Mickey

I am glad to see you oppose this kind of character assassination. I am not avoiding whether or not Murtha's stance on the war is good, bad or indifferent. Bill in NYC posted a question about democratic leaders and why they all stink so bad. He is not happy with republicans but doesn't see the democrats as a viable alternative. I responded to the question he asked. I pointed out that I agreed that democrat leadersip is a train wreck. As a side point, I offered my opinion that on occasion when someone promising comes along, their character gets assassinated before they can get off the ground and used Murtha as an example of it starting to happen right before our eyes. Murtha's views were not the issue we were discussing. As for the notion that this is just a lone nut case web site crying in the dark, that is how it starts. Even as we speak (cue foreboding music), it is spreading through the machine. You can see its footprints here, here, here and here. By no means a complete survey. Then the story gets repeated and pretty soon the mainstream media will pick it up. They will just report the fight over the charge but in doing so, give the scurrilous charge more air time. Well worn territory here.

I think Webb's point is that groups like CNS, with their employee roster interlocking with that of the RNC, do the dirty work so that the damage is done while the President distances himself so as to avoid the backlash against such tactics. That way they get the benefit of dirty pool with out the burden of the unpleasant side effects. Plausible deniability. Based on repeated examples of this, Webb no longer finds the denials plausible. You may not agree with him on that score but you have to admit that having underlings toss the mud to keep the boss clean is not exactly re-inventing the wheel when it comes to politics. Political parties come and go but the strategy of winning elections remains the same regardless of party. "Swiftboating" is just a new name for an old tactic.

You apparently didn't make it through the entire thread and missed where I said: "I have no problem with the idea that what Hillary said was stupid, mean spirited, the very thing that makes reasonable discussions so difficult to have. Accusing the entire Republican party of being like plantation owners is the kind of rhetoric that just alienates people, prevents any reasonable discussion and further poisons public debate. By they way, I have never, ever even remotely supported the idea of her running for President. Never. Don't let that little fact get in the way though." Apparently you also missed the seven times I asked you to explain your assertion that I was giving democrats complete immunity from all criticism despite my actual comments which were directly critical of them, to wit: "the Democrats have a serious leadership problem." "Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right." By my estimate, that makes eight times I have asked you to explain this. I critisized democrats and you accuse me of immunizing them from criticism. Explain that to me.

I am not sure where to start. It was founded by L.Brent Bozell of the "Media Research Center" whose funds were donated by conservative foundations. Its original name was "Conservative News Network" but they changed "conservative" to "Cybercast". Their first executive editor was Scott Hogenson who spent 6 years with the RNC and actually took a leave of absence to go back to the RNC during the 2004 election. The executive editor of the Times is Bill Keller who has been a reporter since 1970 when he wrote for the Portland Oregonian for 9 years and has, along the way, worked for the Dallas Times Herald and the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, he won a Pulitzer in 1989 for coverage of the Soviet Union. I am willing to bet that Hogenson couldn't spell P-u-l-i-t-z-e-r. As far as I know, Keller has never worked for a political party let alone the DNC or taken a leave of absence to work for them during an election. That doesn't even begin to cover the differences, its just a teaser. I won't argue with you your belief as to the liberal bias of the NYT's. Despite that, assuming its totally true, the Times and CNS are still not at all alike.

Maybe. I do hope that the entire Republian party agrees with you and continues to just sit and wait for that too happen all on its own. It is that kind of thinking that moved all those votes to the democrats to begin with and if it doesn't change, should keep them there. Pendulums shift back and forth for a reason, politics are different, they shift but for a reason. The shift you are talking about isn't going to just magically materialize. The experience of other immigrants is helpful but of limited value for comparison purposes. Blacks didn't exactly immigrate to the US so their historical frame of reference is different. Further, it doesn't appear that they have had the same ability to assimilate into the culture at large as easily (probably didn't seem easy to our grandparents) as the groups you mentioned.

In another thread, in criticising democratic leaders, I also pointed out that: "...the Republican character assassination team usually has them for dinner. It is already starting with Murtha for example." This drew fire from RK and KRC who, as usual, resorted to personal villification rather than to actually address the attack now brewing on Murtha. Apparently, this can't really be happening or be a legitimate issue because I am a democrat. Well, it appears I am not the only one concerned with the Republican habit of attacking veterans who disagree with them. James Webb, veteran and Reagan's former Naval Secretary published this piece which expresses the same concerns I have: Purple Heartbreakers You may remember Webb as the Naval Secretary who resigned in protest of congressional budget cuts he felt were going too far in reducing our Naval capabilities. In Viet Nam he served as a rifle platoon and company commander in the infamous An Hoa Basin west of Danang and he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. He later served as a platoon commander and as an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, and then as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's immediate staff, before leaving the Marine Corps in l972. Let the personal villification of Webb begin.

Please tell me you are not saying that the "Vote for us or terrorists will kill you" party panders to fear? It can not be. I shan't believe it I tell you. I shan't, I shan't, I shan't.

I think black voters are capable, bright and intelligent citizens, no more likely to be duped into voting for a party whose policies hurt them than you are. Accordingly, and by truly embarassing majorities, they vote for democrats. For years now the Republicans keep telling themselves that the overwhelming rejection of their party by african americans is due to some sort of villainous propaganda, a mystifying piece of rhetorical wizadry by Democrats as opposed to a legitimate reaction by them to Republican policies inimical to their interests. I understand that you disagree strongly with their view of Republican policies and whether or not they truly are bad for african americans and I respect that. However, they clearly disagree and you see that over and over in their voting stats. Their opinions contrary to yours as to the efficacy of Republican policies are deserving of just as much respect as yours. Sure they may be wrong but I think it is disrespectful to label them as some sort of dupes helpless to discern the truth obscured by democratic propaganda. I think they know the democratic party all too well, warts and all. They know the Republican party too and all things considered, they overwhelmingly vote for democratic candidates. That is going to continue unless and until the Republican party stops convincing itself that they are victims of a combination of democratic lies and blacks being unable to see the truth.

Okay, that was a good one. I guess the kid was thinking about Jeff Guckert, aka Jeff "Bulldog" Gannon, the erstwhile conservative journalist/homosexual prostitute who so delicately fed his meaty soft ball questions to a bashful but eager and appreciative President during press conferences. Here is a snippet from the WH showing when Bulldog logged in and logged out (any apparent puns on words such as "unusually long", login, logout, no entry or briefing, are accidental). 2/25/03 11:46 - 1:25 (briefing 12:26-1:03) 2/26 9:56 - 2:17 (unusually long) (briefing 1:25-1:53) 2/27 11:49 - 1:34 (no briefing) 2/28 11:20 - 1:26 (briefing 12:35-1:10) 3/3/03 9:51 - 1:32 (unusually long) (briefing 12:21-1:00) 3/4 11:48 - 1:45 (briefing 12:46-1:20) 3/5 11:56 - 1:57 (briefing 12:21-1:00) 3/6 11:58 - 12:42 (no briefing) 3/6 9:11 pm exit - no entry (Bush press conference, 8 pm) 3/7 3:22 pm exit -- no entry (briefing 2:20-3:00) 3/10 12:47 - 3:11 (briefing 1:23-2:10) 3/11 12:25 - 1:47 (briefing at 12:38 - no end time given) 3/12 12:55 - 2:40 (briefing 1:20-1:59) 3/13 12:12 - 1:55 (briefing 12:40-1:19) 3/14 12:02 - 1:49 (briefing 12:35-1:06) 3/17 12:01 - 1:30 (no briefing) 3/18 12:09 - 1:31 (briefing 12:21-1:05) 3/19 9:38 - 3:27 (unusually long) (12:15-12:59) (Bush speech, 10 pm) 3/20 12:19 - 1:38 (briefing 12:32-1:15) 3/21 10:52 - 12:31 (briefing 2:31-3:12 -- doesn't match) 3/24 1:02 - 2:43 (briefing 1:00-1:44) 3/25 1:45 - 3:30 (briefing 2:30-3:15) 3/28 12:34 - 3:51 (unusually long) (briefing 12:35-1:15) By the way, a congressional resolution asking for the records to show how it was that Guckert was able to come and go at will at the WH, enter the builiding without even logging in, gain access to press conferences without having been credentialed and got as close to the leader of the free world as he did was defeated in a party line vote with all republicans voting to suppress the information.

Yes, the infamous thread where I took the radical position that racism was a significant problem in America. Just me being crazeeeee. I think that was right after I broke all the rules and declared, brazenly I might add, that bugging journalists, especially one whose husband is your chief political rival's foreign policy advisor in the middle of a presidential campaign was wrong. Wasn't that just after I went off the deep end and actually laughed, out loud mind you, at David Letterman? As if that wasn't bad enough, didn't I agree with the radical, hitherto unheard of theory, that O'Reilly is a dick? That was just after I set the wires ablaze with the notion that Pat Robertson crediting God with giving the PM of Israel a stroke was bad. Who knows where all this will end? Maybe next I will come out with a merciless and unwarranted attack against pedophiles. Maybe I will shock the world with my over the top views on traumatic amputations (Preview: I'm against it!). Where or where will the madness end?

The right keeps edging further and further to the right, if you don't move with them, sooner or later you find yourself among the "radical left".

It is a shame to see, really. I can recall that he would get all hot and bothered whenever I was critical of Anne Coulter or Limbaugh and the like because it was supposedly unfair to saddle those nuts and their meansprited rhetoric on to all conservatives. This thread is a good example of how he has become what he claimed to despise. This was never a discussion about race, about political issues or anything else of substance. If he had any ideas on those issues, he never bothered to mention them. No. His major concern was "what will Mickey say?" We end up essentially arguing about who is being the bigger jerk.

Lets leave the your personal delusion that your not partisan alone for now, especially when it comes to racism. Not after you had a cow over my taking the ludicrous position that racism was a significant problem. I was directly critical of democratic leaders, called them bad in fact. I called their leadership problem "serious", something you conveniently left out when you "quoted" me. I also called Nagin a promising new comer, a challenger to Pat Robertson and you certainly know how I feel about him. All of that criticism of democrats and then you interpret it as "Democrats can say anything and should be immune from criticism". I am still waiting for you to explain that.

Gee, and I thought I was saving time by being critical of democratic leaders, without exception, rather than limiting it to Hillary. You do recall that the original post was about both Hillary and Nagin. It seemed appropriate then to respond in the plural, ie "democratic leaders". I have no problem with the idea that what Hillary said was stupid, mean spirited, the very thing that makes reasonable discussions so difficult to have. Accusing the entire Republican party of being like plantation owners is the kind of rhetoric that just alienates people, prevents any reasonable discussion and further poisons public debate. By they way, I have never, ever even remotely supported the idea of her running for President. Never. Don't let that little fact get in the way though. Still waiting for you to explain how it is that my comments, being critical of democratic leadership and Nagin, can be fairly interpreted as Democrats being immune from all criticsm. Your micro analysis and bitter criticism of my post simply because I wasn't critical enough sets the standard. I assume you will be taking KRC to task for his inaccuracy in spinning a criticism of democrats on my part into "democrats being immune...."

Actually, that is not what I said but don't let a little thing like lying about what I said get in the way of your fun. What I said was "the Democrats have a serious leadership problem." I also said: "Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right." Did you not see that part? I would think that Hillary saying something offensive would count as a "serious leadership problem" and that calling all democratic leaders pretty bad would be sufficient. Even if your apparent point, that I was critical of democrats but not critical enough for your taste; your accusation that I was treating democrats as being immune from all criticism, is still totally wrong. There is no question that I was being critical of democrats, at least not to anyone who can read english and has a double digit IQ. For you to claim I was treating democrats as immune from criticism in a post that was directly critical of democrats leads me to conclude that either you are an idiot, are just having a bad day or, this has become personal with you. Hence the Richio reference.

Okay dodger, I'm still waiting for you to explain how my criticism of Nagin and democratic leaders can be fairly interpreted as democrats being immune from all criticism.

So you keep saying Richio.

What democratic leader did you think I was talking about? That is the leader Bill brought up. I went further than Hillary and was critical of all democratic leaders but again, what I actually say doesn't matter. Please explain how my criticism of Nagin and democratic leaders can be fairly interpreted as "Democrats can say anything and be immune from criticism" Really, I want to hear how you explain that away. I assume you didn't respond to it the first time for the same reason KRC didn't, because he couldn't. However, I'll give you a second go at it. I know I'll regeret this but just to show there are no hard feelings, I'll even provide a link to help you make the argument: Criticism=immune from criticism

That is always a problem for the "free market fixes all" crowd. Free markets chase profits and if a compelling need carries no profits, it will not be filled by a free market. On the other hand, the absence of a free market can lead to even worse problems. That is the fault line upon which policy alternatives precariously must perch. Balancing a free market so that these companies flourish while at the same time finding a way to steer some of their resources into less profitable endeavors is one approach that could work. I hate the way they advertise prescription drugs. Most of that advertising is spent to steal market share from a pharmacologically indistinguishable competitor. The anti-depressant market is just a coke vs. pepsi style battle between Celexa, Paxil and other serotonin reuptake inhibitors. That results in tons of money going to marketing which, in the end, never moves the market enough to justify the expense.

All this attention from you and KRC is making me blush.

I said: "I gotta go with Robertson in a split decision. Nagin is a promising new comer..." "I actually agree with you that democrats have a serious leadership problem. Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right." And you interpret that as: "Democrats can say anything and should be immune from criticism." It clearly doesn't matter what I say, even a criticism of democrats is converted in your head to "immune from criticism". I guess if you're a moderator you don't have to worry about the rules on crusades, personal attacks and the like. Besides a few IQ points, what exactly would be the difference between you and Richio?

I also "didn't state that it wasn't" about his choice of underwear either. Did you think it was because it was omitted? I mentioned character assassination which, I would have thought, obviously does not include legitimate political criticism. Do you need to be a mind reader to understand that?

Yeah, arguing that Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly are idiots and that racism is a bad problem certainly drew a lot of fire. Of course, this is about the only place I know of where such positions would be considered controversial. I can see why everyone is upset though. Certainly, when I said that Robetson was worse than Nagin "in a split decision" but that Nagin was a "promising newcomer" in the dumbass sweepstakes, I can see why you interpreted that as "democrats are immune from criticism..."

The criticsm I am alluding to with regard to Murtha is the questioning of the purple hearts he was awarded and other questions being raised in familiar quarters. That is why I used the phrase "character assassination". I keep forgetting how much trouble you have with big words. Why would you think that meant being critical of his political positions?

I gotta go with Robertson in a split decision. Nagin is a promising new comer but you gotta give Robertson respect for his longevity at the top...er...I mean bottom. Besides, Nagin is a mayor, not a minister hiding behind God. I actually agree with you that democrats have a serious leadership problem. Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right. When they do come up with anyone half way decent, the Republican character assassination team usually has them for dinner. It is already starting with Murtha for example. I also think they simply had some pretty rotten luck. Wellstone getting killed in a plane crash, same with JFK Jr. There are a lot of Iraq War vets running as democrats for various positions, mostly congress. Perhaps there are some future party leaders among them.