<p>
</p>
<p>If I were her, I’d fly commercial next time, even if the Secret Service has to buy every seat on the plane.</p>
<p><a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090019[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090019</a></p>
<p>Republican pollster Frank Luntz insists that Pelosi doesn’t need a military plane. “She does – it is not a – it is not a security issue. She doesn’t need a plane…”</p>
<p>This is the same person who had this to say about her: "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, ‘You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn’t work the first time, let it go.’</p>
<p>
So you think that all conservative Republicans support rape and murder? Isn’t that what you are saying? Do you really find it so difficult to say that certain people did something wrong – you have to paint 50% of the American people with the same brush? Talk about prejudice and bigotry – but now the target is based on voting patterns instead of skin color or gender. And you wonder why mainstream Americans don’t “get” the liberal left!</p>
<p>
This just sounds so ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one objects to conservatism criticism that isn’t based on lies and deceit.</p>
<p>What happened to Ashley? A smear. What’s being said about Pelosi on the plane issue? A smear. Falsely accusing someone of a breach of national security in order to get even with the guy’s boss? A smear. Getting caught with an embarrassing memo and claiming the other side planted it on you? A smear.</p>
<p>Pointing out that those things happened? Not a smear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that many conservative Republicans are willing to benefit from the actions of the extremists in your party. As long as they are delivering the seats and the votes and the campaign contributions, you look the other way. </p>
<p>Did you all demand that the person made the false allegation against the Intelligence committee staffer resign? No. I haven’t even seen one conservative blog post criticizing the action. What’s worse is that conservative media outlets like Fox didn’t even bother to report it when the staffer was cleared.</p>
<p>Did you demand the resignation of the governor who went to such extraordinary lengths to get Dumond freed? Did you even demand he apologize? No. The Republicans who didn’t lie, stayed silent and let others do the lying for them.</p>
<p>I always get a laugh when people claim that Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are just extremists who don’t really represent them…and then turn around and ask them to be keynote speakers at their gatherings.</p>
<p>I think that many liberal Democrats will do anything to win or stay in office, including misinterpreting anything that suits their goals. While you are looking at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, I could drag out Michael Moore, any number of Hollywood celebrities, Ward Churchill, Barbara Lee (voted against action in Afghanistan), Sandy Berger (absconded with who-knows how many National Security Documents), John Kerry (only the stupid go to Iraq) some of our own CC posters (read TheDad about the evil Republicans) and on and on. I don’t even have to break a sweat.</p>
<p>Please point me to the innocent women that were killed because of those folks’ lies. And if so, where anyone on the left dismissed their deaths as blithely as Republicans do the women in Missouri.</p>
<p>If you’re uncomfortable with the extreme hate speech and smear tactics that are coming out of your party, that should be the place to start. Not by expecting others to keep silent about it or let the smears go unchallenged.</p>
<p>…misinterpreting anything that suits their goals.
…John Kerry (only the stupid go to Iraq)</p>
<p>SJMom - go look in the mirror.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t lump TheDad with Michael Moore. As far as I can tell, TheDad is a DLC type. As I’m sure you know, DLC Democrats are not likely Michael Moore afficiandos.</p>
<p>Vox–In my humble opinion, the Bush Republicans are the ones who have perfected the political slime machine in recent years. Witness the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth,” the slanderous attacks a few years back on John McCain’s personal decency, and the successful attack campaign on Max Cleland. … Like Conyat, I do get weary of seeing “Hillary,” “Nancy,” “Condi,” and other notable women skewered specifically because of their gender; can you imagine the outrage if Barak Obama was mocked because of his racial background? …</p>
<p>Notice how even as VoxDei insists that gender had nothing to do with the smear campaign against Pelosi, Vox continued to refer to Pelosi as “Madam Speaker.” </p>
<p>I’ve never seen Vox write a post referring to a male politician as “Mr. President”, “Mr. Senator” etc. “Madam” + title isn’t even something you use in the third person. Like “Mr. President” it would only be used when speaking directly to the person. The only reason to use it the way Vox did is to make an issue of the person’s gender.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tucker Carlson is already making an issue of Obama’s church. It’s too black for his tastes.</p>
<p>I’m trying to imagine what it would take to be “too black” for Tucker Carlson’s tastes?</p>
<p>Ivory? Cream? Pale off-white? I’m pretty sure that a light beige would cross the line for Carlson.</p>
<p>Fundingfather is usually a pretty good reporter of the right wing party line. Just a few days ago he treated us to:
I think that’s a pretty good indicator of how the right would go after Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’d hire some of that crew from Tennessee to produce some thinly veiled ads about his black father having sex with his white mother. That’s always a winner in a fear-mongering divisive attack ad.</p>
<p>It seems that the kind and moderate liberal posters on CC are quite able to carry on the debate without input from any other point of view. Have fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’ve already done that. Terry Nelson, the guy who approved the attack ads in Tennessee, is now on the payroll as a senior advisor to John McCain’s political action committee.</p>
<p>Wow, this is a partisan p***ing match of the lowest order. I can’t believe the posters on here are still holding on to Pelosi’s “imperial transgressions” when even the White House came out and said the story was much ado about nothing.</p>
<p>There is a war going on people, and this week a Pentagon watchdog group issued a report showing that information was distorted to suggest that Al-Qaeda and Iraq had been collaborating prior to 9/11. The only reason these actions weren’t found illegal is that Paul Wolfowitz, a long-time advocate of invading Iraq, had, as Undersecretary of Defense, authorized this “alternative analysis.” In other words: “If I don’t like the answer I get from the experts and professionals, I will appoint new experts to produce the answers I want and will at the same time give credence to the likes of A. Chalabi, a flowery-tongued long-time Iranian exile.” Chalabi was the guy who said we’d be welcomed as liberators. I wonder if the pilots and soldiers shot down in helicopters this week felt particularly welcome.</p>
<p>Funding Father: from the other post, you never did disclaim the points of distorted intelligence, though you maintained on another thread that intelligence was not distorted. Now you’ve got an independent Pentagon watchdog group to refute as well.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2863593[/url]”>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2863593</a></p>
<p>Here’s the report summary and answers to Sen Levin’s questions from the Dept of Defense Inspector General:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20Brief.pdf[/url]”>http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20Brief.pdf</a></p>
<p>It discusses the intelligence efforts of Feith and Wolfowitz in the Dept of Defense that ran counter to the intelligence estimates prepared by the CIA.</p>
<p>Gee wilikers,its’ hard to believe they are still pedaling lies when there is real news to discuss. My goodness gracious!</p>
<p>It’s just one of many techniques the Republics have employed in their fight to hold on to power. Put out a false story based on a real situation, circulate it through mainstream news and internet blogs and then quietly come out with a statement that it’s not true. By that time the damage is done. The true believers keep repeating the lies ad nauseum to the point where those that don’t pay attention believe there must be some truth in what they say.</p>