<p>Political Satire is an exercise in free speech. It has been around since the birth of this democracy. Are you saying that we should be more like Islamic extremists where satire is never tolerated? If so, then why are we fighting to defend this democracy when at the same time some advocate that we give up the rights our countrymen fought so hard to defend over the past 230 plus years?</p>
<p>Not quite; I’m saying that I thought the jokes about Foley and the page were in extremely bad taste. They were not “political” satire. They made me wonder if certain liberal politicians and media pundits are not being just a wee bit hypocritical in their moralistic condemnation of Hastert and the entire House.</p>
<p>Satire, by definition, is supposed to ridicule, to expose weakness, to deride, poke fun at, etc.</p>
<p>Being in bad taste is very much de rigour for satire. Right now, the Republicans are at the receiving end of satire, but they deserve it. When their actions are above reproach, perhaps the satirists will lay off.</p>
<p>Did you see it, AM? I don’t think you would have liked it. It had nothing to do with satirizing Republicans. It had everything to do with ridiculing Foley, who is a human being, not a political party (and which they would not do if he were a Democrat). Of course, if Republicans ridiculed a gay Democrat in that manner, they would be called gay-bashers. (Rush Limbaugh, for example, would not be able to get away with those jokes.) Can you explain to me how “turning over a new page,” for example, is an example of satirizing a Republican? Or how it is even remotely funny?</p>
<p>It is Foley’s actions that were in bad taste; as were Bill Clinton’s. I am absolutely certain that these same late night comedians/entertainers (not news media) ruthlessly and rightly satirized Clinton for his actions.</p>
<p>I have thought through the Clinton analogy. I know the jokes were merciless then, and I didn’t object to them at the time. Monica was of age, and, afterall, a willing partner in the situation. The reason why I think these jokes bother me is because they are talking about underage boys; in this particular case a 16 year old at the time. For the same reason I didn’t find the priest pedophile jokes funny either. I’d be willing to bet that most conservatives don’t find either of these two situations funny. Maybe someone can explain to me why liberals do.</p>
<p>OK, I probably going to slammed here. But, I think that conservatives tend to be very concrete thinkers and liberals seem to have a world view that is more open and more accepting. Liberals find that more of these things are funny because by nature they tend to be people for whom irony resonates. They are liberals because they think “liberally” and see opposing sides more readily than do conservatives.</p>
<p>We need FountainSiren to explain this to us! :)</p>
<p>
I’m not going to slam you, but I disagree. I haven’t seen any examples of “liberal” irony or satire presented here…more like slapstick or burlesque.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hereshoping, what Democrats want is to be treated as equals in the governing of this country. In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans, who are completely in power have polarized the country by calling anyone who disagrees with Bush and his policies, traitors of one stripe or another. In addition Republicans gained power and won elections in part by touting their moral authority on issues such as abortion. Bill Clinton was the poster boy for everything wrong with the Dems and the Republican spin machine ( of which there really is one) has perpetuated the image of Dems as liberal in all facets of life, thus making them a target for everything that has gone wrong in America. One such example is the constant haranguing of the evils of Hollywood. It’s true that many celebrities are democrats and have questionable morals, but the truth is that the people making all the titillating TV shows are not necessarily Democrats but rather corporate moguls who are out to make a buck. </p>
<p>Republicans, and Foley in particular are being ridiculed because they have portrayed themselves falsely. Republicans are vulnerable to ridicule because of how they have presented their party as morally superior in terms of abortion, taxes ( Keeping money for our families as Sjmom said way back), fighting for the family, belief in God, etc. </p>
<p>We are getting sidetracked as a nation when we talk about abortion and family values. Somehow, I think identifying these issues with one party makes it easier to believe that that party will always make good moral decisions. Republicans have made a lot of mistakes in the last 6 years and yet they refuse to admit any of them. They keep presenting themselves as morally superior to democrats while blaming everything that is wrong with our country on the dems. I’ve said this before, but I do think there is something terribly wrong when a political party with this much power spends so much energy putting the other party down. That tells me that the struggle is not about governing but rather about keeping power.</p>
<p>Lizchup: AMEN!</p>
<p>Do I want to take down the Republican Party? No. I’ m a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but I’m not naieve (or “fudamentalist”) enough to believe that the Dems have all the answers, or that if they are in total control that they will not take advantage of power. It’s in human nature. Checks and balances are a good thing!</p>
<p>Do I want “this” Republican party taken down? YES! For all the reasons Lizchup noted above–their chilling insistence that they are the party of God, that disagreement is unpatrotic, that they play on fears to keep in power. They’ve even silenced moderates in their own party.</p>
<p>Don’t some of the Republicans here yearn to get back the “old” party–the one for whom reason and science trumped fanatic belief?</p>
<p>Farawayplaces speaks for me, too. I would not want a one-party America. I do want the people currently leading the Republican party to become quickly footnotes in history.</p>
<p>This has been my question of true blue Republicans of yore…aren’t YOU tired of the mess this administration is making? These policies are not fiscally conservative, small government, or in line with mainstream GOP ideology. So why are people protecting Bush whose signing orders are an effort to illegally expand executive power, or members of the administration, whose actions are also an effort to usurp constitutional protections and checks and balances?</p>
<p>We should ALL be outraged!</p>
<p>There are several issues in the Republican party that I’m not happy about, but probably not the same ones as the Democrats posting here. However, in my opinion, the Democrat alternative would be much worse.</p>
<p>Back to the business at hand:
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601888.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601888.html</a>
It seems that
- Hastert knew about Foley earlier than he has so far admitted
- He was sharing a townhouse with his chief of staff
- the gay Clerk of the House was unceremoniously dismissed when Foley’s emails came out. No investigation instituted by House Leadership.</p>
<p>“Don’t some of the Republicans here yearn to get back the “old” party–the one for whom reason and science trumped fanatic belief?”</p>
<p>some do. Rep. Pete Mclaouwski (sp?), a retired republican congressman fron CA in 1982 was so sick of the current republican politicians that he ran against the incumbent republican. He has endorsed democratic opponent.</p>
<p>
Oh, please take off the Janus-face, AM. What do you care–or even know–about “mainstream GOP ideology”? That would be as if I were to criticize Clinton for signing the welfare reform bill (his only major success as a president, and one which was forced on him by the Republicans) as being outside of mainstream Donkey ideology. I would love to see Bush veto some spending bills, and I’ve said so before. As Logos said, the alternative would be far worse.</p>
<p>The signing orders issue is another one entirely, having nothing to do with ideology. Why don’t you start another thread? Suggested title:
“Help!!!Don’t understand the dynamic tension between the three branches of government!!!”</p>
<p>Pete McCloskey. This is for 2007.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.petemccloskey.com/[/url]”>http://www.petemccloskey.com/</a></p>
<p>“Some 18 months ago, my former law partner, Lewis Butler, an Assistant Secretary of HEW in the Nixon Administration and subsequently the distinguished Chair of California Tomorrow and the Plowshares Foundation, and I initiated an effort we called The Revolt of the Elders. All of us were retired and in the latter years of Social Security entitlement. Most of us were Republicans who had served in the Congress or in former Republican administrations with men like Gerry Ford, John Rhodes, Bob Michel, Elliot Richardson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the president’s father, George H. W. Bush, all men of impeccable integrity and ethics.”</p>
<p>Driver, I am of 100% Republican heritage. My parents were die-hard members of the Republican party, and typically voted down the party line, always. They have moved away completely from their party (although my mother still participates in Republican town politics, but that fits, all things considered), as a result of the fiscal waste, cronyism, fundamentalist policies, and general hawkishness. My dad comments often that “this” GOP is not “the” GOP with which he was affiliated for most of his life.</p>
<p>Oh, and if YOU are not appalled by Bush’s signing order frenzy, you really aren’t paying attention.</p>
<p><insert winky=“” smily=“” face=“”>;)</insert></p>
<p>alumother thanks you:</p>
<p>some exerpts:</p>
<p>THE NEED FOR A DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2007 - by Pete McCloskey</p>
<p>I have found it difficult in the past several weeks to reach a conclusion as to what a citizen should do with respect to this fall’s forthcoming congressional elections.</p>
<p>I am a Republican, intend to remain a Republican, and am descended from three generations of California Republicans, active in Merced and San Bernardino Counties as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have just engaged in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the Republican Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, in the 11th Congressional District Republican primary, obtaining just over 32% of the Republican vote against Pombo’s 62%. The observation of Mr. Pombo’s political consultant, Wayne Johnson, that I have been mired in the obsolete values of the 1970s, honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets, all rejected by today’s modern Republicans, is only too accurate. </p>
<p>It has been difficult, nevertheless, to conclude as I have, that the Republican House leadership has been so unalterably corrupted by power and money that reasonable Republicans should support Democrats against DeLay-type Republican incumbents in 2006. Let me try to explain why.</p>
<p>I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents who have acted to protect former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who have flatly reneged on their Contract With America promise in 1994 to restore high standards of ethical behavior in the House and who have combined to prevent investigation of the Cunningham and Abramoff/Pombo/DeLay scandals. These Republican incumbents have brought shame on the House, and have created a wide-spread view in the public at large that Republicans are more interested in obtaining campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists than they are in legislating in the public interest.</p>