Remember how I said Matt Stoller of MyDD was a fool?
Well today, Chris Bowers joins him as he looks at the mess MyDD helped make, and whines loudly about it.
Further, since current polling shows a senate with 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman would also potentially have the ability to flip control of the Senate if he chooses to caucus with Republicans. Back in 2001, the Democratic caucus gladly gave seniority to Jim Jeffords when he left the Republican caucus in order to gain control of the chamber. That was the price to pay for control, and after six years in the minority, the Democratic caucus was more than happy to make that compromise. It isn’t hard to imagine that if Republicans find themselves one seat in the minority after the elections next month that they will also gladly grant Lieberman seniority in order to retake control of the chamber.
What, exactly, did you think was going to happen, Bowers? I’ve been meaning to make my fortune with a reality TV show I’m calling “What the f*** were you thinking?” I want to go to jails and interview the guy who led 30 cops on a two-hour chase at 55mph in his minivan, until he ran out of gas. Or maybe I can get Foley. Or maybe Chris and the rest of the blogging braintrust that decided that “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.” would be good national politics could be the first guests.
Back – once again – to my very first comment about this race:
Ask yourself this, if you’re all excited at the notion of Lieberman running against Lamont as an independent. Who do you think is going to be sitting in the Dirksen Building in February of ’07? Lamont? In a state that was – in 2004 – 44 percent unaffiliated, 34 percent Democratic, and 22 percent Republican. Come Election Day, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
And when Lieberman is sitting in his Senate office next year, do you think the Democratic Party will be stronger or weaker for his departure?
I say it will be weaker.
Thanks for noticing, Chris.
Ooooooo, that’s gotta sting.
First, I think Lamont has about a 25 percent chance as it is. But let’s leave that aside. The Democrats really can’t afford to have Joe Lieberman right now. We need Democrats who oppose Republicans, not who oppose other Democrats. And nothing makes Holy Joe happier than going on right-wing TV to be told “Good doggie” as he attacks other Democrats. Has Lincoln Chaffee ever gone on Air America to trash the rest of the Republican Party?
You might compare Lieberman on Clinton’s sex scandal with Lieberman on Foley’s sex scandal to see how much less slack he gives Democrats. Hint: which of the two did he describe as a “partisan frenzy“? As with Iraq, he’s actually to the right of many Republicans!
Andrew –
“We need Democrats who oppose Republicans..” Um, no – we need Democrats who can govern in a challenging era. Nothing I’m seeing from the MyDD crowd suggests that they have a clue how to do so.
Yes, Democrats need to stand up to Republicans – but to suggest that simple scandal-slinging (which is what Masturgate really is – he’s not the first or last Congressmember to … well, there’s the joke right there) is sufficient is to admit that you don;t have a clue how to do it better or how to convince the American people that you can do it better.
I’ve already got a bet going on Lieberman, but I’ll bet there’s someone out there who will give you some action at your 25% odds…
A.L.
The Dems have circled the wagons … and aimed the rifles inward.
Clearly I’m going to need more popcorn.
So, they found a way to blow a totally safe Senate seat out of the Democratic column. Beside themselves with glee when they did it, too.
Somebody just now got around to doing the math? This is whose fault?
If I were Joe I’d ask for more than seniority. I’d ask to be Dem Majority leader. After all without him they have no majority.
He could say Majority Leader from the Dems vs retain seniority from the Rs.
What’ll it be gents?
I’d love to see how much the Dems would pay to gain power.
As for the Rs he could easily replace Chafee.
It may be that the Rs actually are smarter than Dems. They can count.
*
Regardless of what happens Lieberman is not going to caucuss with the Repugs. At least that is the main reason why so many people feel comfortable voting for him even after he lost the primary. They may be wrong, but I don’t think so.
The next Senate term starts in January and runs for six years. In two years we will have a new, probably Democratic, administration. While Lieberman is pigheaded wrong about Iraq and shares in the guilt for the slaughter of over half a million innocent Iraqies, he is not a complete fool when it comes to his own career.
he deserves to lose but if he wins what is best for Joe is to stay with the Democratic party. Joe always does what is best for Joe.
_While Lieberman is pigheaded wrong about Iraq and shares in the guilt for the slaughter of over half a million innocent Iraqis, he is not a complete fool when it comes to his own career._
Contempt can be disturbing, particularly when it is mistaken and misplaced. The terrorists in Iraq are responsible for the “slaughter,” not Lieberman, who sides with those who want to put an end to the “slaughter.”
#7 ken,
Lieberman shares the guilt for the slaughter of a billion Iraqis. Half a million is only a statistical estimate and could be off by a factor of as much as 2,000.
I blame the undercount on Bush who is trying to cover up the magnitude of the disaster and steal an election.
I mean every body knows Bush is one hundred times worse than the Nazis and they killed over 10 million in the camps. Halliburton is in on the cover up too.
The Democrats are sure to win this election if not for the expected voter fraud in favor of the Republicans. According to a statistical sampling by proprietary methods Democrats out poll Republicans by 12 to 1. After election fraud the Republicans make most races look close.
Of course the half million number could be bogus.
There’s actually a lengthy list of congressional Democrats who fit that description. All of them should resign immediately, right Ken? Think fast, because the last train to Cluesville is about to leave without you.
Some of the Democrats who gave Bush authority to wage war have admitted to their error in trusting Bush. None of the Repugs have.
Unlike the foolish Dems who misplaced their trust in an untrustworthy conservative Joe was an eager participant the deception leading up to having the US wage an illegal, immoral and unjust war upon Iraq.
Because of this action about a half million innocent Iraqies have lost their lives. We know who is responsible for this disaster. We will hold them accountable. Justice may be slow but justice never forgets.
ken, can you even conceive of someone who (a) doesn’t agree with you about the war and (b) isn’t evil?
If not, you’re a big reason I can’t root for the Democrats this year. And god knows I’d like to.
Mark, nope. Not after five years of this. Enough of the history and facts are available by now for even you to discover that this war on Iraq was based upon lies. Going to war based upon lies, killing tens of thousands of people as an inevitable result, is an evil. That is simply a fact.
And you are really totally pathetic. I assume you are using your real name and yet you admit that an unknown commentator on a radical right wing wacko blog is a ‘big reason’ you ‘cannot root for the Democrats this year’ and that if it wasn’t for me you would, because ‘god knows’ you want to. Even that is a lie. But it is so obviously a lie that even you, had you any moral compass, should be ashamed to make it.
I’m rooting for the Dems this time. I’m voting for the Rs, but I hope the Dems win something. They’ve been so whiny and crazy lately, a full-time job might be good for them. The House could use a new bunch of inept crooks.
Now the senate, I’m not so sure. The Ds just seem to nutty by far for me to trust them with all of that. But it would be good for the other half of the country if there guys could run _something_ for a while.
As for the Iraq chestnut of “Bush lied, people died” — ho hum. I supported and support the war for reasons that have to do with public relations campaigns. I guess I take my responsibility a little too seriously to somehow feel fooled or tricked by anyone. I knew the score going in, and it was the right thing to do. But I still wish the Ds the best. We could use some of their sharp wit and insight on some of the problems we have today. If my Ds were any better, I’d vote for them, but as it is, I have one of the most Libertarian Rs running for Senate this year, and my house member is a former middle-of-the-road Dem who switched parties, so I’m really staying middle of the road this time around.
‘there’ should be ‘their’ — durn homophones.
I can certainly think of Dems who supported George and Dick’s Not-so-excellent Iraq Adventure for a long time. But even the ones who haven’t recanted completely seem (other than Lieberman) to have joined the reality-based community on how badly the war has gone so far. Not only Democrats are thinking this way.
The junior Senator from Connecticut? Still drinking the Kool-Aid as far as I can tell.
I don’t think that many pro-war WoC contributors would say that, not with the large increases in both American and Iraqi deaths. It’s hardly likely that someone as deluded as Lieberman can contribute to genuine improvement in Iraq, whether by pulling troops out or by putting them in.
Let me remind you that Lieberman drew single digits in his 2004 campaign. Dissatisfaction with him isn’t new and isn’t limit to some elite leftist conspiracy. And let me mention again that Ben Nelson (whose voting record is more conservative than Lieberman doesn’t spend his time yukking it up with right-wing TV hosts slagging all the kooky Democrats.
If Holy Joe wants to caucus with the GOP, well, at least they’ll make an honest woman out of the whore.
Ken,
Your claim that the “history and fact” establish that the war on Iraq was based on lies is, itself, dishonest. The contrary is true, that the claims of the Bush administration lying about the intelligence on Iraq has been shown to be false.
Your continual repetition of this false meme notwithstanding.
The Democrats who voted for the Iraq resolution and now are running away from their vote show that their actions are based on their own cowardice and lack of integrity. Not the Bush administration’s.
I’m going to vote straight Republican. Not that it will make any difference.
Neither of my Senators is up this year (Durbin, Obama) so that is out. My Rep. Manzulo (R) is in an “open district” (we elect a few Republicans and a lot of Democrats), but he is not in trouble.
He has not made a spectacle of screwing dead girls or live boys. What ever graft and corruption he is involved in is not exceptional.
The rest of the offices (State, Local) make no difference to my interest: fighting the war. I’m voting R there to send a message. Even for that idiot Syverson (the man who brought the carpetbagger/theocon Keyes to Illinois politics).
That said, I wouldn’t mind mind seeing the Ds take the House.
It would be interesting to see what they would do if saddled with National Security and the Purse.
The fact that the Dems are divided on national security (Lieberman a prime example) should make for interesting times.
I’d even like to see them try to impeach and convict Bush. Just to ruin their chances for ’08.
I’m a little confused about the point of this thread.
From what I know, Lamont won over Lieberman in the Democratic primary because more registered Connecticut Democrats voted for him than Lieberman.
What do some guy sitting at their computers (ie, Stoller and Bowers) have to do with it?
If Joe Lieberman is going to hold a grudge, I might imagine it could be against his “blue” constituents. Now that strikes me as a problem.
JV
Robin, read what Murtha has to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301425.html
Ken,
Murtha’s piece does nothing to support your false claims. Meanwhile bipartisan reports from the intelligence committees refuted you long ago.
ken,
I am going to agree with you re: lies.
The CIA lied to Bush. Heck Kerry lied to Bush.
WMDs were on every one’s lips in 2002.
Well we got rid of Kerry. Now how do we fix the liars and leakers at CIA?
There is something pathologically wrong about conservatives. Just look at how you guys make excuses for lies, unjust war, the slaughter of innocents. I don’t see it in this thread but I suspect you would make excuses for torture as well.
I am reminded of nothing less than a bunch of criminals. They are always innocent. They were framed, someone is lying about them, or to them, or to us about them.
Here we have M. Simon claiming that the CIA set up President Bush. Amazing.
You guys congregate here and tell lies amongst yourselves to maintain what, exactly? A belief that the war on Iraq was started on just causes? A belief that everybody is wrong about everything except for the tiny minority of people who agree with you?
It would do you all good if this site were shut down and you all spent some time amongst normal people for a while, people with a healthy moral outlook, people not confused over what is right and what is wrong. It might do you all some good and save you from making any more bad choices or doing any further harm.
I’ve apparently been banned from MYDD for expressing similar sentiments. One may not question the judgment of the Lieberman-haters.
As it happens, I despise Lieberman. But if you strike at a king you must kill him, and the netroots has been incompetent at the act of killing off Joe Lieberman. I’m always particularly struck by the giddy endorsement of each new pointless Lamont TV spot that gets thrown up. They giggle and cackle and invent new and ever less funny nicknames for Lieberman, and their boy Lamont drops another two points in the polls.
Now, at a time when any rational person would conclude that it’s past time to climb down off Lieberman’s back, they continue to abuse and assault him.
The interesting thing about Lieberman is that he is demonized _by his own party_. Their abject failure to kick him out is just making 5-10% of them even more angry.
If the Ds take Congress and the Senate, one wonders if there will be a move inside the Ds to prevent Lieberman from caucusing with them. Will the Ds overread their election victory? I think the answer is a big “yes”. I expect to hear calls for impeachment start right up, due to folks with Ken’s viewpoints.
I would be very careful if I were the Ds. People are more angry with the Rs than they are happy with the Ds. Two years of rabble-rousing, BS logic (like the definition of lying), and pay-off-the-social-programs is not going to work. In fact, you could make a good case that by trying to please the Ds during the last 14 years, the Rs ended up looking just like them — paying everybody, not balancing the books, and being corrupt.
ken,
The CIA said that Iraq had a lot of chemical weapons and was likely to use them. You can look it up.
John Kerry agreed.
You can look it up.
Opinions are fine. Interpret the facts any way you want. But you know there is documentation out there. So you are stuck with the facts you have got rather than the facts you wish you had.
M Simon. Nope. The CIA said, correctly, that Iraq could not account for the destruction of some residual WMD left over from before the Gulf War. They also said this was not a big problem as all chemical weapons degrade over time. Iraq never had any biological weapons and the nuclear program was confirmed to be, time and again by reputable sources, abandoned.
Your interpretation of this to say that Iraq had WMD and its implication that they should therefore be invaded is totally dishonest. But then you are a conservative.
You may be able to find one or two CIA reports that report the raw data coming from such discredited sources as Curveball but implicating the entire CIA in this falsehood is shameful. The CIA, when asked for opinion, consistently said that any information coming from Curveball was not to be trusted.
Anyway, I see no further benefit to either of us in discussing this subject further. Until you are willing to deal with reality in an honest manner you will remain in denial. Good luck.
Good move, Ken.
I’m sure you don’t want to be a troll, and calling people dishonest and in denial is probably the best way for you to save some of your dignity and back out. For me, I hope to soon get out with the “regular folks” some more, learn the real truth. You know, the truth is out there.
But Ken illustrates what a tricky-wicket Lieberman is going to have to face when he gets re-elected. Ken was gracious enough not to go over (yet again) the same old ground, which ends up with having to take Iraq out WMD or not, and Ken being upset because his party asked for a simple slogan and the simple slogan didn’t pan out later on. Listing every one of the binding UNSEC Resolutions, or the long list of war crimes, or the existing state of war, etc — that’s just too much to expect some folks to be able to process. So they’re not. Bush lied, people died — easy to repeat, and has the aspect of rhyming, which makes it easy to remember. Try rhyming “status quo wasn’t going to work” — you can’t.
The Ds are a LOT more angry than the Rs, which are basiclly fat, happy, and ticked off that the Rs turned out just like the Ds. So if the Senate is 50-50, Lieberman is going to have to come to terms with his Iraq vote, and his party, in some new fashion. They’re not going to let him stay where he is. It should be very interesting.
_Just look at how you guys make excuses for lies, unjust war, the slaughter of innocents._
The anti-war crowd continue to say Bush lied but always without reference or quotes, just the bare assertion. This type of unsupported statement garners coos of agreement on the Progressive blogs. It’s proof that if something is repeated often enough it’ll eventually convince the gullible.
The war is VERY just, and there were a myriad of good reasons to topple Saddam, but the “unjust†canard is always hurled. One wonders just how these folks would define a ‘just war.’
And I can never understand the tortuous route they take with the “slaughter of innocents†meme. The enemy in Iraq is slaughtering innocents as often as they can but the anti-war crowd always turn events and situations on their head and in this case have come to the startling conclusion that the US is doing it. Black is white, up is down.
_It would do you all good if this site were shut down and you all spent some time amongst normal people for a while …_
It’s interesting that when these folks disagree one of their first thoughts is about a “shut down†of the blog. Many years ago Liberals used to be for free speech but every since the sixties they seem to want to shut people up a lot.
_Here we have M. Simon claiming that the CIA set up President Bush._
Let’s see now – the CIA was asked by the Whitehouse to send an investigator to Niger so the CIA sends someone who has a political agenda against Bush, who the CIA had never used before and who subsequently lies about his findings. Hmmm ,,, sure does smell like a setup to me.
_Iraq never had any biological weapons and the nuclear program was confirmed to be, time and again by reputable sources, abandoned._
I wonder if the commentator knows that a nuclear centrifuge was dug up in the back yard of one of Saddam’s scientists. Abandoned? Deferred until the heat is off perhaps, but never abandoned.
…slaughter of over half a million innocent Iraqies…
Ken makes this assertion several times, and then goes back to his main meme that Republicans are liars and anyone who supports them chooses to believe those lies.
If Ken is stupid enough to believe that 500,000 number, why would I want to agree with him? If he’s not that stupid, and is just using it as a debating tactic, again – why would I want to align myself with such a desperate and bitter person?
Ken, my little turtledove, did you by any chance read Peggy Noonan’s column this week in the Wall Street Journal? If you didn’t, you need to, because (trust me on this) this is you she’s describing and you need to understand that your desperate flailing is not accomplishing anything:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078
Ken,
Here’s the difference between you and I. I’ve read the intelligence committees’ reports, I’ve read Duelfer’s report and I was paying attention when the issue was being debated.
The evidence from your comments is that you have not and did not. Instead you are making up events to match your desire to feed your irrational hatred. We even have you making up our opinions for us to be able to feel more confident in your hatred.
( Not to mention that you are obviously not even perceptive enough to notice that there is a rather large range of opinion among those of “us” conservatives. )
This does not impress us.
Ken:
*”It would do you all good if this site were shut down and you all spent some time amongst normal people for a while, people with a healthy moral outlook, people not confused over what is right and what is wrong. It might do you all some good and save you from making any more bad choices or doing any further harm.”*
Peggy Noonan:
“There’s a pattern here, isn’t there?
It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This–listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity–is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.
We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular?
Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don’t. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn’t come quickly, they’ll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.
And they don’t always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.
And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.”
May I ask a moderator to rescue my link-rich comment on this thread from queue?
[ AJL, the queue’s empty right now–sorry. — M.F. 10/15/06 11:40pm ]
Meanwhile, as most odd excuse for GOP behavior ever, I nominate: In fact, you could make a good case that by trying to please the Ds during the last 14 years, the Rs ended up looking just like them — paying everybody, not balancing the books, and being corrupt.
Yeah, calling us Defeatocrats and impugning our patriotism is evidence the Republicans are trying to please us. And, BTW, whose Prez balanced the books? You guys won’t accept responsibility for anything, and that goes double for Lieberman. (Did the GOP suffer from deep-sixing Charles Goodell, BTW? So let’s knock off the faux concern for the Democrats: you want Lieberman in the Senate because you like his support for the Iraqwagmire, his ridicule of those who recognize how badly his plans have worked out, and his willingness to cave before the Bush Administration at every turn.)
Glenn Greenwald has assembled an impressive collection of GOP-conservative civility in public discourse, which I can only excerpt and hope you will visit, plus the added updates. The original has links to the primary sources, but to keep this comment from being blocked, I quote the plain text.
OK, guys, if you want to say things like that, it’s (still) a free country—especially for that kind of pro-Bush talk, but let’s can the absurd lie that the conservative movement is one of civility and grace, OK?
Andrew, I’m not a R, so when you say “you guys”, who are you talking to? I wasn’t aware that I was making an excuse for anybody. Why do you say that? I was simply making an observation.
To respond to you points (you quoted me, I guess it’s me you are talking to):
Name-calling in politics? Heavens-to-betsy! I meant pleasing the liberal base, not bake the D party cookies and tuck them in bed at night. Bush is one of the most liberal presidents we’ve had in a long time. If you don’t believe me, as some conservatives. That’s not so good for his base.
The Congress has the authority to balance the books. It’s been that way for over 200 years now. We like blaming the president, but he can’t spend a penny or raise a tax.
I don’t like or dislike Lieberman anywhere, as I told Joe and AL when they wanted to help out that Georgia guy — people of their own districts should elect their representatives. Same goes for CT and the Senate race. I don’t want outsiders mucking around in my state and district, so I don’t support others doing it. The question was what kind of impact would it all have, I think.
Seems like the partisan people get so heated up at this time of year.
_OK, guys, if you want to say things like that, it’s (still) a free country—especially for that kind of pro-Bush talk, but let’s can the absurd lie that the conservative movement is one of civility and grace, OK?_
Peggy Noonan’s column was not about “conservative civility in public discourse.” The column was about the tendency of the Left to attempt to shut down debate altogether – which is true since at least the sixties and has been getting worse lately.
On the issue of sympathy for the enemy: Time and time again the anti-war crowd sides against their government and for the enemy. Always there is the tendency to believe the enemy’s propaganda, to parrot the talking points of the enemy and to believe the worst about the US and US actions. Such behavior has been so consistent and pervasive among the anti-war crowd that it’s difficult to believe they are not sympathetic to the enemy(any old enemy will seem to do – Iran, North Korea, various terrorist organizations beginning with al Qaeda and continuing with Hezbollah) – unless of course one subscribes to the ‘derangement’ theory.
The “evidence” that the Left is squashing debate involves losers like a rag-tag bunch of college students. The evidence that the Right can’t even bear to look at dissent comes from arrest records:
Yes, I feel rage at this Administration, and it’s well-justified. While fools dream of a left-wing conspiracy to poison the well of public discourse, preparatory to handing the whole country over to Osama bin Laden, the Bush Administration actually does what you fear about us. What sort of chutzpah is this?
Andrew, that reads as kind of silly. Wearing a provocative t-shirt to an event is not debate, it’s a kind of cheap theatrics.
The is and remains a broad and public set of platforms for opponents of the GOP and of the war in Iraq. Are you really sugesting that those viewpoints somehow aren’t readily available ? In any media you choose ?
A.L.
A.L., would you please write to Peggy Noonan to explain that the pro-Bush pro-Iraq-War viewpoint is not in danger of being squelched by Ward Churchill, Daily Kos, and the Columbia Nutcase Radicals Association? Then I’ll find your comment to me better-taken.
“Yes, I feel rage at this Administration, and it’s well-justified”
Well that’s good. I hate it when I really angry but it’s not jusitified by anything.
Andrew, I stand with you. When will these despicable T-shirt policies at presidential events from 2004 ever stop?
And Andrew, when you figure out that all of these presidential events have been staged for over 20 years, let us know.
_In August 2004, John Prather, a mild-mannered math professor at Ohio University, was removed by security from a presidential event on public property because he wore a shirt that promoted John Kerry._
Anecdotal stuff – not allowed in a court because no one is under oath. It’s all just Prather’s word – and absolutely worthless for drawing conclusions about anything.
_On July 4, 2004, Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested at a Bush event in West Virginia for wearing T-shirts that criticized the president._
The local police arrested the couple, not the Secret Service, and later apologized. Hardly an example of Bush doing anything to squelch dissent, especially since this was not a public rally but a private event.
_In August 2004, campaign workers removed a family from a presidential event in Michigan because one woman, a 50-year-old chemist, carried in a rolled-up T-shirt emblazoned with a pro-choice slogan. She later said, “I just wanted to see my president,” and brought the extra shirt in case she got cold._
After Googling I found the source for this: A Left-wing blog. It’s important to note that the family was sitting in an area _behind_ Bush. The goal, you see, is to have the President photographed or videotape by the media with the embarrassing T-shirt slogan in the background. And the prankster gets his 30 seconds of fame. I don’t see how preventing this kind of political dirty trick has anything to do with stifling dissent. These folks are free to publish their opinions and dissent all they want to – IF that’s what they really want to do.
_In July 2004, Jayson Nelson, a county supervisor in Appleton, Wis., was thrown out of a presidential event because of a pro-Kerry T-shirt. An event staffer saw the shirt, snatched the VIP ticket, and called for police. “Look at his shirt! Look at his shirt!” Nelson recalled the woman telling the Ashwaubenon Public Safety officer who answered the call. Nelson said the officer told him, “You gotta go,” and sternly directed him to a Secret Service contingent that spent seven or eight minutes checking him over before ejecting him from the property._
Same thing as the last except the idiot wouldn’t have merely been in the background but would have actually been sitting on the same stage with the President. Nice try, though.
_In October 2004, three Oregon schoolteachers were removed from a Bush event and threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties.”_
There were tickets issued to this private event. The ticket-issuer worked hard to see that disruptions didn’t occur. To my mind just who attends these events(which are private events after all) is up to the ticket-issuer – and so it is with revoking the tickets. The girls were trying a prank and it didn’t work. Ho-hum.
If this is the evidence offered of a widespread program of stifling dissent then I’m afraid I’m not impressed. I would be more impressed if the commentor could provide a photo of a pro-Bush T-shirt sitting somewhere behind John Kerry. Surely the Kerry folks would have allowed it, eh? Must be out there somewhere, huh?
It is comical to see the “suppression of dissent” claims when one contrasts these silly complaints to real suppression of dissent in our history. Such as President Woodrow Wilson imprisoning anti-war and anti-draft protestors during WWI.
AJL,
Do you think grackle’s googling (#41) has led to him (her) fairly characterizing the five instances of Bushite suppression of dissent that you brought up in #37? If grackle’s accounts of the circumstances of each incident are correct, they seem less grounds for rage than for annoyance.
_Do you think grackle’s googling (#41) has led to him (her) fairly characterizing the five instances of Bushite suppression of dissent that you brought up in #37? If grackle’s accounts of the circumstances of each incident are correct, they seem less grounds for rage than for annoyance._
But why even “annoyance”? After all, these rallies are reward to the faithful – large private parties to allow the candidate to thrill the loyal workers with the candidate’s presence and words. Attendees are there on suffrage, only IF they behave themselves and follow the rules of civility – likewise reporters(we all know how uncivil THEY can be – check out the Whitehouse briefings pre-Tony Snow)who have no ‘right’ to attend any private event. If they follow the rules, fine – but if they start with the T-shirt pranks or start causing a disturbance – out they go.
If I’m throwing a party with a special guest for my friends and someone starts causing trouble they are hustled out the door and told to not come back – but the commentator would probably accuse me of stifling dissent.
But what I REALLY want to know is where are the photos and videotapes of people with pro-Bush slogans at Kerry rallies? The lack of such means either the Right is a bit more civil in it’s discourse than the Left and didn’t try similar dirty tricks or the Kerry campaign wouldn’t allow it – it can only be one or the other.
“And you are really totally pathetic. I assume you are using your real name and yet you admit that an unknown commentator on a radical right wing wacko blog is a ‘big reason’ you ‘cannot root for the Democrats this year’ and that if it wasn’t for me you would,…”
Yada yada yada.
You yourself aren’t the reason, wanker. That you are representative of a demographic that the Democratic Party establisment has sold out to (Go, Joe!) is the reason.
Yes shocking that someone could be ejected from a private event. It’s almost as if the First Amendment protects the right of people holding a private event (in this case a rally) to control the message of their event and to refuse admittance to people who attempted to gain admittance under false pretenses. I don’t see any “arrest record” though that AJL intimated was the source of his “evidence.”
I’m having some trouble following all your moving goalposts. First it’s that the Left but not the Right are intolerant of dissent. Then I show that George Bush is so afraid of dissent his crew did T-Shirt checks at his rallies—something that John Kerry did not, nor, for that matter, did Bush 41. Well, that doesn’t matter, say you, because there’s nothing wrong with managing the audience at your campaign rally. OK, I guess that’s true, but it doesn’t support the tolerant-of-dissent claim very well, now does it? And for more on that claim, I produce quote after quote of conservative pundits savaging liberals, and you say, well, those are just pundits. Well, who were the exemplars of the Left’s alleged drive against dissent? Fidel Castro. Joe Stalin? Yeah, I’ll give you those. But American political figures in the Democratic Party? Nah. You don’t even come up with pundits, you come up with a bunch of nothing. Comments like “The Left generally” are another way of saying “I have no good example to show you.”
Just to tie this back to Lieberman, I suppose you noticed he wouldn’t commit to preferring a Democratic House of Representatives. Hell, he probably voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000. He’s got his preferred schtik as the Democrat who doesn’t like Democrats. We’re tired of it.
Andrew, if your core definition of dissent is the wearing of thematic t-shirts at stage-managed photo ops, I’m kind of shocked.
Can you point me to a case where – at a Kerry event – someone got on stage with him wearing an anti-Kerry t-shirt?
Can you also, in passing, explain why any of this is remotely significant?
A.L.
A.L., can you show me where the people ejected from Bush rallies intended to share the stage with the President? I do have a link where a man who had been ejected for a Kerry T-shirt wore a Bush shirt to a Kerry rally as an experiment. He was not ejected. And you’ll recall that GHW Bush was followed by a man in a chicken suit his entire re-election campaign. We’ve gotten used to the idea that the President must be surrounded by a worshipful claque (or the terrorists win), but it’s not the recent historical norm.
The relevance to the original post is dubious. This tangent started when Peggy Noonan got cited for claiming that the Right is conducting a civilized debate tolerant of dissent while the Left wants to crush dissent. The party of Ann “Liberals are Satanic” Coulter big on civilized discourse and tolerance of dissent, my ass.
Here’s the difference- campaign rallies are private events. They arent intended by the participants to be conversations. A scientist may be open to discussion about evolution/creationism, but that doesnt mean he wants a shouting match in the middle of reading a paper. There is a time and place for everything. This anecdotal evidence about t-shirts _at best_ says that Bush supporters dont want anti-bush speech at their private campaign rallies. Wow, huge newsflash.
The attacks on speech that the left perpetrates arent geared for specific, private situations. They are universal. For instance, comparing global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers isnt an attempt to curb speech in a specific, private, situation. It is an attempt to end a certain brand of speech altogether in polite society.
Simply look at the way something like welfare reform is debated. Conservatives make their case based on their view of statistics and theory on how people are motivated to improve their lot in life. Liberals say conservatives _hate_ the poor and are trying to harm them. That, aside from being an argument completely geared to spur emotion, is also an attempt to end the debate right there. When you attack the other sides motives you are ending the conversation, because without assuming good faith how can you have a debate? The message is clear- “don’t listen to these guys, not because they are wrong, but because they are bad people with bad intent”. This quickly filters into places like universities where the Lefts wish is the administrations command. Conservative affirmative action bake sales get cancelled. Conservative speakers are shouted down and their events cancelled. Perpetrating the idea that the Right are intentionally evil makes anything you do to shut them up just, particularly to young people that dont know BS when they hear it. How many liberal speakers get shouted off a stage at a major university? Would any adminstration stand for it, much less start cancelling events on the pretext of safety?
Andrew, look upthread to Grackle’s comment #41…
A.L.
You get a pretty good idea of how Democrats handle dissent from the fact that pro-life Democrats are regularly barred from speaking at conventions – not just on abortion, but on anything. For the past several years, in fact, left activists have been working to drive pro-life Democrats out of public life, even backing their Republican opponents if necessary.
BTW, Andrew, showing up at a political event with a deliberately provocative t-shirt is not “dissent”. It’s just being a juvenile asshole.
At a Hillary Clinton rally, I was told to “move along” by security. I wasn’t wearing a crazy shirt or anything and I was on public property, just outside the barriers set up for the rally. The Democrats didn’t want anybody that wasn’t clapping enthusiastically in the foreground. I’ve seen the Republicans do the same thing. I call it the “stifling of dispassion.”
A.L., I most certainly did read Grackle’s comment #41, right down to the end where he dismisses three adult female teachers of unspecified age as “girls”. My source mentions a VIP ticket, not sitting on stage. (A VIP ticket could be front rows, or for all I know a chair instead of standing room.) If Grackle has some evidence otherwise, perhaps he would come back and present it.
As for the Democrats, we’ve done a really lame job of driving pro-life Sen. Harry Reid out of the Party, haven’t we? Total rubbish.
John Kerry’s Town Hall campaign meetings were open to Republicans. George Bush’s were also open to Republicans. Only to Republicans.
BTW, did you catch Holy Joe repudiating his former opposition to John Bolton? This man isn’t “bipartisan”, he’s hypocritical, grasping, opportunistic, and treacherous. You GOP guys can have him.
First Bush is listening in on terrorist phone calls, now he’s banning tee-shirts from campaign rallies. Where will the madness end? 100% Cottontration camps?