that genuine, bona fide, real-thing anger holding you back. Grrr! Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKVery funny PR. Now sic'um. Would you please? Posted by: little ole jim from red state on November 13, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINKGlobal and Rmic/Bob, I doubt you will check back on this late entry, but for the record let me point out the following. I served in the United States Air Force, which hopefully immunizes me to the chickenhawk ad hominum. My "dryrot" comment - which I would retract if I could - was Dowdified in later comments. If you go back to my original entry you will see that I said: "Yes, Kerry was a hero for his actions on the day he got the Silver Star --" Much as many of you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome* I guess I have Kerry Derangement Syndrome. I really, really hate the guy, and thats why this is really, really my final comment on the schmuck. * What else could make you, Global, agree that a war supported by 70% of the public, and a 77-23 vote in the Senate, was "Bushs unprovoked, unauthorized and unwise invasion..." Posted by: minion of rove on November 13, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINKIf only rdw would return, he'd tell us what to do Haven't you heard? Really Dumb Whitemale has Common Sense Party Posted by: Ralphy D on November 13, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINKWhat else could make you, Global, agree that a war supported by 70% of the public, and a 77-23 vote in the Senate, was "Bushs unprovoked, unauthorized and unwise invasion..." The facts that it was in fact unprovoked, that Bush either did make the determinations required by the conditional authorization in good faith or was grossly incompetent in making them, and that the invasion has proven to manifestly unwise might have some bearing on her characterization of the invasion as "unprovoked, unauthorized, and unwise". You have been obsessed with this issue for too long... I almost spewed beer out my nose on that one. I am really, REALLY sorry I brought the name up, and thought I did so innocuously enough, in reference to said person's comments who I purposely did not explicitly name and which made the news and I thought would have been discussed here. All this in reference to the fact that I just haven't been around. Read my post. Since then there have been how many posts here since dissecting my beliefs with regards to the subject at hand? Hang on, I'll count...29, of which I'd say almost all of them are arguing with me when I'm not arguing back. So who's doing the obsessing? I'm done with the topic. Posted by: Red State Mike on November 14, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINKNow if the GOP could round up a group of Webb's brothers in arms who served directly with him This statement is so funny and sad to me. You made it not realizing that Kerrys crewmates refer to themselves as a band of brothers. You should be forced daily to watch the movie made about these guys called Band of Brothers. And later from RSM: I'm done with the topic. Thats good news. Despite your protest, weve seen you bring up Kerry and his service repeatedly, even when it was not the topic of the thread. Posted by: little ole jim from red state on November 14, 2006 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK免费性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴部 美女乳房 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 Posted by: mm on November 14, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: Make that 30. Are you still drinking beer?! Or did you knock that off at 6 AM? Posted by: Jeffery on November 14, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINKKnocked off at 3:00 AM western. Nightcap at hotel after spending 20 hours traveling to the left coast. Looking forward to my luggage joining me sometime in the near future. Wonder where it went? Posted by: Red State Mike on November 14, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINKYou know, being shit-faced helps a man think. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINKGood afternoon. Was glad to a meeting. 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 手机铃声制作 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 经典铃声 最新手机铃声 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 Posted by: mmf on November 14, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINKGood afternoon. Was glad to a meeting. Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting. Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting. Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Posted by: top on November 15, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
