| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erebus |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 15:43:49
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2701728,00.html
Naples Daily News
Morton Kondracke: Dems lead in '04 smear campaign
By MORTON KONDRACKE, Newspaper Enterprise Association
March 4, 2004
[excerpted]
It's conventional wisdom now that this may be one of the nastiest presidential campaigns ever. But those keeping score should observe that, right now, the muddy epithets thrown at President Bush outweigh those thrown at Democrats by tons.
That's not the way things are being reported, though. The media seem to be uncritically accepting the Democratic charge that any criticism of Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., public record is "sliming" or "smearing."
But for months now, Democrats have accused Bush of being a "liar" who "misled" or "deceived" the nation into the Iraq war; a "usurper" who "stole" the 2000 election in Florida; "a right-wing extremist" on tax, social and foreign policy; and a "menace to the nation's basic liberties," owing to his employment of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Former Vice President Al Gore said Bush had "betrayed" the country in Iraq. No major Democrat said afterward that Gore had gone too far.
Democrats claim that Republicans either have questioned or will question their patriotism in this campaign, but actually the only accusations of lacking patriotism have come from Democrats.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., when he was a candidate, said that Bush's Iraq policy was "anti-patriotic at the core." Last September, Kerry said that Bush "lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends" and that it was "unpatriotic" for Bush's "friends" (i.e., corporate executives) to move jobs offshore. It was a regular staple of retired Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign to say that Bush's policies were "not patriotic."
Howard Dean, when he was a candidate, charged that Ashcroft "is no patriot. He's a direct descendant of Joseph McCarthy." [snip]
On the other hand, the Bush campaign has every right to raise doubts about Kerry's record and programs, including on defense issues. And the media ought to cry foul when the Kerry campaign tries to put such discussion off limits.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, for instance, said about criticism of Kerry's defense record: "These attacks and smears against us are just one more example of the fundamental need to change the direction of the nation from Bush's extreme agenda."
Kerry said in mid-February that "given the record of this administration and their stunning lack of vision, the Republican attack machine may well have no choice but to resort to smear and fear."
In a public letter to Bush last Saturday, Kerry implied that Bush was questioning his Vietnam service and said "it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain."
In fact, the Bush campaign and the GOP have acknowledged time and again that Kerry was a war hero and is due honor for his service, but that his record on defense and foreign policy is open to criticism.
Indeed, it is. Kerry is on record as opposing the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk missile, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the Harrier jet and the F-15 fighter aircraft and has called for deep cuts in the intelligence budget. [snip]
Education Secretary Rod Paige referred to the National Education Association as a "terrorist organization" — clearly it was hyperbole, not a real accusation — and was carpet-bombed into an abject apology.
Besides that, no Republican of any stature has yet thrown what could even remotely be described as a low blow. If that changes, I'll scream. But so far, if anyone's "sliming," it's Democrats. And the media should call them on it.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.
Copyright 2004, Naples Daily News. All Rights Reserved.
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 17:41:18
quote:
How about using Slimer? I'm sure he'd make a good campaign manager for sure.
But he'd accept money from the Hi-C lobby! They did make Ecto Cooler, after all.
Join the Culf of Buttoms / Correctly spelled cults are so passé. |
| Gratefuljason3 |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 14:52:23
This is all the justification for war anyone needs:
UK Guardian: "Over 300,000 Uncovered In Saddam's Mass Graves"
Saturday November 8, 2003 7:46 PM
By BASSEM MROUE and NIKO PRICE
Associated Press Writers
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein's government is believed to have buried as many as 300,000 opponents in 263 mass graves that dot the Iraqi landscape, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration said Saturday.
Sandy Hodgkinson said the administration has been sending forensic teams to investigate those grave sites reported to U.S. officials. So far, the existence of about 40 graves has been confirmed.
``We have found mass graves with women and children with bullet holes in their heads,'' she said.
President Bush has referred to Iraqi mass graves frequently in recent months, saying they provide evidence that the war to drive Saddam from power was justified.
But some human rights activists have criticized the U.S.-led administration in Iraq for moving too slowly to protect grave sites and begin excavations, and have expressed skepticism that it will ever fully identify who is buried in the mass graves.
``There is just no way - technologically, financially - that they're going to deal with mass graves on this magnitude,'' said Susannah Sirkin of Physicians for Human Rights in Boston.
The U.S.-led administration held a workshop Saturday to train dozens of Iraqis to find and protect the mass grave sites. Hodgkinson said the workers would be crucial in protecting the sites from desperate relatives trying to dig for evidence of their missing loved ones.
In the weeks after the U.S.-led war drove Saddam from power, relatives damaged some grave sites, using bulldozers that mangled bodies and scattering papers and clothing that could have been used to identify remains.
The largest mass grave discovered so far, a site near the southern town of Mahaweel believed to hold at least 3,115 bodies, was damaged by relatives searching for remains. But officials say most of the mass graves haven't been disturbed.
Mass graves ``tell the story of missing loved ones such as where, when and how they were killed,'' Hodgkinson said. ``Truth and proper burial is the first step toward reconciliation.''
Iraqi Human Rights Minister Abdul-Basit Turki said that in addition to families' need to find the bodies of missing relatives, excavating mass graves is important in building criminal cases against members of the former regime.
International tribunals handle prosecutions for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, where tens of thousands of missing are believed buried in mass graves, and Rwanda, in which many of the 500,000 victims of a 100-day killing spree in 1994 were buried in communal pits.
But for Iraq, the United States has insisted any trials be conducted by a new Iraqi legal system that is still being developed.
Neither Iraq nor the United States are signatories to the International Criminal Court and it would take a vote of the U.N. Security Council to create a special tribunal for Iraq, which is considered unlikely.
Many human rights groups agree that Iraqis should lead the legal process, but say international participation is crucial for it to be legitimate and impartial. Some have been hesitant to participate in excavations before the legal system is in place.
``Mass graves really can corroborate witness testimony and documents which show what happened in a crime,'' Hodgkinson said, although she cautioned: ``a mass grave by itself won't tell you who did it.''
Hodgkinson said the majority of people buried in the mass graves are believed to be Kurds killed by Saddam in the 1980s after rebelling against the government and Shiites killed after an uprising following the 1991 Gulf War.
Hodgkinson said the investigation process would be similar to that used in Bosnia after its 1992-95 war. But she cautioned that if Bosnia is any indication, the process in Iraq will be long and complicated.
In Bosnia, she said, it has taken nine years to unearth 8,000 of the 30,000 bodies believed buried in mass graves.
Human rights activists say U.S. authorities in Iraq have been much slower to address the problem than were authorities in Bosnia. In Bosnia, said Sam Zia-Zarifi of Human Rights Watch, ``within the first year there were 25 teams in and a (U.N.) tribunal in place.''
In Iraq, some international teams that were hoping to begin their work before winter have delayed their arrival because of violence, including the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.
At a donor conference last month, more than $100 million was requested for uncovering mass graves. The donations, which are expected to come in the form of equipment and personnel, would be used over five years, Hodgkinson said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3364919,00.html
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 14:40:29
Considering what Dems defended during the Clinton years, that excerpt involves as much lying as 2+2=4. Pretty weak GT. |
| Gratefuljason3 |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 14:37:51
GoddessTheory,
Last year, only a few short months before the war in March, The United Nation's Children's Commission estimated that, "4400-4800 Iraqi children are dying every month as a result of diseases which are easily treatable, malnutrition, or of starvation outright." Source: www.unicef.org
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why we should have continued to appease Saddam while so many children were dying?
At 4,500 per month, we have saved over 60,000 lives through this military action. WMD or not. |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 14:18:49
Rumsfeld Caught Lying, Yet Again, On "Face the Nation." But This Time, a Journalist Actually Threw It In His Face.
This excerpt in which Rumsfeld is caught in a brazen lie by Bob Schieffer of CBS from "Face the Nation":
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 13:35:15
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
You know what, we're on page 2 and I can't help but notice that Dallas and Erebus have not given a reason why Bush should be reelected for another 4 years.
I'm on the run right now but you deserve at least a brief reply. First, on domestic issues, though the Repubs are to the left of where the Dems were twenty-five years ago, they at least offer the possibility of a slower rate of descent into the morass of runaway social welfare spending. Second, Bush has the important things right on national security, whereas it is the "optimism" and appeasement from the Dems which permits the rise of those who would oppose us and the global will to freedom. Yes, that's a quick and dirty draft, but that's why I would say the USA would be better off were Bush to be reelected. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 13:22:20
That was rude Goddess. Also condascending. |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 13:12:00
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
You know what, we're on page 2 and I can't help but notice that Dallas and Erebus have not given a reason why Bush should be reelected for another 4 years.
 "Join the Cult of Brit / And let your oral hygiene go out the window."
You never will. It will all be grand-standing and macho posturing far as I can see. |
| El Barto |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 13:06:47
You know what, we're on page 2 and I can't help but notice that Dallas and Erebus have not given a reason why Bush should be reelected for another 4 years.
"Join the Cult of Brit / And let your oral hygiene go out the window." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 13:02:37
Nagourney Buries the Lede Again
This time it's in Paragraph #8.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, March 15, 2004, at 12:18 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096850/
Nagourney buries the lede again: Isn't the news in the latest CBS/New York Times poll that it shows Bush inching ahead--that the current (pre-Spanish election) campaign dynamic, including Bush's advertising launch, has been working at least slightly in the President's favor? A month ago CBS had Kerry over Bush by five percent, but in the new poll Bush leads Kerry 46 to 43 even without Nader. The NYT's Nagourney and Elder comically don't get around to imparting this information until paragraph #8, choosing instead to emphasize the anti-incumbent suggestion that "Bush and Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction." That puts the lede two paragraphs lower down than readers found it in the days before the 2002 midterms, when Nagourney buried the big news (that the Republicans were surging) in paragraph 6. Who's going in the wrong direction? ... Note: Rasmussen's tracking crack shows no pro-Bush trend. But Nagourney wasn't reporting on the Rasmussen poll. ... 6:36 A.M.
|
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:51:42
You are right, I can see hypocrisy from a mile away...again, before casting stones about who is a namecaller or condascending or just plain rude, perhaps you should step out of your glass house... |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:46:11
Yeah I noticed.
Because I knew you'd comment on it. You can see it in other's posts but not in your own.
Thanks for proving my point. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:30:36
Goddess - Thanks for the object lesson in hypocrisy. Your post is full of name calling and a complete lack of civility. Plus the condascending attitude about what YOU think is acceptable discourse.
Physician, heal thyself.
Seriously, you really didnt notice that you were being a complete hypocrit in your attack post? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:30:08
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
You haven't provided a SINGLE piece of evidence that Kondracke is a liberal. Not one. That's a pretty low level of "evidentiary requirements".
Based upon years of watching him, especially on the McLachlan Group, I agree with Dallas's characterization of Kondracke. But I could not find any "proof" in the courtesy bios I found via google. His history with Newsweek, New Republic, and NPR is suggestive but hardly conclusive. I have long thought of him as a sane lefty that I would expect to have voted for Clinton and Gore. |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:13:31
Dallas no one said anything about censoring so you can't play that tune.
Obviously you have no intention of even trying to understand the point. You will continue being a condescending jerk instead of just getting your point across in a civilized manner. Say what you want, be a republican jesus freak for all I care, just don't be rude about it was the point.
Sorry tough guy. I almost forgot how tough you were. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 12:05:01
Sorry Goddess theory but I won't be censored. I'll post/write however I want to. There is nothing in this thread I would apologize for.
Maybe you should find another cause. |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 11:53:32
You haven't provided a SINGLE piece of evidence that Kondracke is a liberal. Not one. That's a pretty low level of "evidentiary requirements".
What happens between you and amor is your business. I've been civil to you. You've questioned my intellect. I will now try to steer clear of participating in "discussions" with you. I know you probably don't care. I'm just stating my plans. |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 11:51:35
quote:
Originally posted by GoddessTheory
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Another neophyte steps in...
Think it through, you can do it, keep at it, your so close, aww forget it.
Dallas, can you make a valid point without resorting to being a smart ass about it, or is that all part of the fun of your superiority complex?
Maybe you need to reread.
Just because STITCHES (amor, mcmikey) is the way he is doesn't mean you have to resort to that.
As Darwin said, make a point but quit being condescending about it. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 11:41:10
Darwin, your first post stated: "First of all Kondracke is not a liberal. I obviously haven't watched everything from him (I rarely watch Fox) but I have seen him on many shows and never have seen him support Clinton or Gore."
The guy has stated multiple times on television that he voted for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000. I KNOW that because I saw it. So I know that you are misrepresenting Kondracke from the jump. I also know he is a self-described liberal. I know who his wife was and her politics. I've watched and read him excoriate conservatives. He is also tough on Democrats or any politician who is operating in bad faith. So, forgive me for being incredulous.
Also, this subject is funny to me. Trying to convince you that Kondracke is a liberal, with 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' evidentiary requirements is FUNNY. It gets funnier the more it continues. That isn't a debate technique it is a reaction to something I find humorous.
Also, I hope you saved up enough venom to lecture amor for calling me a dumbass. That must have savaged your sense of fair play and comradery. Or is your dismay at the tenor of my post just another political statement? |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 11:22:45
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Darwin, where is your intellect? Send the guy an email and ask him those questions if you want. I havent given you my word on anything, I just passed along Kondrackes own statements about his life. He is a writer, someone with even a bit of intellectual curiousity would do a little reading themselves before making factually inaccurate statements about the guy.
This is funny BTW. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Kondracke knows exactly where he stands in the political spectrum. Your continued posts on this subject shows how willing you are to opine on something you have absolutely no knowledge of. Prove it to you? What a joke, you haven't even familiarized yourself with the guy or his writings.
How about supporting your claims? You haven't passed on anything. "I just passed along Kondrackes own statements about his life." Where is this? I haven't seen you send this.
I have done some research (with google) and when I put search for Kondracke and liberal all I find is people questioning whether the guy is really a liberal. You've stated "facts" about the guy that you think prove he's a liberal. I've asked you to support those "facts". You apparently refuse to. So, why should I believe them. The whole point is that this LIBERAL says Kerry is playing dirty. Well, proving that the guy is LIBERAL seems to pretty important for the argument. Whether you want to support your argument is obviously up to you. I have seen Kondracke (I waste too much time watching political shows) and the guy doesn't seem like a liberal too me.
Also: I think I've been fairly civil in this thread. I don't agree with you or with Erebus, but I haven't insulted you or questioned your intellect. I've seen you in action before. You insult and try to bully people and then you occassionally pull back and issue an apology. But, the next time a political thread comes up again, you are back to your rude and condescending behavior. You are always using the ploy of discounting other's opinions with phrases like "what a joke", "it's funny", "your posting is ridiculous". But, I won't call you names or imply that you're stupid. That's in your playbook. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 10:56:52
Darwin, where is your intellect? Send the guy an email and ask him those questions if you want. I havent given you my word on anything, I just passed along Kondrackes own statements about his life. He is a writer, someone with even a bit of intellectual curiousity would do a little reading themselves before making factually inaccurate statements about the guy.
This is funny BTW. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Kondracke knows exactly where he stands in the political spectrum. Your continued posts on this subject shows how willing you are to opine on something you have absolutely no knowledge of. Prove it to you? What a joke, you haven't even familiarized yourself with the guy or his writings. |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 10:35:35
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Darwin, you win, the guy says he is a liberal, votes for every liberal he can when he gets the chance, has been active in progressive and democratic politics since he was a kid, was married to a labor activist and on and on. Its hilarious that this guy has been active in Washington for DECADES as a liberal commentator (16 years speaking from the left on PBS) but as soon as he calls a pig a pig, he has no credentials. Another attempt at creating a false-reality. Forget the decades this guy has under his belt, his votes, his activism, YOU know better. whatever.
I guess you can't find any proof for your claims (registered Democrat, voted for Gore and Clinton). Sorry, your word ain't enough. |
| amor es revenge |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 10:29:38
the Oil for Lives game is exactly what we did in Iraq, dal. Keep in mind, we gave the Hussein's Iraqi's money, weapons, training in the 80's.....and no, what you said didn't come off as superior. It came off as ignorant
no signature- I can't write so well |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 10:25:17
Darwin, you win, the guy says he is a liberal, votes for every liberal he can when he gets the chance, has been active in progressive and democratic politics since he was a kid, was married to a labor activist and on and on. Its hilarious that this guy has been active in Washington for DECADES as a liberal commentator (16 years speaking from the left on PBS) but as soon as he calls a pig a pig, he has no credentials. Another attempt at creating a false-reality. Forget the decades this guy has under his belt, his votes, his activism, YOU know better. whatever.
Amor you have more opinions than knowledge. Sorry if that comes off as superior, but, you either dont understand the facts or you choose to ignore them. Note that you haven't/can't refute my post. It isnt GWB's lie. It is EVERY leader in the free worlds lie over the last decade. Why did they all lie? To further GWB's evil plan to liberate millions of suffering Iraqi's? Scorn of the UN? France/Germany/Russia were bought and paid for by Saddams oil money. Those countries were playing what is called an Oil for lives game. They got oil and Saddam got to kill/rape/maim/oppress any Iraqi's he saw fit. That my friend is what you call 'good scorn', give me some more of it actually.
I have no idea why or if McCain is mad at GWB. I could care less also. |
| amor es revenge |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 09:45:33
actually, he was being a dumbass, because I was posting on this topic before he was, yet he thinks I"m just jumping into the debate. He obviously only read the last post before his and thought he knew what the hell was going on
no signature- I can't write so well |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 09:41:03
One more thing, if Bush and his people didn't smear McCain, then why is McCain still still so pissed at Bush.
A story from the CONSERVATIVE Bob Novak:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak151.html |
| GoddessTheory |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 09:38:40
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Another neophyte steps in...
Think it through, you can do it, keep at it, your so close, aww forget it.
Dallas, can you make a valid point without resorting to being a smart ass about it, or is that all part of the fun of your superiority complex? |
| amor es revenge |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 09:36:37
paty close attention, dallas, you may learn something. Let's take Clinton for example. He never used his supposed belief that Iraq had WMD's to invade the country in order to boost his approval ratings due to him making a fool out of himself (as Bush had with his statements that we would not stop until we had captured Osama dead or alive....and we still haven't). Clinton also didn't earn us the scorn and disdain of the entire U.N. as your buddy bush did. I'd say that makes it a slightly different level of sleaziness.
no signature- I can't write so well |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 09:35:01
Dallas you haven't given me anything to show me that Kondracke is a liberal, just your opinion. Perhaps you can provide some proof of him being a registered Democrat or voting for Gore or Clinton. In my opinion, he's the closest thing to a liberal that Fox News can stand, but that doesn't make him a liberal.
The liberals are out and now their fighting rough like the Republicans have been doing for the past 15 years. And, so far it's working. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 08:33:38
Another neophyte steps in...
Uhhhh, those of you who actually read newspapers and have a clue can skip this. This is remedial work for amor...
Hans Blix
Kofi Annan
Jacque Chirac
V Putin
Albert Gore
Bill Clinton
John F. Kerry
Tony Blair
GW Bush
and more and more
That is just a partial list of people who claimed that Iraq had WMD's right up until the Liberation. Blix was quoted as saying that he thought there were 100's of gallons of anthrax in Iraq days before the liberation began.
You've got it! It was a new world order conspiracy taking place over a decade so that GW Bush could invade Iraq.
If Bush lied they all lied. For a decade. Do you even think through your propaganda? If Bush is a liar, what are all these other people?
Think it through, you can do it, keep at it, your so close, aww forget it. |
| amor es revenge |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 07:52:30
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Darwin your post is hilarious. Now liberals who disagree with democrats arent liberal? The man voted for Clinton and Gore. He is a registered Democrat and has been his whole life.
He is a liberal, but, he has a brain and he has eyes. You cant see or grasp the fact that a Liberal can see a gutter-level campaign, even when, SHOCK, it comes from a democrat. That is how ridgid your thinking is. If Kondracke actually believes what he is writing, then "he is not a liberal". Whatever.
That's not what Darwin said at all. you're twisting his words. And yes, it's very possible for someone to be a non-liberal Democrat, sport.
quote:
Also your riff on McCain/Bush blew itself out of the water. Nothing untoward was done by people who work for Bush or directed by people who work for Bush. As you admit yourself, so, obviously it is a moot point.
You're digging yourself a hole saying nothing untoward was done by people who work for Bush....do you really want to stick with that statement in light of all the strong words that the Bush administration threw around about Iraq's "imminent threat" and their phantom WMD's?
no signature- I can't write so well |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 07:35:47
Darwin your post is hilarious. Now liberals who disagree with democrats arent liberal? The man voted for Clinton and Gore. He is a registered Democrat and has been his whole life.
He is a liberal, but, he has a brain and he has eyes. You cant see or grasp the fact that a Liberal can see a gutter-level campaign, even when, SHOCK, it comes from a democrat. That is how ridgid your thinking is. If Kondracke actually believes what he is writing, then "he is not a liberal". Whatever.
Also your riff on McCain/Bush blew itself out of the water. Nothing untoward was done by people who work for Bush or directed by people who work for Bush. As you admit yourself, so, obviously it is a moot point.
Also...this just in...Lee Atwater has been dead for over 10 years...thats right, the boogeyman is dead...it is safe for liberals to come crawling out of their hiding spaces... |
| amor es revenge |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 06:22:36
I think he's simply giving his opinion. He feels that Bush is a cunt. "bush" is after all, another word for "cunt".....
no signature- I can't write so well |
| Gratefuljason3 |
Posted - 03/15/2004 : 19:27:45
quote:
do you really want that cunt in the white
That's the kind of slime the article is talking about. It does nothing to further your own cause and simply makes the author appear sophomoric, immature and insincere. If people wish to engage in a dialectic discourse, by all means... But enough with the childish invective. |
| El Barto |
Posted - 03/15/2004 : 18:56:55
Who cares who is doing what...the question is, do you really want that cunt in the white house for another 4 years. If so, why?
"Join the Cult of Brit / And let your oral hygiene go out the window." |
|
|
