Might be a Reason to Vote for McCain

[bz2010]

<p>TD, you remind me of that old Law adage that if the Law is on your side then you talk about the law; if the facts are on your side, then you talk about the facts. And if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then you just “talk”.</p>

<p>If you think that the pro-choice, gay marriage, socialized medicine, welfare, tax & spend, bureaucratic, left-wing pseudo-communist Democrats are the majority in this country, then either you are deluded or we are in fact in serious trouble. The Democratic party is a party of misfits & losers - can you rope in enough of them to win the election? God help us if you do.</p>

<p>I don’t dispute the fact that Bush’s popularity is waning. In fact, I’m surprised he has any support at all right now - that really doesn’t even matter. The Republicans can win even if we don’t have “The Perfect Candidate” - As long as there are more rational people than idiots & fools, then Republicans win. I do worry that the population of idiots, fools, misfits & losers might be growing tho’ - if that’s the case then I guess Hillary can be their leader!</p>

<p>BTW, if you have any doubts about the type of people who are attracted to the Democratic Party, just watch this video:</p>

<p><a href=“http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/01/19/gettin-a-moveon[/url]”>http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/01/19/gettin-a-moveon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Check out some of the other videos shot by this young film maker Evan Coyne Maloney. This stuff speaks for itself. Watch the videos & draw your own conclusions.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Buzz, if you think some fringe cases represent the Democratic party, you are soooo wrong. But then your “pseudo-Communist Democrats” language betrays you.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>lol, bz2010! I’m sure there are at least a few CC posters on that video. Anyone care to 'fess up???</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

If you think that the pro-choice [yes], gay marriage [as opposed to the condemn-others-viciously-for-being-gay-but-seek-out-boy-pages-and-anonymous-bathroom-sex-with-other-men Republicans], socialized medicine [the health care pf OECD countries costs less, provides more access, and overall higher quality than that of the US, but god forbid we should change], welfare [what [planet are you on?], tax & spend [versus borrow and spend Republicans], bureaucratic [govt. shrank under Clinton], left-wing pseudo-communist [gee, Mabel, the commies are in town again, git my shotgun] Democrats are the majority in this country, then either you are deluded or we are in fact in serious trouble.

</p>

<p>I’d say we’re in serious trouble, but for different reasons. It’s because of shallow cretins like you that want to say black is white. One example given here, regarding the stale “tax and spend” accusations people who have had their heads in their own smelly places apparently for the past decade…</p>

<p>From Americans for Tax Reform:

During the Clinton years, federal spending as a percentage of the nation’s total economic output dropped from 22 percent at the start of his first term to below 19 percent at the end of his second. Huge deficits were replaced with record surpluses. Regulatory costs likewise declined steadily throughout Clinton’s presidency, according to a study released Friday by Americans for Tax Reform, a group that favors low taxes. That record stems from the fact that Republicans ruled Congress during Clinton’s last six years in office. </p>

<p>Under Bush, by contrast, government spending is up 12.4 percent over the past three years, record deficits have returned and regulatory costs are up 8.4 percent. That’s in spite of the fact that Republicans, who normally talk about cutting government, have been in control of the White House and both houses of Congress for much of Bush’s presidency. </p>

<p>This pattern has emerged at the state level as well. States with Republicans in control of the legislature and governor’s office saw spending rise fastest from 1997 to 2002, according to a USA TODAY survey published in May. Spending in Democratic-controlled states rose less quickly. States with the most fiscal restraint had governments in which the two parties shared control.

</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

have had their heads in their own smelly places

own your house, your car, and your ass. I’d use your ass as a footstool.

What is it with our left wing friends and their unique writing style? Do you guys take classes to learn to write like this? There does seem to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the “nether regions” to me. I thought the potty-humor ended around middle school…</p>

[Gilbert_S]

<p>I think the testicular preoccupation is also interesting; especially the fact that the poster in question is willing to give up his right one, though not his left. :p</p>

[Novelisto]

<p>Oh, I wouldn’t call even the most diehard Republican a cretin. Misguided and misanthropic perhaps…</p>

<p>Considering that in a NYT-CBS poll only 5 percent of people trusted the Bush Admin to ‘fix’ Iraq (which statistically speaking is Zero), I think anyone’s dream of a renewed Republican White House is going to come true about as soon as that one about little sparkly fairies and unicorns. Now I know you’ll be saying ‘NYT-CBS? Ha!’ but try to look beyond kneejerk prejudice. 5 percent. That’s about the same percentage that believe in Aliens visiting Nevada or that Elvis Lives! (Here’s the question: “If you had to choose, who do you think is most likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq: the Bush Administration, Congress, or U.S. military commanders in Iraq?” Military commanders: 68%, Congress: 21%, Administration: 5%)</p>

<p>I hope the next prez won’t be Hillary…I know the next prez will be a D. As for the Senate, the numbers speak for themselves. D’s to defend 12 seats with more money than the R’s have to defend 22…and R senators from ‘safe’ seats are retiring in droves. Things are about to change. Adapt. Evolve. Move on!</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

5 percent. That’s about the same percentage that believe in Aliens visiting Nevada or that Elvis Lives!

</p>

<p>Or the percentage of Republican presidential candidates who accept evolution.</p>

<p>I wish a debate moderator would ask them if they believe the earth is round.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Speaking of McCain, I would think that General Petraeus’ testimony would strengthen his position. Even Susan Estrich, a well-known liberal, thinks that the Democrats are hurt when they attack “the General who oozes courage, fortitude and decency.” <a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296590,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296590,00.html&lt;/a&gt;

The Democrats, especially the Democrats running for president, have a problem, and his name is Petraeus.</p>

<p>In two days of hearings on Capitol Hill, he probably didn’t change any of the views held by members of Congress about the war in Iraq. But he almost certainly impressed a lot of people sitting at home by displaying all the traits Americans hope for in a military leader.</p>

<p>He was, to put it simply, good, a man who came across as brave, honorable, and true, and that’s the problem.</p>

<p>On Monday, the day Petraeus was to begin his testimony, in the great tradition of Washington politics, MoveOn.org blasted him before hearing a word of it. In a full page ad in the New York Times, that became the talk of Congress, the talk shows, and cable news (as it was supposed to), the liberal group accused Petraeus of “cooking the books,” and charged that he was betraying the American peoples’ trust by spinning the facts to support the White House.</p>

<p>That is, by the way, how MoveOn itself summarized the ad, in an email to its supporters sent the next day, giving notice that it wasn’t backing down.

</p>

<p>

With polls showing that most Americans trust the military to deal with the war in Iraq far more than they do either the president or Congress, MoveOn’s choice of targets put those Democrats who need the support of both the hard left and the mushy middle squarely between a rock and a hard place.

</p>

<p>

Primaries are won on the Left and Right. General elections are won in the middle. That’s the problem Petraeus poses for Democrats. If he could convince MoveOn, this would be easy. But he can’t and won’t. The danger is that he convinces folks in the middle that it would be irresponsible to simply pull out troops now, rather than trying to stabilize the situation further, that there is enough improvement both politically and militarily at the grass roots level to follow his schedule, rather than a Democratic one, that he knows what is happening on the ground in Iraq better than people who aren’t there.

</p>

<p>At least McCain had the courage of his convictions, which is hard for anyone else to say.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>From the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released today:</p>

<p>“This week General David Petraeus gave a report to Congress on the progress in Iraq. Based on what you know, was General Petraeus’s report truthful and objective or was it slanted toward the policies of the Bush administration?”</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Truthful and objective (35%)</p></li>
<li><p>Slanted toward the administration (40%)</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t know (25%)</p></li>
</ol>

[TheDad]

<p>

He was, to put it simply, good, a man who came across as brave, honorable, and true, and that’s the problem.

A nice example of Faux News’ irrelevant framing. The words are designed to make you drop objections to support this good and patriotic man…but they’re totally irrelevant to the question of “What constitutes victory in Iraq?” and “Does what the US have any bearing on the outcome in that context?” and “Who will control Iraq and in what context?” In short, it substitutes smarmy emotional goop for any rational analysis…in that, it’s a nice bit of propaganda. But a definitive statement? Far from it.</p>

<p>If one accepts Faux News’ framing uncritically, then one gets led down roads to all sorts of idiocies.</p>

<p>I forget whether it was here or elsewhere that I replied to ZM about Faux News. I should have added that I studiously avoid TV as a news source in general…selected sound bites with emotionally laden images just don’t do it for me. Virtually everything you see on TV is a small part of a larger story in print and being a print-oriented dinosaur, I read both widely and deeply. Sad to say, I had never even seen Keith Olberman (who rocks!) until I was spending time with my mom when she was dying and it, along with the Simpsons, were the two things she wanted to watch each day.</p>

<p>TV news is not only superficial but, more so than print media, gets the most emotionally hot aspects of a story, valid or not, representative or not. Faux News is simply the worst because of their relentlessly pro-Bush, pro-GOP framing and the occasional outright lie.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>No, those are NOT the words of Fox news – they are a direct quote from Susan Estrich, hardly a right-wing fanatic. </p>

<p>

Estrich grew up in Marblehead, Massachusetts on Boston’s North Shore. She graduated from Wellesley College in 1974, and received her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1977. In 1976, she was elected the first female president/editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. Estrich served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1988, she was the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential run.</p>

<p>Estrich is currently a law professor at the University of Southern California Law School and a political science professor at its affiliated undergraduate school. Before joining the USC faculty in 1989, she was Professor of Law at Harvard University, where she was the first woman tenured faculty.</p>

<p>Estrich appears frequently on Fox News as a legal and political analyst, giving the liberal perspective. She has also substituted for Alan Colmes on the debate show Hannity & Colmes. Estrich writes regular articles for NewsMax for which she is a pundit.[1] and is also on the Board of Editorial Contributors for USA Today.

<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Estrich[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Estrich&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here’s what bothers me – it’s the unrelenting refusal to accept ANY information which contradicts an existing point of view, regardless of the source. If a VERY well-know liberal Democrat says something favorable about General Petraeus, you STILL refute it. This was not a quote from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.</p>

<p>

If one accepts Faux News’ framing uncritically, then one gets led down roads to all sorts of idiocies.

No, if one never accepts any information that does not fit into an existing framework of beliefs, then one is led down the road to all sorts of idiocies.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>Susan Estrich is a well-known and long-time friend of the Clintons. If you read a representative sample of her work, several things are clear. She is a principled liberal who is active in democratic politics and also a very loving mother. I don’t agree with her politically, but she often articulates the liberal POV in a smart, reasonable and respectful way, particularly in her writings. Others courld really learn from her. So much for Fox not being fair and balanced. I just really don’t know why these threads have to degenerate to the point that they do.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>ZM, you take start with the fact that a high proportion of Fox News viewer, unlike those who get the majority of their news from any other source, still believe that Saddam Hussein was personally behind the 9/11 attacks, that WMD were found in Iraq, etc. It’s virtually impossible to account for this without accepting that FN systematically distorts, spins, and outright lies in a deliberate effort to prop up Bush and the GOP. </p>

<p>I’d suggest that you read Media Matters, a group that looks at all TV and print outlets. They do story by story analyses of where the press gets it wrong, including where the allegedly liberal media dutifully accepts GOP framings of stories that, while helpful to the GOP, don’t actually match the reality.</p>

<p>I’ve been loaned the video OUTFOXED, which I haven’t taken the time to watch yet, but I’ve heard pretty good digests.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>I suggest you visit Media Research Center online. I am very familiar with Media Matters. It is a propaganda organization, which is fine, but let’s not pretend that it is, oh, fair and balanced.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Novelisto, you said:</p>

<p>

I hope the next prez won’t be Hillary…I know the next prez will be a D.

</p>

<p>Does that mean you think Obama’s got a shot??</p>

<p>I don’t think any democrat has a chance against McCain. I just hope the Republicans come together to realize he is the best candidate for the job!</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>McCain would have a very difficult time in the general election because of his firm commitment to continue the never-ending war in Iraq until Hell freezes over.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

…allegedly liberal media…

The mainstream media has a definite liberal bias. You don’t have to look any further than the NY Times this week, where they clearly gave MoveOn.org a steep discount for their slanderous ad against General Petraeus. Would they have given a conservative group a similar discount? I don’t think so. At least Giuliani has called them on it. </p>

<p>

The antiwar group has said it paid $65,000 for the ad, published Monday morning as General David H. Petraeus testified to Congress. **That rate is about one-third of the regular charge.

** <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/giuliani_blasts.html[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/giuliani_blasts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

So how deep was the discount MoveOn.org got for its famous ad suggesting General Petraeus is a traitor?</p>

<p>The Times tells FOX News that the published rate for a similar ad is a little under $182,000. MoveOn confirms to the New York Post that it paid only $65,000 — a discount of almost $117,000. A Times spokeswoman denies the rate charged indicated a political bias. </p>

<p>Republican Senate Whip Trent Lott told FOX News, “I assume the New York Times gave them the friends and family discount.”</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the ad alleges that the Pentagon’s claims of reduced violence are false because car bomb deaths are not counted. But The Times own reporting contradicts that. In an article Saturday explaining the Pentagon formula, reporter Michael Gordon writes, “but victims of all car bomb attacks and Shiite and Sunni infighting are included in the overall civilian casualty count.”

<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296739,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296739,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[zoosermom]

<p>“McCain would have a very difficult time in the general election because of his firm commitment to continue the never-ending war in Iraq until Hell freezes over.”</p>

<p>McCain is also not beloved in his own party because of his stance on immigration.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>The funny part (to me) about the Times’ Moveon ad was that the Times’ PR person had the audacity to claim that they had no idea what an ad from Moveon would say. Gotta love 'em. Nice building, though.</p>