Ah yes, the time honored conservative tradition, as Ann Coulter has perfected, of extrapilating that if one Dem says it then they all must believe it. Durbin is an idiot but I guess since Jesse Helms was a flaming bigot then all conservatives must be as well.
Yes, Tom, you were absolutely correct. You did it. Ah-ha-ha!
So, are you saying that all flaming bigots are conservatives? WOW! I learn something new every day on these blogs. For instance, I didn't know that Robert Byrd is a conservative. (He was a “Kleagle” in the Klu Klux Klan.) Then why did he become a Democrat?
I'm not going to answer for Byrd nor should I have to. Just railing against the Coulterization of public discourse. Besides, I'm sure the party of Stromm Thurman, Trent Lott, Helms, John Ashcroft is fully accomidating to racial tolerence.
"Mark my words, somewhere, a military planner or strategist for al Qaeda or whatever new group of thugs is emerging is watching this drama unfold. They are making careful notes and calculations regarding just how long it will take for the brave efforts of our military to be eclipsed by the rantings of these self-serving politicians. They know that the efforts of those who view war and the sacrifices those who wage it incur through some out-of-touch, intellectual prism, and use their right of free speech without regard for its consequences, will always provide them with a ray of hope that their twisted cause will prevail. So they labor on, committing atrocities, killing the innocent, claiming their rights have been violated when captured, deflecting and obfuscating the truth because they know they have found comrades firmly embedded in our government who by word and action will support them.
"I wonder if, after watching some of the wretched hearings we have witnessed recently which showcase these sorry officials, our enemies will scratch their collective heads and say aloud, “We’re still at war…right?”
Good post, Tom.
From what I read we've already got a problem with radical Islam in some of our prisons.
Hmmmmm.... that is disturbing.
Ihatedashrub: I'm sure the party of Stromm Thurman, Trent Lott, Helms, John Ashcroft is fully accomidating to racial tolerence.
Hmmm... let's summarize. Strom Thurmond is dead and for all I know he has been an isolated Republican for most of his career. Trent Lott had to resign after making that "vote for Thurmond in 1948" remark. I don't know about Jesse Helms but Ashcroft seems to have been put on the sidelines, no?
So Ihatedashrub, it seems the GOP does not exactly reward those republicans with viewpoints which might be considered too far right.
How the Democratic Party rewards ITS radicals seems to be a totally different matter however.
As for Luke's comment, you bet THAT'S THE TRUTH.
AQ strategists ARE watching what goes on on the Senate floors. Not a shred of doubt in my mind 'bout that. Congratulations leftwingers, it's the late thirties all over again. Stinkers.
In an ironic way, this is a positive development in America's war on terror. (The eternal optimist in me, I guess.)
If the Democrats had been smarter, they could have had an opportunity to convince Americans that they are just as interested in winning the war on terror as the Republicans, only more capable.
Since this "we are just as tough on terror as the Republicans" line from the Democrats would have been phoney and just a campaign slogan designed to get votes, the American people could have been fooled into voting for a soft on terror approach.
Now it seems that the divisions between the two parties has been exposed and the American people can decide how they want to proceed.
I saw a poll the other day that said 58 percent want Gitmo to stay open.
When Trent Lott said that we would have been better off had Thurmond been elected, he was pretty much immediately attacked; by the conservative press. He issued apology after apology quickly thereafter, not the non-apology apology of Durbin. Within, what, a week? he was forced to resign his position. And what Lott said was mild compared to Durbin. Let's see if he loses his position as whip.
Maybe I'm missing something, but we've had "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, "Mad Max" Maxine Waters, Howard Dean, and now Dick Durbin, say one outrageous thing after another, and the response from the Democrats is... silence.
But all of this is only symptomatic of a larger point. We have heard little from the Democrats but whining, complaining, and NO NO NO to whatever the president proposes. No ideas on social security. No ideas on where to put the prisoners who are at Gitmo if we close Camp Delta. Nothing but negativity, marked by rhetoric that is ever and ever more shrill.
Thus, everything is gloom and doom. We're losing in Iraq. Our troops there are dying for nothing. The Iraqis are worse off now than before the war. Bush lied. Anyone who thinks the Arabs/Muslims are capable of democracy is naive, and anyway we can't "impose" it on them. The Arabs/Muslims all hate us because of our actions. It's all our fault.
Brilliant political strategy.
So Ihatedashrub, it seems the GOP does not exactly reward those republicans with viewpoints which might be considered too far right.
How the Democratic Party rewards ITS radicals seems to be a totally different matter however.
The Outlaw Michael Cosyns | 06.18.05 - 5:19 am | #
Byrd is not a main stream Democrat so that agrument doesn't hold water. The point is both parties have skeletons in thier respective closets and to hold the entire party answerable for the nonsensicle acts of fringe elements is stupid and foolish.
Yes, both parties could point to each other’s blemishes indefinitely but let’s put it in proper perspective. After Whoopi Goldberg used a monologue to compare the President to her genitals at a Kerry/Edwards fund-raiser. John Kerry said people like Whoopi represented American values. Soon after, Michael Moore (Hezbollah’s favorite filmmaker and recruiter) sat with Jimmy Carter (Fidel’s favorite foot masseuse) in the presidential seats at the DNC. It’s hard to tell where the “fringe elements” end the Democratic “base” begins. The Dems don’t seem to have any boundaries anymore.
Ihatedashrub, It’s not to late to jump ship before it goes completely under. I will help make the transformation non-traumatic (as I’ve made the switch myself).
BTW- I did happen to catch some of that “mock impeachment” on C-Span. I couldn’t figure out what the heck it was supposed to be until I read about it later. They really tried to play it out like it was an official “something”. One of its players described it as being a “historical” event!….They’re imploding.
Larry
You conservatives kill me. Whoopie is a comedien. If you're gonna make assumptions and analogies based on the rants of a person who gets paid to talk smack then the concept of open debate is lost upon you. I could care less what Kerry says. Jimmy Carter lost his influence in 1980 so his day is done. If you wanna play that game then what in the bloody hell is Bush Sr. doing sharing a room with the anti-Christ of the Republicans, Bill Clinton. Michael Moore is a nut job and no amount of caterwalling by Coulter or Sean Hannity will change that. But if you wanna suck up the load of fertalizer they're unleashing then be my guest.
The day the Republicans have the balls to elect a president who ain't affraid to christen the "Oval Office" and when they extract their craniums from their rectums and realize Jr IS NOT a conservative then maybe I'll jump ship. Until then I'll vote Democrat and hope an intern will play hide the cigar with me.
“Whoopie …a person who gets paid to talk smack”, “Michael Moore is a nut job”
Ihatedashrub, You keep making my case for me. The point is these “smack” talkers and “nut jobs” are embraced by the Democratic leaders for “representing American values”. The Dems not only do very little or nothing to distance themselves from the inflammatory statements or movies made by these clowns but in fact give them preferential treatment. So how do they distinguish them from the base in mainstream Democratopia?
“…what in the bloody hell is Bush Sr. doing sharing a room with the anti-Christ of the Republicans, Bill Clinton.?”
I don’t know…I guess it shows how far some Republicans will reach to show a little bipartisanship. Still not as tough as Bush Jr. honoring Jimmy Carter at the Whitehouse for his timely Nobel Peace Prize.
“The day the Republicans have the balls to elect a president who ain't affraid to christen the "Oval Office" and when they extract their craniums from their rectums and realize Jr IS NOT a conservative then maybe I'll jump ship.”
Huh? So I gather that you’re looking for someone MORE conservative than Bush yet with LESS character and loyalty?
Ihatedashrub, be careful with your language, please. If you want to debate us, fine, but if you continue to use foul language I will delete your posts. Do not doubt me on this..
My overall point is that the Democrats have become the party of gloom and doom. We can't win in Iraq. Everyone hates us. We're the chief polluters in the world and it's all our fault because we won't ratify Kyoto. Corporations are evil. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Racism and sexism run rampant in America.
Oh, except Social Security, the one thing that is going broke. On that they're optimistic.
So the Democrats rhetoric gets more and more extreme. A year ago (?) it was Al Gore ranting and raving and wildly gesticulating during several speechs. Al Sharpton is now a "respected" figure in the Democrat party. Then comes Howard Dean with foot-in-mouth syndrome. Now Dick Durban.
When Republicans go off the deep end they usually lose their jobs. This does not seem to happen with Democrats. Their strategy is to tell the people that everything is gloom and doom, reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. For all that Ihatedashrub has written, he has not challenged my thesis.
If you think Michael Moore is beloved by the Democratic leadership or the average liberal you are sadly mistaken. Jimmy Carter marginalyzed himself years ago and has had little to no influence on the Dems. It's patently unfair to expect the entire party to apologize or the acts of a few. Durbin's comments just came out so it's unfair to draw conclusions especially since the GOP did zilch about Trent Lott for weeks, let Helms spew his garbage for 36 years, and deified Stromm Thurmon as a champion of states' rights. I didn't see a single Republican vilify GOP leadership for stating that Clinton was guilty of rape. Before you try to remove the splinter from my remove the log from your own.
Ihatedashrub, be careful with your language, please. If you want to debate us, fine, but if you continue to use foul language I will delete your posts. Do not doubt me on this..
The Redhunter | Homepage | 06.18.05 - 8:38 pm | #
To what are you refering? The H-E-double hockey sticks utterance?
For Durbin to compare Gitmo to Nazis or Soviet Gulags is both foolish and extremely offensive. The scale of evil in Nazi concentration camps is unparalleled in history; the sort of melodramatic comments made by Durbin cheapen the suffering that happened there; and he should fall on his sword for his failure to comprehend that. I understand the point he was trying to make, but he has done so in such a clumsy and offensive way that what he has said has set his own cause back.
This is unfortunate because his cause is a just one. Human rights is not some airy fairy intelectual concept; it is what differentiates the civilised from the uncivilised. For example, some of the detainees at the camp were minors when they were apprehended. They are held in solitary confinement. They are imprisoned indefinitely. They are subjected to constant noise to prevent any communication with their co-prisoners. Many have recounted being beaten and abused. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that US courts have jurisdiction to hear their appeals none has been granted judicial review. What is the value of all this to prosecuting the war on terror?
Tom, your comments about relative justice are a disgrace. How can you think it is good enough just to be a bit better than the Taliban or Al Qaeda? Are they to set the standards by which the rest of the world operates? It's not about being utopian or on some doomed mission for perfection. It's about establishing moral standards and abiding by them. The US is responsible for its conduct in war and if that conduct includes torture and abuse (which, by the way, in no way assists in the winning of that war) then it is absolutely right and proper for the media to condemn it. Period.
Durbin's comments aside (I refuse to defend the indefensable) the truly troubling theme of the Bush administration is this knee jerk reaction on the part of the president's apologists to squelch opposing view points via the leveling of epithets and treasonous accusations. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have taken it upon themselves to belittle any and all opposition from their bully pulpits in order to protect an ineffectual president. I've personally been admonished on this and other blog rolls for refering to Bush as "Jr." You people have lost your minds. Even in the days of Reagan when people were poking fun I never saw the visceral reaction I see now from the right in defense of a president who's policies and spending practices are more liberal than Clinton's were.
Thank you both for your condemnation of Durbin. It isn't easy to dump one of your own. I know.
Where to begin? Well, I'd say we are operating to pretty high moral standards as it is. And oh but it is about perfection, Bob, because that is what it's all about to the left, and evidently to you also. If we don't do everything just right then we're forfeited the moral upper hand. And you know that's how it is with the left. And it's perfect nonsense.
Noone ever said we only have to be a bit better than the Taliban. That's not the concept of relative justice. If you don't understand it, check out my post at Redhunter under Just War Series. It's more complicated than I can get into here.
What amazes me is how you just seem to accept at face value what the terrorists(which the are) at Gitmo say: "Many have recounted being beaten and abused."
Did it EVER occur to you that maybe, they make some stuff up? It is in the Al-Qaeda manuals, you know. And if we're smacking them around some well good. Yes at times I'm sure we've gone too far. And you know what? We punish the perps, just like at Abu Ghraib before the papers got involved.
It is because our mistakes get blown so wildly out of proportion (like Abu Ghraib) that I am absolutely disgusted. It is sickening how some keep harping on these things.
But all this is somewhat off the original topic of the post, which is that the Democrats, and liberals in general, are the party of gloom and doom. It's the comeback of Jimmy Carter. And for all your words, neither of you have said anything contrary to that.
As far as Gitmo goes, I certainly hope that we're smacking them around. If they're minors? Too bad. They were caught on the battlefield What do you think this is? What do you think is going on here? It's called a war, guys. I know you want to turn all of this into a big exercies in criminal-justice, where everyone gets ACLU lawyers and trials in Berkley (nice juries, eh?), but sorry, this is a war, those people are prisoners, and prisoners are kept until the war is over. Get it? They're not "suspects who were arrested", they're combatants (albeit illegal ones) caught on the field of battle.
Thanks, Tom.
"Now the point I was trying to make is, we have departed from standards of conduct which presidents of both parties have played by for over 50 years, and we shouldn't be doing this...."
That is patently ridiculous! What would he call Roosevelt's internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans for the duration? Give me a break, Durbin! How stupid do you think we are?
I'm still wondering why they aren't on a diet of 3 servings of pork a day! How does bacon in the morning, ham sandwich for lunch, and pork chops for dinner sound? Yum! When they start burying the remnants of these suicide bombers in pig guts, I'll bet they won't get too many volunteers!
LOL, Dagney! Thank you for dropping by.
Quick question...why should I, as a registered Democrat, have to answer or rationalize the actions of another?
Oh, and since you've forwarded the contention what type of influence does Carter, Michael Moore, or Durbin have on the Democratic party. Michael Moore, for all his appearences at the convention (he had a press pass) his visage fills most Dems with dread. Jimmy Carter is no longer active in party politics as he's chosen to focus on international humanitarian issues. Durbin may have pull but I guarantee his influence wiil fade. So tell me how these men effect the Democratic platform or policy positions. Now if you wanna talk about Howard Dean or Bill Clinton that's a whole different story.
"So tell me how these men effect the Democratic platform or policy positions."
Is there anybody in the Democratic Party stepping up to distance themselves from these useful idiots with a better alternative on how to execute this war other than "we're losing in Iraq, Gitmo's disturbing and everyone hates us"? Just where is the distinction?
Tom, Thanks for your reply.
The "doom and gloom". Yep- when you're talking about things you don't agree with you come across a bit negative. Overall I think the world is becoming a better and more enlightened place in so many different ways. Often it's because people have been prepared to stand up for what's right in dangerous circumstances (we can all fill our own heroes in here- I wonder how different the lists would be?).
So yes- I know it was a battlefield. Then again, the whole country became a battlefield; so that's not much of a comment. Yes- I know they're instructed to lie. But without those disgusting photos from Abu Ghraib would you have believed those prisoners? And the wheels of military justice did seem to get some greasing following publication...
You make it clear from your comments that you think this isn't so important, it's some unholy conspiracy of lefties, Amerika-haters and liberal journos. So long as the US is more "in the right" than it's opponents in war it's just fine. Thing is we expect Al Qaeda to behave like scum. We expect human rights abuse from despots and banana republic dictators. It's what happens when you have totalitarian and undemocratic systems. It's not what we expect from democracies; from free countries. I repeat, it's not about perfection, it's about behaving in a civilised way.
Is there anybody in the Democratic Party stepping up to distance themselves from these useful idiots with a better alternative on how to execute this war other than "we're losing in Iraq, Gitmo's disturbing and everyone hates us"? Just where is the distinction?
Larry | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 9:14 am | #
You've answered a question with a question...not an accepted method of debating. Besides, as of about 4pm MDT Durbin apologized unequivocally for his verbal hand grenade.
And since you've asked the destinction lies in the fact that niether Moore nor Carter effect Democratic policy. A failure to distance one's self from extreme elements is not tanamount to an endorsement. But I guess basic semantics is lost on you.
I, and probably everyone else, have noticed an interesting difference between our two liberal commenters. Bob makes reasoned arguments, and comducts himself well. He can write, and knows how to structure an argument. I disagree with him, but I salute his style.
Ihatedashrub just rants.
Ihatedashrub just rants.
Tom the Redhunter | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 10:18 pm | #
Awww, no one wants to play with me.
Just look at your compatriots and you'll see rants. None of you has established a causal link between the presence of Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, et al and the platform of the Democratic party. All the response any one could muster was..."They haven't railed against Moore so he must be exerting influence".
Ex. "Is there anybody in the Democratic Party stepping up to distance themselves from these useful idiots with a better alternative on how to execute this war other than "we're losing in Iraq, Gitmo's disturbing and everyone hates us"? Just where is the distinction?"
Yet another fine example a soundly constructed argument.
When Republicans go off the deep end they usually lose their jobs. This does not seem to happen with Democrats. Their strategy is to tell the people that everything is gloom and doom, reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. For all that Ihatedashrub has written, he has not challenged my thesis.
The Redhunter | Homepage | 06.18.05 - 8:51 pm | #
I'll reiterate. Jesse Helms in a speech called UNC the "University of niggers and communists". In a senate floor speech Helms said AIDS wouldn't be a problem but for homosexuals. Another quote...The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963)
Helms got a 36 year pass from the Republicans so don't tell me the GOP punishes its own.
shrubhater- All I wanted to know was how the Democratic base differed ideologically or otherwise from their “fringe” elements. If you say they’re not interested in demonstrating any dissimilarity, well then I’ll take your word for it.
As for Durbin- It's just another typical non-apology apology…Woefully inadequate.
shrubhater- All I wanted to know was how the Democratic base differed ideologically or otherwise from their “fringe” elements. If you say they’re not interested in demonstrating any dissimilarity, well then I’ll take your word for it.
As for Durbin- It's just another typical non-apology apology…Woefully inadequate.
Larry | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 12:16 pm | #
Finally a direct response. But all indignation aside...
Michael Moore has made a practice of sand bagging people, ambushing the unsuspecting, and fabricating info to forward an ideology. The mainstream Dems are different in that the Dems USUALLY (both sides are a little hazy on the whole truth thing) don't overtly fabricate stuff for the mere purpose of smeering the oposition. Jimmy Carter is in favor of renewing relations with Cuba whereas most Dems aren't. My point all along, and by the way I appreciate your straaght forward query, is that both sides, Republican and Democrats alike are guilty of sweeping generalities based on the actions of a few. It's like trying to paint a wall with a roller and an eye dropper of paint. I took exception with the concept of lumping myself in with Moore, Durbin, etc. without knowing where I and other Dems stand. I find Durbin hopelessly misguided and Moore an example of what I hate about politics. I find it distasteful when Coulteresque tactics of generalization are employed. BTW, if you'll notice I never disagreed with your villification of Durbin. He's a nut. I took issue with the implication that the Democratic party should be made to answer for Durbin. IMHO, the GOP didn't have to address Trent Lott's infamous remarks but they did. That said, both parties are guilty of sweeping stuff under the carpet whenever possible.
Richard Cohen: "Still, Durbin is not being faulted for a lack of nuance."
The old "he's right, he's just didn't say it well": I don't know- I think they tear up their nuance card when they start bandying about words like Nazi and Gulag.
Now Tom- I'm really not used to flattery on these boards. For what it's worth the feeling's mutual, I appreciate the discussions on this site; elsewhere I just get slated which seems a bit pointless.
I do think there was a bit of divide and rule going on there with shrub hater- I agree with most of what he/she says.
Commenting by HaloScan
