Band Of Brothers

Parent Cafe
41

<p>“You mean like Ted Kennedy’s support for the Clinton/Albright policy of killing Iraqi children?”</p>

<p>Don’t hold your bated breath for the “democratic moral majority” of CC to EVER acknowledge the role of the US in the organized genocide of children in Iraq.</p>

42

<p>THEDAD</p>

<p>So Mary Jo K’s death was consensual?</p>

43

<p>Well, since some were so eager for a parallel here you go: <a href=“http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp[/url]”>http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think that both cases were tragedies, but I’m not about to wave down judgment from up high with such furious insincerity. Teddie has plenty of personal failings, but so does anyone who revels in tragedy for some stupid partisan cackling. Both he and Laura made mistakes that they have to carry with them from the rest of their lives. Taking pleasure in something like that reveals a lot more about one’s own issues than those of these two.</p>

44

<p>

Morphed? Perhaps just a bit of typical TD hyperbole, certainly not a “lie” … or is it?
Here’s a link to the add. Tell me where the “morphing” takes place.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0727.asp[/url]”>http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0727.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

45

<p>FF - Are you saying that your hairsplitting over TD’s terminology is significant? Do you personally condone the ad “linking” Cleland to Osama bin Laden as accurate and honorable? Or is this just more of the usual right wing tactic of misdirection? Let me rephrase TheDad’s comment for you: The absolute, gutter level, slimy, unprincipled tactics of the right have voided the Republican party’s claim to moral superiority over pond scum, let alone any other political party. I would disagree with TheDad on one point: he dates the descent into complete amorality to 2002; I see it going back to the “ends justify the means” philosophy adopted and preached in 1994 by Newt Gingrich and friends.</p>

46

<p>The ad “linking” Cleland to OBL is no worse than any political ad of either party in recent years. However, the absolute depths of political ads was hit in the 2000 ad linking Bush to the dragging death of an AA in Texas. This ad even trumps the daisy ad used against Goldwater. So, if you want to justify your vile toward a political party based on ads, be my guest. Just don’t mis-characterize them and recognize that the slime flows both ways.</p>

47

<p>Brownie, what about Ted Kennedy? Yeah, I know he’s one of the GOP voodoo dolls. The Hillary Clinton one is getting a makeover and being rolled out anew even as we speak. As for Kennedy, I addressed it in post #31, repeated herein just for you:

</p>

<p>Kluge, 1994 is significant in that it brought a “rule or ruin” outlook into the GOP, one that regarded meaningful bi-partisanship or compromise as unclean, leading to the practice of ramming through polarizing legislation and policy on the slenderest of margins, using tools like unprecedented mid-census redistricting to enhance the number of seats in the House, overthrowing long honored precedents in both House and Senate for short-term gain. I am adamantly against the Dems using the same kind of mid-census redistricting, should the opportunity present itself, and I hope that genie can be stuffed back into the bottle. Otherwise, I look forward to, when the tables turn, the Republicans being treated with the same deference, consideration, and rules by which they’ve governed. They’ve had the advantage of a “first strike” in some of these areas, it will be interesting to see their capacity for taking a punch in return. But 2002 marked an ugly watershed, opening up an ugly line that continues to this day, using the 9/11 tragedy to brand dissenting opponents as traitors. </p>

<p>FF, that is not the same ad that I saw at the time. And that one is ugly enough with its implications.</p>

<p>And as far as the various vets running for office, before we can agree on what to do, the first step is to agree that what we’re doing is wrong. Your side of the table can’t even do that. And it’s your effing mess that the rest of us will be stuck with cleaning up for decades.</p>

48

<p>Fundingfather, if you really want to rely on “They do it, too” consider the following: in 1994 GOPAC distributed the following memo’s list of words to use when describing Democrats. (As Newt Gingrich explained in a cover letter: “The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language.”)

Not just a single ad, an excess of zeal in the middle of a campaign. The policy of impugning the opposition as “sick, pathetic, lying traitors” is institutionalized within the Republican Party. I am honestly unaware of such a policy endorsed by any other party, but you can enlighten me if you have such information…</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s another oft-used claim of the left. It would be nice to find some actual substance behind that claim. </p>

<p>However, on the other side, it is not at all difficult to find allegations of traitorous, fascist behavior and lies coming from left to right … and not just from misguided CCers but all the way to the top of the Democratic party.</p>

50

<p>Cross-posted an hour ago and no response to post #48 since. I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath…</p>

51

<p>I think there is nothing better for democracy, and nothing more invigorating in election season than negative campaigning (though revelations of illicit sex come in a close second.) </p>

<p>It works, too! That’s why they do it! A good rule for negative campaigning is that if you see someone denying a charge, it is probably true. ;)</p>

52

<p>BG,</p>

<p>The republicans are a long way from clean themselves. Senator Packwood is just one of many examples. I am with sjmom only I changed my party registration to independent while in college a long time ago.</p>

<p>My best friend in college was a democrat who accused me of being a political fence sitter. I accused him of being a political sheep who would follow whatever his party said.</p>

<p>Independents and unregistered are the fastest growing component of the voting population. The reason for this is that both parties are controlled by the extremes both right and left. The hearings on the nomination of Robert Bork was the defining moment and start of the polarizing politics of both parties.</p>

<p>Fortunately I live in RI where I can be “unregistered”, walk in to the primary, declare a party, vote then undeclare. Better options than just being able to choose among candidates from one party.</p>

53

<p>Since the gloves are off, I’d like to hear any brave predictions on the net change in seats in the Senate in 2006, and which party will gain.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

54

<p>Republocrats will win all seats but one. The net worth of the average member of Congress will rise.</p>

55

<p>Best, most even-handed analysis I’ve seen on the subject lately.
<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_11_06_CC_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_11_06_CC_pf.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

56

<p>Situation unclear; 9 months is an eternity in politics. </p>

<p>My current gauge says: Senate +3, House +10, Governors +6.</p>

<p>However, the currents can swing both directions. I expect, as with 2004, to start getting a lot more “terror alerts” and “foiled terrorism plots” stories as we near election day. Me? Cynical?</p>

<p>I take issue with Cook’s article on one important point: Candidate Recruitment. While I would love to have a first-tier candidate running against Anne Northrup, when it comes to recruitment in general, the Dems are doing Patton’s “holding them by the nose while kicking them in the ass.” God bless Liddy Dole…may she continue in her role as RSCC chair. The House front is looking equally good if not better. There are fewer than 10 Dem seats that are even remotely contestable whereas, by the time the dust settles, several dozen GOP seats will be getting serious challengers, hence “Band of Brothers” et alia. </p>

<p>In the past two Presidential elections, with respect to the Electoral College, too much of the battle was being fought on Dem territory. In 2006, it’s the other way around.</p>

<p>Oh, if my predictions hold, note that the GOP holds the House courtesy of DeLay’s unprecedented mid-census redistricting. That is one tactic that I hope is stuff back into the genie bottle, maybe with the assist of a court decision. It’s ugly. And if not quashed, will inevitably lead to retribution and all sorts of instability. California could easily add another 8 Dem seats if there were a partisan redistricting. I think Ahnold’s chance for holding the governor’s seat is a coin flip at best.
The Dems want his blood and, as he’s tacked back to the Center after loosing his four props, the Reps want his head. Phil Angelides is a competent if non-inspirational opponent.</p>

57

<p>By the way, Fundingfather, if you’re still out there, I continue to await enlightenment about any party other than the GOP having an official policy of smearing their opponents with buzzwords like “sick, pathetic, lying traitors.” I’m with TheDad about trying to put the genie back in the bottle on gutter-level politics, but it’s hard not to want to retaliate in kind when you’ve been a punching bag for that kind of slime machine for over ten years…</p>

58

<p>kluge, sorry I didn’t respond sooner. I just had a hard time believing that you were serious. Perhaps you are being serious but just hopelessly naive or don’t realize that you have your party loyalty blinders on. Go back and take a look at the slime thrown at the Republicans for more than 10 years - only this time remember to take off the blinders.</p>

59

<p>That’s it?!? That’s all you’ve got? “I know you are but what am I?” I’ve never questioned that office seekers on all sides cross the line in every election cycle. But I give you GOPAC’s official guidebook, straight from the horses mouth, where your party encourages its members to routinely and repeatedly call anyone who disagrees with their politics “sick, pathetic lying traitors.” That’s just going by the GOP playbook. And you give me “But, but, but they hit us first!” for an adequate explanation for the kind of behavior your party prescribes as standard operating procedure?</p>

<p>Partisan blinders? You find me any party - Dems, Greens, Libertarians, anyone - who has an official party guidebook that encourages its members to “Memorize as many as possible” ways to attack below the belt, and I’ll give you full credit. Until then, you’re just blustering – with nothing to back it up.</p>

60

<p>Here’s what Paul Hackett had to say about the Democrats as he dropped out of the Senate race in Ohio. It’s a shame - although I disagree with Hackett on a lot of the issues he is clearly an honest and ethical individual. Something lacking in both parties.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11337055/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11337055/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;