Senator Calls Bush 'Loser,' Then Apologizes - Inappropriate?

[west3man]

So, was this inappropriate? I FEEL like it was, but I'm not completely sure why. The fact that this guy was is a senator, was speaking to the students in what I considered to be an official capacity (I dunno, though), and the fact that I'd prefer that the students be given the opportunity to make up their own minds... These are the things I've been able to express as negatives in this situation.

However, I and others have often said that we wish politicians would just be REAL, dammit. Say what the real deal is. That's what this guy did, from his own perspective. If he backed up that characterization with reasons for the students to agree with or dismiss... particularly if a good discussion developed, as a result, that could be a good thing.

What do you think?

source: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050506235309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001

"
LAS VEGAS (May 7) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser'' during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being,'' Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.''

Shortly after the event Reid called the White House to apologize, his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid spoke with Bush adviser Karl Rove, asking him to convey the apology to Bush, who was traveling in Europe.
"

[Nate C.]

Barney Franks recently called the Presidents Johnson, Carter, Clinton and both Bushes "rednecks" and not with any affection, and their was no media hullabaloo.

There are double standards on lots of things in this country.


EDIT: Barney.

[Winslow]

Reid's a loser for saying that. . .

Oh wait.

I'd say personal insults are unprofessional ~ at any level.

We have a policy of no personal insults on a message board - seems like an appropriate guideline for the leaders of our country.

[Donald M.]

Definately inappropriate.

One should never have to apologize for stating the obvious.

[spoon_jenkins]

Barney Franks recently called the Presidents Johnson, Carter, Clinton and both Bushes "rednecks" and not with any affection, and their was no media hullabaloo.

There are double standards on lots of things in this country.


EDIT: Barney.
Why is this a double standard? First, Frank and Reid are both Democrats, so it can't be a double standard based on party. Second, it doesn't seem that there's a media hullabaloo on this yet. As far as I can tell from the article, Reid apologized on his own without a media firestorm.

Reid's remark is inappropriate to whatever extent it's harmful strategically to Reid's cause, but it's not a wrong thing to say. George W. Bush deserves condemnation. He's lied multiple times in his official capacity. He's distorted facts many more times. He uses Jesus as a tool to hurt people. He does things for the already powerful at the expense of others. He's increased partisanship in Washington and nationwide. He can be insulting himself (he bashed Massachusetts during the campaign, and if Kerry had similarly slammed Texas folks would be calling for his head). He's a hypocrite regarding substance abuse. He's a bad judge of character (looking into Putin's soul, etc.). He's not as smart as I'd want a President to be.

So I don't think Reid's incorrect or a bad guy for saying what he did. However, the benefits of saying it are probably outweighed by how it will be used against Reid by the opposition.

But I'm glad Reid is the Senate Minority Leader. The Republicans are on the heels for the first time in a quite a while as their plans to do even more harm to the country are being stalled, and I think Reid has a lot to do with that.

[comic_lover]

So, was this inappropriate? I FEEL like it was, but I'm not completely sure why. The fact that this guy was is a senator, was speaking to the students in what I considered to be an official capacity (I dunno, though), and the fact that I'd prefer that the students be given the opportunity to make up their own minds... These are the things I've been able to express as negatives in this situation.

However, I and others have often said that we wish politicians would just be REAL, dammit. Say what the real deal is. That's what this guy did, from his own perspective. If he backed up that characterization with reasons for the students to agree with or dismiss... particularly if a good discussion developed, as a result, that could be a good thing.

What do you think?

source: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050506235309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001

"
LAS VEGAS (May 7) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser'' during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being,'' Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.''

Shortly after the event Reid called the White House to apologize, his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid spoke with Bush adviser Karl Rove, asking him to convey the apology to Bush, who was traveling in Europe.
"Very unprofessional,and very immature.....then again,that's what the Democratic party has been transformed into lately.Sad. :(

[Doug Strange]

I agree that saying it in the first place is inappropriate. Public officials should try to carry themselves with decorum at all times. Especially in front of school children.

But apologizing is unnecessary, too. What does an apology really mean when it's just a formality?

[Valmore]

While Reid is certainly entitled to his private opinion, expressing it in a public forum to schoolchildren as he did is unprofessional. Theoretically, he's on the same payroll as George W. Bush, and in a way, is his co-worker. Would you badmouth a co-worker to future employers at a job interview?

In the privacy of his home or amongst his friends - he can call George W. Bush a primitive, nerf herding loser. But once in a public forum, he's supposed to show a bit of decorum and professionalism. Calling a co-worker a "loser" isn't either.

[spoon_jenkins]

Very unprofessional,and very immature.....then again,that's what the Democratic party has been transformed into lately.Sad. :(
So you don't care about Republicans misdeeds, right? You don't care about Bush cursing about a report into a microphone. You don't care about Cheney dropping the F-bomb on the floor of the Senate against a Senator. You don't care about Cheney embracing bigot Rush Limbaugh. You don't care about Sen. Lott endorsing segregation. You don't care about Sen. Frist questioning the faith of Democrats who oppose extreme judicial nominees on non-religious grounds. You don't care about then-Gov. Bush mocking and laughing about a death row inmate who said she found Jesus. You don't care about Sen. Cornyn saying he found murdering judges understandable. You don't care about President Bush lying to the public (private accounts are an "add-on", he has "no doubt" that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, etc.). You don't care about Gov. Owens of Colorado saying that Westerners are more patriotic than Easterners and have less social problems.

I'm glad about what the Democrat party has been transformed into lately. They're not being bullied into backing away from values.

[Mike Smash!]

I have no problem with it. In fact, I think it would be healthier for people in office to not have to pretend to be saints.

Yeah, Bush is a loser. But so is Reid. A prick, too.

[Mike Smash!]

So you don't care about Republicans misdeeds, right? You don't care about Bush cursing about a report into a microphone. You don't care about Cheney dropping the F-bomb on the floor of the Senate against a Senator. You don't care about Cheney embracing bigot Rush Limbaugh. You don't care about Sen. Lott endorsing segregation. You don't care about Sen. Frist questioning the faith of Democrats who oppose extreme judicial nominees on non-religious grounds. You don't care about then-Gov. Bush mocking and laughing about a death row inmate who said she found Jesus. You don't care about Sen. Cornyn saying he found murdering judges understandable. You don't care about President Bush lying to the public (private accounts are an "add-on", he has "no doubt" that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, etc.). You don't care about Gov. Owens of Colorado saying that Westerners are more patriotic than Easterners and have less social problems.

I'm glad about what the Democrat party has been transformed into lately. They're not being bullied into backing away from values.

You were right up until the end, the Dems still only take on "safe" fights and usually only on the Republican Party's turf and frames of reference. They've allowed the GOP to define "values" by their narrow view and will get their asses kicked in every fight with the Republicans because of it.

The response is the typical one, "Hey look at us! we're religious too! Get a picture of me praying!"

Liberals and progressive have values and moral courage and the worst way to show it is to pander to conservative values while acting ashamed of your own.

[Paul McEnery]

Barney Franks recently called the Presidents Johnson, Carter, Clinton and both Bushes "rednecks" and not with any affection, and their was no media hullabaloo.

There are double standards on lots of things in this country.


EDIT: Barney.
Got context?

[Nate C.]

Why is this a double standard? First, Frank and Reid are both Democrats, so it can't be a double standard based on party. Second, it doesn't seem that there's a media hullabaloo on this yet

It's not a double standard with Reid and Franks.

I was talking about Franks and GOP's who have made similar statements.

A little off topic, but enough on to make the comparrison of the double standard in the media.

Trent Lott makes a vague comment and loses his power (it was vague because he was supporting the man, not his politics, and anyone of us have done the same if we have friends with whom we disagree on many matters) and Franks makes a much worse bigoted statement and gets a free ride.

And for those of you who think me an idealogue, check out my past posts on Lott. He lost my vote (I'm a Mississippian) a long time ago.

[Nate C.]

Got context?

got google?

And PM me what you think Billy Graham has done that's so gawdaful. Cronin locked our thread after I asked you and I'm very curious to know your response. Go back and look at my questions if you have to.

Aw, heck. I'll go look for Frank's comments.

[Wesley Dodds]

Harry Reid's normally a lot more careful than that. I can't help but wonder if this was deliberate -- as an insult, it's so mild that it will pass out of the news quickly. And what are right wing commentators going to say? "Waaaah!!! He called President Bush a LOSER!!! You can't do that!!!" They'll look like pathetic little babies. Hmmm. Well, there's a big fight in the Senate coming one, and one of Bush's traits is vindictiveness -- perhaps this is a way of activating Bush's pride so he won't back down in the fight over Senate rules.


You were right up until the end, the Dems still only take on "safe" fights and usually only on the Republican Party's turf and frames of reference.

The grassroots of the party takes on tough battles though.

[Mike Smash!]

It's not a double standard with Reid and Franks.

I was talking about Franks and GOP's who have made similar statements.

A little off topic, but enough on to make the comparrison of the double standard in the media.

Trent Lott makes a vague comment and loses his power (it was vague because he was supporting the man, not his politics, and anyone of us have done the same if we have friends with whom we disagree on many matters) and Franks makes a much worse bigoted statement and gets a free ride.

And for those of you who think me an idealogue, check out my past posts on Lott. He lost my vote (I'm a Mississippian) a long time ago.Lott's remark wasn't that vague. He said we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been President, when the man's big issue in that campaign was segregation.

Yeah, it may have been his friend, but the man's legacy is as a segregationist.

And remember it was the Republican Party that destroyed Lott. They smelled the blood in the water and descended on him. I really don't remember any Dems specifically targeting him. The Republicans aligned with the Bush campaign tried to do the same to John McCain in the 2000 primaries. He's since conformed, hugged Bush on the campaign trail and he's back in their good graces.

And the Democrats did it to Howard Dean, when he didn't stick to their party line and made the Democratic leadership look bad. He's since conformed and stood up for "Diet Republican" Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Christine Gregoire and they have no problem with him.

Major parties don't like mavericks and rebels and they'll canibalize you in a heartbeat if you stick your neck out.

[Wesley Dodds]

Trent Lott makes a vague comment and loses his power (it was vague because he was supporting the man, not his politics, and anyone of us have done the same if we have friends with whom we disagree on many matters) and Franks makes a much worse bigoted statement and gets a free ride.

Not exactly, I think. Three points. First, Lott didn't just stupport Strom -- he said the United States could have avoided all these problems if that strident segregationist had been elected. That goes beyond just saying a nice thing about a person. Second, Lott has a history of similar off-colour statements (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/). Third, his Republican colleagues forced him out of his job -- they cut him lose.

And was it worse than Franks' redneck comment? I don't think so. Calling someone something mild -- redneck or loser -- isn't that important. If you disagree, well, you'll have to also claim that "major league asshole" deserves similar punishment.

[Paul McEnery]

While Reid is certainly entitled to his private opinion, expressing it in a public forum to schoolchildren as he did is unprofessional. Theoretically, he's on the same payroll as George W. Bush, and in a way, is his co-worker. Would you badmouth a co-worker to future employers at a job interview?

In the privacy of his home or amongst his friends - he can call George W. Bush a primitive, nerf herding loser. But once in a public forum, he's supposed to show a bit of decorum and professionalism. Calling a co-worker a "loser" isn't either.
Strained metaphor. Reid's employers are Democrat voters. Bush's employers are Republican voters. They're competitors, not colleagues. It's fine for Bill Gates to call Steve Jobs a loser, and vice versa.

And I think most teenagers would abreact to being called schoolchildren, too. Chalk this up to a hopelessly out of touch politician trying to get down with the kids, man. Do teenagers use the word "loser" these days?

Yeah, it's long past time this horsepucky civility went out the window. We know Nixon was a crook, and it was good to say so. We know Clinton's a slut, and it's good to say so. We know that Johnson wasn't just a redneck, he was a peckerwood redneck -- inviting in reporters while you're taking a dump ain't exactly classy, is it.

Bush is a loser, and he's dragging the country down with him by doing the same crappy job he did at his last two companies (if you want to pursue the metaphor). Why the Dems didn't go after him on that in either election, I don't know. (Not that the Gore/Kerry bi-beast is any less of a loser -- but at least it has a sense of responsibility.)

[Mike Smash!]

The grassroots of the party takes on tough battles though.And in the end, the grassroots continues to bow to a party leadership that isn't nearly as progressive as they are and conditions them to believe that their values can't win elections.

And in those cases where a two way race is between a Green and a Republican and the Dems haven't put up a candidate, who do you think the Democratic Party endorses?

The Republican; and the grassroots largely follow them.

There are some great progressives in the Democratic Party, but there's a glass ceiling too. How often do you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer are pressured to just shut up? And how often do you see progressives abandoned by that same grassroots in primaries to back a guy like Kerry who's on the opposite side of many of the issues like the war and the PATRIOT Act that caused them to get involved in politics in the first place?

The leadership isn't fighting. They put up token resistance against people like Alberto Gonzalez and then refuse to fillibuster him. They know they don't have the votes to beat him and if they were serious about stopping him, they would have fillibustered, because without that, all the hard questions in the world mean jackshit, unless you're serious about actually stopping him.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that they've convinced good progressives into actually backing someone like Reid.

[Mike Smash!]

Oh, and Nate?

That Byrne avatar is seriously creeping me out.

[Paul McEnery]

got google?

And PM me what you think Billy Graham has done that's so gawdaful. Cronin locked our thread after I asked you and I'm very curious to know your response. Go back and look at my questions if you have to.

Aw, heck. I'll go look for Frank's comments.
I wrote out a whole thing while Cronin was shutting the thread. Dammit.

(But if you google Luis Palau, Rios Montt, and Billy Graham, you see the close ties between the three, and the Guatemalan genocide.)

Googled the Franks thing, come up dry.

[west3man]

Trent Lott makes a vague comment and loses his power (it was vague because he was supporting the man, not his politics, and anyone of us have done the same if we have friends with whom we disagree on many matters) and Franks makes a much worse bigoted statement and gets a free ride.
Sorry, but no-go, noljo.

Lott said, in no uncertain terms, that this nation would be better off (or "we wouldn't have all these problems," I think) if a hypocritical segregationist had become the most powerful man in the world.

[Nate C.]

Lott's remark wasn't that vague. He said we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been President, when the man's big issue in that campaign was segregation.

Many public figures thought that it was vague and that his emphasis was on the man's legacy, not past political stands, and I agree with them.


And remember it was the Republican Party that destroyed Lott. They smelled the blood in the water and descended on him. I really don't remember any Dems specifically targeting him.

No, the media relentlessly created the story, and the Republicans let him die, a subtle difference.

The Republicans aligned with the Bush campaign tried to do the same to John McCain in the 2000 primaries. He's since conformed, hugged Bush on the campaign trail and he's back in their good graces.

And the Democrats did it to Howard Dean, when he didn't stick to their party line and made the Democratic leadership look bad. He's since conformed and stood up for "Diet Republican" Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Christine Gregoire and they have no problem with him.

Major parties don't like mavericks and rebels and they'll canibalize you in a heartbeat if you stick your neck out.

I agree with you on this.

[Nate C.]

By the way, I came up dry on Franks too. I named the wrong guy.

Franks is a fat white guy dem from New England.

I'm looking for a fat black guy dem from New York, I think.

I'll keep looking.

[west3man]

Oh, and Nate?

That Byrne avatar is seriously creeping me out.
"It's freaky-lookin' is whatitIS."
"Well, it IS!" ~ an androgynous, anthropomorphic anthropoid in Disney's Tarzan



Hmm... was that redundant or contradictory?

[Nate C.]

Oh, and Nate?

That Byrne avatar is seriously creeping me out.


Me too, Mike. I can't wait for Wednesday.

[Mike Smash!]

Many public figures thought that it was vague and that his emphasis was on the man's legacy, not past political stands, and I agree with them.Strom Thurmond's legacy was his segregationist views. If people remember him in a hundred years (maybe if his daughter lives as long as he did), this is what people will remember him for.

No, the media relentlessly created the story, and the Republicans let him die, a subtle difference.There was a story. The Senate Majority leader saying we "wouldn't have these problems" had the man who ran on a segregationist platform had been elected President.

Yeah, that's a fuck up. But it was the Republicans who kept going on the news to blast him and disavow themselves from him to move their way up the ladder that kept that story alive.

[Mike Smash!]

I'm looking for a fat black guy dem from New York, I think.

I'll keep looking.Al Roker?

???

[Nate C.]

Sorry, but no-go, noljo.

Lott said, in no uncertain terms, that this nation would be better off (or "we wouldn't have all these problems," I think) if a hypocritical segregationist had become the most powerful man in the world.

West,

I'm not defending Lott. And as I've stated before, he hasn't gotten my vote the last two times he's run for his Senate seat from me.

Not a fan.

But, I do and did see his statements in the context they were given, and saw them as harmless.

Others saw it differently.

But this was not a clear cut case of malice or ill intention.

I don't get into too many political debates around here (or anywhere) but the few times you will see my chime in will be: 1) on ethical and moral issues that effect me and others in need or to whom harm can come and 2) when I see outright hypocricy (on the right or the left, or in the middle- it matters not to me).

This recent case of the word "redneck" being thrown around smacks of hypocricy to me.

Nate.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yeah, that's a fuck up. But it was the Republicans who kept going on the news to blast him and disavow themselves from him to move their way up the ladder that kept that story alive.

I have to side with Mike on this one. Republicans lined up on left and right to disavow Lott. The media beatup idea doesn't make much sense to me. Republicans pull similar shit all the time and they normally brazen through it.

[west3man]

Al Roker?

???
You're thinking about this guy...

http://www.kivana.com/images/ROKER_AL.JPG
...when you oughta be thinking about this guy...

http://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Roker_Al.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

By the way, I came up dry on Franks too. I named the wrong guy.

Franks is a fat white guy dem from New England.

I'm looking for a fat black guy dem from New York, I think.

I'll keep looking.
Yeah, it didn't sound like Barney. And sure, that would have been double standards. But as it is, it ain't.

[Nate C.]

[QUOTE=Mike Smash!]Strom Thurmond's legacy was his segregationist views. If people remember him in a hundred years (maybe if his daughter lives as long as he did), this is what people will remember him for.

I don't think that is reality. The man was a Senator for a kazillion years and did a lot of good.


See my comments to West, too.

I'm not defending Thurmond or Lott. I'm trying to nail this phantom guy from New York/New England who called the president a "redeck".

And the fact that none of you guys heard the story is making my point loudly and clearly, eh?

[west3man]

West,

I'm not defending Lott. And as I've stated before, he hasn't gotten my vote the last two times he's run for his Senate seat from me.

Not a fan.

But, I do and did see his statements in the context they were given, and saw them as harmless.

Others saw it differently.

But this was not a clear cut case of malice or ill intention.

I don't get into too many political debates around here (or anywhere) but the few times you will see my chime in will be: 1) on ethical and moral issues that effect me and others in need or to whom harm can come and 2) when I see outright hypocricy (on the right or the left, or in the middle- it matters not to me).

This recent case of the word "redneck" being thrown around smacks of hypocricy to me.

Nate.
This doesn't address the points in my post. Apparently you don't want to go there. Your choice.

I'll just have to continue to be fragged that you say "redneck" is hypocritical, but don't see where some of us are coming from regarding Lott's statements.

[Nate C.]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/15/90533.shtml

Charlie Rangle, Harlem Democrat.

Whew, glad that's over.

[Mike Smash!]

I don't think that is reality. The man was a Senator for a kazillion years and did a lot of good.I want you to understand that I never said the man was a total monster who tortured kittens and plotted world domination.

I'm sure he's done some good. All of us have. But that's not his legacy.

[Mike Smash!]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/15/90533.shtml

Charlie Rangle, Harlem Democrat.

Whew, glad that's over.Can you find a source other than NewsMax, at the very least a conservative site that isn't by proxy, the media wing of the Republican Party?

Now, I'm no fan of Rangle's, with him trying to reinstitute the draft or force the issue by bringing the draft to a vote, which in my mind is just a political football.

Plus, every time I hear him talk, I subconsciously start clearing my own throat. Somebody get the guy a cough drop.

[Paul McEnery]

West,

I'm not defending Lott. And as I've stated before, he hasn't gotten my vote the last two times he's run for his Senate seat from me.

Not a fan.

But, I do and did see his statements in the context they were given, and saw them as harmless.

Others saw it differently.

But this was not a clear cut case of malice or ill intention.

I don't get into too many political debates around here (or anywhere) but the few times you will see my chime in will be: 1) on ethical and moral issues that effect me and others in need or to whom harm can come and 2) when I see outright hypocricy (on the right or the left, or in the middle- it matters not to me).

This recent case of the word "redneck" being thrown around smacks of hypocricy to me.

Nate.
If it hadn't been an election year, Lott would have gotten away with it. As it was...

But the thing is, people had been waiting to bag him (in part because of his racism, which is well-attested), and he handed them his head on a silver platter.

The problem was, the ambiguous "all these problems" sounds like a racist complaining about the civil rights movement and everything that follows. Which meant, if he were to defend himself, he's have to face the press on his record (which is racist) and answer some pointed questions. And the 'Pubs couldn't afford that. Nor, for that matter, could Lott.

But back to the "redneck" question:

Is redneck a slur? I think we'll be taking that one outside. Give me a minute.

[west3man]

I don't think that is reality. The man was a Senator for a kazillion years and did a lot of good.


See my comments to West, too.

I'm not defending Thurmond or Lott. I'm trying to nail this phantom guy from New York/New England who called the president a "redeck". Sorry, but that's just what you're doing when you say his comments weren't considered within the proper context. You may not WANT to be defending him, but that doesn't change the fact that you are.

And the fact that none of you guys heard the story is making my point loudly and clearly, eh? Let's say NONE of us heard of it. You did, though.

In this case, *I* saw this story and posted about it.

If you'd done the same with "your" story, we'd know more about it, as well.

[Nate C.]

I knew that was coming.

Nope. Goggle is free. Pick your own news sourse. I picked the one at the top of the page.

He was also on Hannity's talks show and defended his statements (and Hannity gave him a pass!)

[Paul McEnery]

There you go. Let's hash out the redneck thing separately, before things get too cluttered.

[Nate C.]

This doesn't address the points in my post. Apparently you don't want to go there. Your choice.

I'll just have to continue to be fragged that you say "redneck" is hypocritical, but don't see where some of us are coming from regarding Lott's statements.

This was your post that I "ignored".

Sorry, but no-go, noljo.

Lott said, in no uncertain terms, that this nation would be better off (or "we wouldn't have all these problems," I think) if a hypocritical segregationist had become the most powerful man in the world.

You loaded the question and I disagreed. I explained why I disagreed. That'w why their called disagreements. My answers (that wasn't Lott's point) don't fit your questions (hypocritical segregationist is you assumption and a valid one, but still an assumption).

For the last time, West, you can reframe the argument all you want- I'm not defending Lott. Say that I am, and it won't make it true. I'm arguing that Rangle's comments are BLATANTLY bigoted and Lott's were PRESUMABLY racist.

Lott got crucified and Rangle got a pass.

Enjoy, gentlemen. That was all I was trying to say, really.

[Mike Smash!]

For the record, here's the Wikipedia entry on Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) and his Dixiecrat run for the Presidency, including this quote from the campaign trail:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our spring pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

(audio clip available of this in the link)

Thurmond supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever on the Senate floor, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He began by reading the entire text of each state's election laws.

and Lott's exact quote: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

That, my friend, is the legacy of Strom Thurmond.

[Valmore]

Strained metaphor. Reid's employers are Democrat voters. Bush's employers are Republican voters. They're competitors, not colleagues. It's fine for Bill Gates to call Steve Jobs a loser, and vice versa.

And I think most teenagers would abreact to being called schoolchildren, too. Chalk this up to a hopelessly out of touch politician trying to get down with the kids, man. Do teenagers use the word "loser" these days?

Yeah, it's long past time this horsepucky civility went out the window. We know Nixon was a crook, and it was good to say so. We know Clinton's a slut, and it's good to say so. We know that Johnson wasn't just a redneck, he was a peckerwood redneck -- inviting in reporters while you're taking a dump ain't exactly classy, is it.

Bush is a loser, and he's dragging the country down with him by doing the same crappy job he did at his last two companies (if you want to pursue the metaphor). Why the Dems didn't go after him on that in either election, I don't know. (Not that the Gore/Kerry bi-beast is any less of a loser -- but at least it has a sense of responsibility.)

Bah, they're all getting paid on our tax dollars, whether you voted for them or not. They're co-workers and competitors, if not co-dependents.

There's a difference between US saying Bush is a loser and Reid asying it in public. You gotta be careful in public when you work for the public.

And yeah, I shouldn't have said schoolchildren. Since they're teenagers, I should have said, "damn punks," being the geezer I am and all.

[west3man]

This was your post that I "ignored". I didn't say you "ignored" anything. I simply pointed out that you didn't address the points WITHIN the post. Your post gave me the impression that you weren't interested in getting involved in political discussions. I simply pointed out the fact that you didn't address my points and then said it was your choice. Don't paint it as anything other than that.

You loaded the question and I disagreed. You mean like saying...

Trent Lott makes a vague comment and loses his power (it was vague because he was supporting the man, not his politics, and anyone of us have done the same if we have friends with whom we disagree on many matters) and Franks makes a much worse bigoted statement and gets a free ride. ? Same thing, Nate. If you disagreed with that portion, you could've qualified your statements accordingly.

Many public figures thought that it was vague and that his emphasis was on the man's legacy, not past political stands, and I agree with them.Like I said, you defended the man's context or "emphasis." You were defending Lott.

Does that mean you love him and want to have his babies? Not necessarily. But you WERE defending him and I don't appreciate the way you've tried to paint me in this exchange.

Enjoy, gentlemen. That was all I was trying to say, really.
Then maybe you should've chosen your words more carefully instead of acting like someone mischaracterized you or your posts. You say Lott can endorse the man, but not ALL of his policies? Then I can say you were defending lot, but not ALL of HIS.

See the distinctions in one? See them in the other.

Now I'm done, too.

[Paul McEnery]

Bah, they're all getting paid on our tax dollars, whether you voted for them or not. They're co-workers and competitors, if not co-dependents.

There's a difference between US saying Bush is a loser and Reid asying it in public. You gotta be careful in public when you work for the public.

And yeah, I shouldn't have said schoolchildren. Since they're teenagers, I should have said, "damn punks," being the geezer I am and all.
You reckon?

I mean, tactically, it's dumb. You can't make that one stick. After all, the one thing Bush definitely did at the last election was win. (You coulda stuck him with it in the last term, and maybe it would have shaved a point or two, but now it's not going to fly. I can just see him spreading his arms in a shrug and grinning "I'm the President, aren't I?")

But I do think it's time for the Dems to play hard ball, and put the man down at every turn. More than half the nation agrees, so if you slam Bush hard while fighting his measures, you start to look like the White Hats.

I mean, just supposing you could get away with the word "fuckup" in public discourse, see how that could play:

We're not confirming Bolton. He's a fuckup's fuckup.
Hey, Gonzalez, leave our first amendment rights alone, you suckup to a fuckup.
&c.

[Alex]

It's harry reid, he's been a whiney bitch for the past 6 months (This isn't subjective, you can see him all over tv, literaly whining and bitching), im glad to see he ballsed up a little.

[Fenris]

You reckon?

I mean, tactically, it's dumb. You can't make that one stick. After all, the one thing Bush definitely did at the last election was win. (You coulda stuck him with it in the last term, and maybe it would have shaved a point or two, but now it's not going to fly. I can just see him spreading his arms in a shrug and grinning "I'm the President, aren't I?")

Dang, you beat me to it. I was going to ask, "What exactly has he lost lately?"

[Paul McEnery]

Dang, you beat me to it. I was going to ask, "What exactly has he lost lately?"
1500 American troops?

[Mike Smash!]

1500 American troops?Not to mention some support over the Terri Schiavo thing.

[mgs]

i dunno. it didn't sound all that inappropriate. seriously. maybe when he said, loser, he meant it in a way that he thought Bush had no credibility in his policies and all that, then rethought it, thinking about how the term was used y children or something.

hey, it's not like wall street insults the stocks, personally, by calling them winners or losers. anyways, even if he was calling him an insult, it really doesn't matter much. the children will have their laugh and some older, more, stick-up-their-butt people will have to deal with their pride being attacked.

[Paul McEnery]

i dunno. it didn't sound all that inappropriate. seriously. maybe when he said, loser, he meant it in a way that he thought Bush had no credibility in his policies and all that, then rethought it, thinking about how the term was used y children or something.

hey, it's not like wall street insults the stocks, personally, by calling them winners or losers. anyways, even if he was calling him an insult, it really doesn't matter much. the children will have their laugh and some older, more, stick-up-their-butt people will have to deal with their pride being attacked.
Nah. It was character assassination. He meant Bush is the kind of guy who screws things up because he's clueless.

[Archangel_29]

From what I know of the incident is this Senator Reid called the President a name he realized his mistake and as a man apologized for it. Too bad the same can't be said for John Kerry or Howard Dean.

[Mike Smash!]

From what I know of the incident is this Senator Reid called the President a name he realized his mistake and as a man apologized for it. Too bad the same can't be said for John Kerry or Howard Dean.There was no mistake. The President really is a loser.

But then, so is Reid. And an ass.

[spoon_jenkins]

Dang, you beat me to it. I was going to ask, "What exactly has he lost lately?"
The Terri Schiavo dispute, public support in the Schiavo case, the ability to get his social security plan moving on his timeline, public support for his social security plan, approval for his UN Ambassador nominee after initial hearings, the majority on the public's belief that he was honest in his case for war in Iraq, approval of his handling of various parts of his job...

[Wesley Dodds]

The Terri Schiavo dispute, public support in the Schiavo case, the ability to get his social security plan moving on his timeline, public support for his social security plan, approval for his UN Ambassador nominee after initial hearings, the majority on the public's belief that he was honest in his case for war in Iraq, approval of his handling of various parts of his job...

Dang, you beat me to it.

[clayholio]

The only thing inappropriate in this case is the Senator apologizing. Just once, I'd like to see a Democrat not back down from stating his opinion about the President. When a Democrat immediately and publicly toadies up to the Republican President for what would have to be considered a minor criticism, it's not hard to see why a lot of people think there's not much difference in the big two political parties.

And since it was teenagers who he said it to, I don't think that's relevant. A teenager can see a lot harsher stuff on TV even if their parents use the v-chip. I doubt one politician calling another a loser is going to cause any of those high-schoolers to lose any sleep.

[spoon_jenkins]

It's harry reid, he's been a whiney bitch for the past 6 months (This isn't subjective, you can see him all over tv, literaly whining and bitching), im glad to see he ballsed up a little.
See, now I know more than before that Reid's on the right track - because conservatives get personal in their attacks rather than substantives. That's how I know that Media Matters is kicking Republican ass. Because they just whine without any substantive criticism when MM catches them with they're pants down.

BTW, there's no Congressman named Barney Franks - it's Frank.

Various posters have done a good job demolishing the Trent Lott apologist arguments. I coincidentally read and researched a lot about the incident for something I was working on. The mainstream media did push the story relentless. The speech was on C-Span, and TV and newspapers largely ignored it in the days immediately afterwards. Bloggers and pundits were basically the ones that got people to pay attention until the rest of the media decided to stop ignoring his remarks. And many conservative blogger actually condemned Lott pretty early on. But I find it kind of silly to deflect attention to the media coverage. An act is right or wrong. A wrong act isn't made moral because some reporter that you don't like covers it.

Of course, as other's have mentioned Lott specific supported the idea of Thurmond winning the Presidency in 1948 (as a segregation) and said that that Presidential Administration. So let's not pawn it off as a general comment and ignore the specific parameters of Lott's remark.

I don't know why one should try to minimize criticism of Thurmond by calling the label "hypocritical segregationist" an assumption.

I vaguely remember the Charles Rangel remarks. Here's my explanation of the "double standard." Lott essentially said that the ascension to the highest office in land of main proponent of a broad, systematic atrocities committed against a class of citizens would have been a good thing. (Many people might take exception to the word "atrocities", but we have to repeat it again for the sake of truth. Many of our parents condoned or contributed to atrocities against their fellow Americans, and part of making amends for it involves not denying the truth.) Rangel essentially criticized people for being closing their eyes to the plight of a black by using a term that conveys (depending on one's usage) closemindedness towards the plight of black people and/or lower socio-economic class and/or lack of intelligence. Now, Rangel might have been inaccurate or mean-spirited about using a term with such class connotations and implications of racial bias. But, Rangel was nowhere near advocating a broad program of racial atrocities.

[Paul McEnery]

From what I know of the incident is this Senator Reid called the President a name he realized his mistake and as a man apologized for it. Too bad the same can't be said for John Kerry or Howard Dean.
What, for daring to oppose a war criminal? :evilangry

[comic_lover]

So you don't care about Republicans misdeeds, right? You don't care about Bush cursing about a report into a microphone. You don't care about Cheney dropping the F-bomb on the floor of the Senate against a Senator. You don't care about Cheney embracing bigot Rush Limbaugh. You don't care about Sen. Lott endorsing segregation. You don't care about Sen. Frist questioning the faith of Democrats who oppose extreme judicial nominees on non-religious grounds. You don't care about then-Gov. Bush mocking and laughing about a death row inmate who said she found Jesus. You don't care about Sen. Cornyn saying he found murdering judges understandable. You don't care about President Bush lying to the public (private accounts are an "add-on", he has "no doubt" that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, etc.). You don't care about Gov. Owens of Colorado saying that Westerners are more patriotic than Easterners and have less social problems.

I'm glad about what the Democrat party has been transformed into lately. They're not being bullied into backing away from values.What's your point ? The Republicans are just as bad.Sad. :(

[Sean Walsh]

Barney Franks recently called the Presidents Johnson, Carter, Clinton and both Bushes "rednecks" and not with any affection, and their was no media hullabaloo.

There are double standards on lots of things in this country.


Well, there can't be any hullabaloo about Barney Frank.

Because he's a gay Democrat.

BTW, many years ago his gay lover was arrested for running a gay brothel out of one of Frank's homes.

But you'll never hear about that from the media, of course.

Just like you never hear them talk about Teddy Kennedy's murderous escapades in Nantucket with Mary Jo Copechne.

That's just.....you know.....low and dirty tactics.

[Sean Walsh]

BTW, Harry Reid also called Alan Greenspan a "political hack" at a speech last week.

And the Democrats, who really really really want to work with the President!!!, just pretend it never happened and pat him on the back with more of their support.

Harry Reid is a loser. And a hack.

Sadly, most of America's just gotten WAY too stupid to see this or even care.

[Karl J. Barnes]

Just like you never hear them talk about Teddy Kennedy's murderous escapades in Nantucket with Mary Jo Copechne.

.

Oh, it gets brought up from time to time. I can remember some time in the early or mid 80s that there were numerous articles and some TV about this incident.

[Sean Walsh]

Oh, it gets brought up from time to time. I can remember some time in the early or mid 80s that there were numerous articles and some TV about this incident.

Yeah.....but mid to early '80s. A while ago....

I live in MA so I hear the radio guys always bring it up whenever Kennedy says something dumb. But I don't know how prevelant this subject is with people in other parts of the country...I assume it isn't, since the media never really mentions it (especially when they're presented with a Kennedy moment where bringing it up makes what he's saying currently look REALLY hypocritical).

[Valmore]

Well... he is a Kennedy, and for being a Kennedy, he's actually pretty well maligned in the media. (I remember seeing those SNL clips where they made fun of him. And in MAD Magazine.)

[Hiromi]

Well... he is a Kennedy, and for being a Kennedy, he's actually pretty well maligned in the media. (I remember seeing those SNL clips where they made fun of him. And in MAD Magazine.)

Well he is an oddity, a male Kennedy who wasn't killed(actually it was vice versa in his case, heh) untimely.

[west3man]

Yeah.....but mid to early '80s. A while ago....

I live in MA so I hear the radio guys always bring it up whenever Kennedy says something dumb. But I don't know how prevelant this subject is with people in other parts of the country...I assume it isn't, since the media never really mentions it (especially when they're presented with a Kennedy moment where bringing it up makes what he's saying currently look REALLY hypocritical).
I didn't know anything about it... AT ALL, (and not a whole lot, now) until the past couple years, I think.

So, if that says anything about the Southeast region of the U.S....

[fly on the wall]

So, was this inappropriate? I FEEL like it was, but I'm not completely sure why. The fact that this guy was is a senator, was speaking to the students in what I considered to be an official capacity (I dunno, though), and the fact that I'd prefer that the students be given the opportunity to make up their own minds... These are the things I've been able to express as negatives in this situation.

However, I and others have often said that we wish politicians would just be REAL, dammit. Say what the real deal is. That's what this guy did, from his own perspective. If he backed up that characterization with reasons for the students to agree with or dismiss... particularly if a good discussion developed, as a result, that could be a good thing.

What do you think?

source: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050506235309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001

"
LAS VEGAS (May 7) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser'' during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being,'' Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.''

Shortly after the event Reid called the White House to apologize, his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid spoke with Bush adviser Karl Rove, asking him to convey the apology to Bush, who was traveling in Europe.
"


Westman,

The Senator was not being 'real' by calling the President names, crude name-calling is beneath the Senator and when he realized it he apologized.

Bush isn't exactly a 'loser'. You can't get elected President twice if you are a loser. If you're calling the President names from the Senate you should at least be more accurate, that makes it better. Had the Senator called him a 'reckless jingoistic halfwit conducting a modern crusade', this would be much better.

But you don't just call the guy an 'asshole' if you are a Senator. It's too vague and crude. 'loser' isn't much better.

[Dreadstar]

But you don't just call the guy an 'asshole' if you are a Senator. It's too vague and crude. 'loser' isn't much better.

Exactly.

He could have pointed out things that he thought made Bush II a loser in his mind, in a mature manner without calling him a "loser."

See, one's a critique and the other's an insult.

Man's a senator, tact is what you need. You can be tactful and keep it "real."

[west3man]

Westman,

The Senator was not being 'real' by calling the President names, crude name-calling is beneath the Senator and when he realized it he apologized. He WAS being real if that's what he really thought of Bush.

Whether or not it was beneath him is certainly worth consideration, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Bush isn't exactly a 'loser'. You can't get elected President twice if you are a loser. If you're calling the President names from the Senate you should at least be more accurate, that makes it better. Had the Senator called him a 'reckless jingoistic halfwit conducting a modern crusade', this would be much better.

But you don't just call the guy an 'asshole' if you are a Senator. It's too vague and crude. 'loser' isn't much better.
Well, now we're getting literal, when it's clear that the Senator no more meant Bush was actually "one who loses" than "the anus of an animal, live or dead."

[Hoss]

Exactly.

He could have pointed out things that he thought made Bush II a loser in his mind, in a mature manner without calling him a "loser."

See, one's a critique and the other's an insult.

Man's a senator, tact is what you need. You can be tactful and keep it "real."


True - and the rest of this post isn't directed towards Dread. However, considering his nomination for Ambassador to the UN, I think that GW has a very different view of what mature and tactful are than most folks. Senator Reid was just engaging in the kind of "tough talk" the POTUS admires.

Come on folks? Can Bush Republicans really defend nominating John Bolton with everything he has said about the UN and the way he has acted towards people to a job that by definition means "One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others" and then criticize Reid for calling GW a loser?

And to clarify, this isn't about the merits of Bolton at the UN. This is GW's call and I'm not too worried about whether Bolton gets confirmed or not. It is about the partisan blinders that allow people to slam Reid and then praise Bolton.

[Dreadstar]

Considering I'm no Bush Republican, and don't care much for Bolton either, can I then condense this into:

"Well, the other guy's worse." ?

[Hoss]

Considering I'm no Bush Republican, and don't care much for Bolton either, can I then condense this into:

"Well, the other guy's worse." ?

Hey, I said this wasn't directed towards the liberterian. I meant it. As a third party, you actually have the credibility to say what you said.

I'm not saying that I approve of Reid or Bolton's actions. I'm pointing out that it is hypocritical for one side to blast the other. A Democrat who defends Reid's comments as being OK but blasts Bolton or Cheney is a hypocrite. A Republican who defends Bolton and Cheney but blasts Reid is one as well.

[Sean Walsh]

Westman,

The Senator was not being 'real' by calling the President names, crude name-calling is beneath the Senator and when he realized it he apologized.

Bush isn't exactly a 'loser'. You can't get elected President twice if you are a loser. If you're calling the President names from the Senate you should at least be more accurate, that makes it better. Had the Senator called him a 'reckless jingoistic halfwit conducting a modern crusade', this would be much better.

But you don't just call the guy an 'asshole' if you are a Senator. It's too vague and crude. 'loser' isn't much better.

And this isn't just some "senator," mind you -- this is the leader of the Senate Democrats.

Hardly the kind of person to be a role model, is it?

Or maybe......he is...

[Sean Walsh]

He WAS being real if that's what he really thought of Bush.

Whether or not it was beneath him is certainly worth consideration, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I've heard stories that the Democrats have more vulgar opinions of the president - one such story has an "unnamed" Democrat aide saying that behind-closed-doors meetings with Reid and other Dems refer to Bush in much worse ways.

In regards to this incident, it was something that Reid just said and didn't even think about - his own staff confronted him after the speech and pointed out (a) he said it (and he was somewhat surprised that he did), and (b) it was wrong of him to say it. A possible indicator that, to him, this is just normal thinking for him - and clues us in as to what he really thinks of Bush all the time.

[Dreadstar]

I'm not saying that I approve of Reid or Bolton's actions. I'm pointing out that it is hypocritical for one side to blast the other. A Democrat who defends Reid's comments as being OK but blasts Bolton or Cheney is a hypocrite. A Republican who defends Bolton and Cheney but blasts Reid is one as well.

Oh, sorry for being defensive.

Full concurrence, then.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I've heard stories that the Democrats have more vulgar opinions of the president - one such story has an "unnamed" Democrat aide saying that behind-closed-doors meetings with Reid and other Dems refer to Bush in much worse ways.

In regards to this incident, it was something that Reid just said and didn't even think about - his own staff confronted him after the speech and pointed out (a) he said it (and he was somewhat surprised that he did), and (b) it was wrong of him to say it. A possible indicator that, to him, this is just normal thinking for him - and clues us in as to what he really thinks of Bush all the time.

And your point is? I'm pretty sure Harry Reid does think Bush is a loser, or even worse. I'm sure Bush's opinion of Reid and most other Democrats is similar. And I'm just as sure that all politicians call each other worse names behind closed doors than "loser." Happens in every profession, I'd wager. Everybody talks badly about their competition behind their back. Reid's error was to say such a thing in a public forum.

But, besides all the hand-wringing about the "propriety" of what Reid said, the bottom line is that he said something stupid and inappropriate about the President. He apologized for it, even before it made the papers.

I can't understand why this is such a big deal. When the politicians in Washington have solved the problems with the economy, the crises in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula, health care, education, etc., then maybe we should spend a lot of time debating decorum. Until then, however, this is a tempest in a teapot.

[fly on the wall]

Oh, it gets brought up from time to time. I can remember some time in the early or mid 80s that there were numerous articles and some TV about this incident.

He and his family get lampooned quite a bit, like in the Simpsons.

The left and right wings of the media both trash Teddy Kennedy. Worse yet, no one takes him seriously let alone positively.

[Hoss]

The left and right wings of the media both trash Teddy Kennedy. Worse yet, no one takes him seriously let alone positively.

Unless you want to gain legitimacy for a "progressive" program like no child left behind. We all remember the 2002 state of the Union when the current POTUS talked about his friend Ted Kennedy. Kennedy's thing is that he is identified with liberalism in America. When liberalism is "in", then Ted Kennedy's influence and power are pretty high. However, right now the term liberal is a dirty word in America and Ted Kennedy is the poster boy . If there is a move back towards the left in this country then Kennedy's stock will rise again.

[Winslow]

I think Kennedy's political stock has fallen because of the No Child Left Behind legislation, which he co-wrote or sponsored, and is hated equally by liberals and conservatives alike.

[Sean Walsh]

I think Kennedy's political stock has fallen because of the No Child Left Behind legislation, which he co-wrote or sponsored, and is hated equally by liberals and conservatives alike.

All of whom are not in Massachusetts - which keeps electing him into office, with or without an opponent.

And he did write the education bill - and himself seems to hate it and pretends he had nothing to do with it.

[Sean Walsh]

And your point is? I'm pretty sure Harry Reid does think Bush is a loser, or even worse. I'm sure Bush's opinion of Reid and most other Democrats is similar. And I'm just as sure that all politicians call each other worse names behind closed doors than "loser." Happens in every profession, I'd wager. Everybody talks badly about their competition behind their back. Reid's error was to say such a thing in a public forum.

My problem is that he's a man who constantly complains that the president - who goes out of his way to be polite and well-spoken to Democrats; just look at how he and Clinton get along, for God's sake - refuses to work with he and other Democrats, and then goes out and calls him a "loser" in public.

And Bush should work with him.........why, exactly? Don't like him, fine; but respect his office and his place. Reid obviously has a problem doing that - and while it's OK for citizens to hate the president and not respect him, it's not OK for a fellow politician, whose priority is to take care of and serve this country and its people, to disrespect him.

[Royal]

The only thing inappropriate in this case is the Senator apologizing. Just once, I'd like to see a Democrat not back down from stating his opinion about the President. When a Democrat immediately and publicly toadies up to the Republican President for what would have to be considered a minor criticism, it's not hard to see why a lot of people think there's not much difference in the big two political parties.

And since it was teenagers who he said it to, I don't think that's relevant. A teenager can see a lot harsher stuff on TV even if their parents use the v-chip. I doubt one politician calling another a loser is going to cause any of those high-schoolers to lose any sleep.

Senator! I dub thee....KRANKOR!

http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/68/moblog_04897de692fa6.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

My problem is that he's a man who constantly complains that the president - who goes out of his way to be polite and well-spoken to Democrats; just look at how he and Clinton get along, for God's sake - refuses to work with he and other Democrats, and then goes out and calls him a "loser" in public.

And Bush should work with him.........why, exactly? Don't like him, fine; but respect his office and his place. Reid obviously has a problem doing that - and while it's OK for citizens to hate the president and not respect him, it's not OK for a fellow politician, whose priority is to take care of and serve this country and its people, to disrespect him.
Oh come on, Sean.

1) You really telling me that the Pubs haven't milked Chappaquiddick?

2) So what that Barney Frank's boyfriend was a ho?

3) So what that Reid says bad things about the President?

4) So what he and other Dems have a bad opinion of Bush. So does the majority of the World. Americans, too.

5) Why on earth should the Dems "work with" Bush. The job we put them in there to do is to oppose the jerk.

And finally, not only is it appropriate to disrespect Bush, it would be appropriate to see him share a cell with Milosovic and Saddam. He could teach them how to play pinochle. Maybe.

[Mike Smash!]

Everytime, the Dem try to "work with" or "concede to" the Republican Party, they get screwed. They're so concerned with looking mean or being called names that they usually fall back into the old pattern of "get ass kicked, talk about "unity", hold out olive branch, get ass kicked again"

The Republicans don't want to work with them, why do you think they bar them by meeting on energy policy and attack them for the gall of *gasp* acting like an opposition party.

Sadly, the Democrats walk into every trap set for them, use Republican crafted terminology, try to blur the differences between the two of them by adopting their style and acting ashamed of their own stances, and choose to not attack the premise of what the Republicans do, but their method of doing it.

During the last election and afterwards, Kerry and other Democratic leaders:

Said the PATRIOT Act was a good thing, but was mishandled.

Said that the Iraq War was a good thing, but we needed to include our Eurpoean allies.

Said that this fake Social Security crisis is real, but offered no alternatives.

Made alot of noise about Alberto Gonzalez, but refused to fillibuster him (the only way they could have stopped him) and made it just a gesture that they were fighting.

Were forced into having to comment on the Ohio recount, only after the Green and Libertarian Parties forced the issue and the blatant voter fraud and disenfranchisement that took place there in 2004 and in Florida in 2000.

And in doing so, they give credibility to the premise of all of these issues' and Bush's platform for all of them. They don't fight what he does. They fight how he does it.

The Democrats have subjugated winning elections to their own stated principles, but until they subjugate winning to their principles, they'll continue to the the party of people in love with frustration and disappointment. All packaged with the implied, "don't worry, once we get in office, we'll be really liberal!"

They're the anti-Republican Party and the two party system is the only thing holding them together. And their lameness and refusal to fight to any real degree is largely why George Bush has gotten away with as much as he has...

So yeah, George Bush is an arrogant lying prick, but then so is Harry Reid. And Rick Santorum. And Hillary Clinton. And Bill Frist. And John Kerry. All pricks.

And the sooner people get over treating these people like members of the sports team they back and more like elected officials who are sorely inadequate and give them all the broom, the better.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So yeah, George Bush is an arrogant lying prick, but then so is Harry Reid. And Rick Santorum. And Hillary Clinton. And Bill Frist. And John Kerry. All pricks.

And the sooner people get over treating these people like members of the sports team they back and more like elected officials who are sorely inadequate and give them all the broom, the better.

I'm not a big one for "what he said" sorts of posts, but it's hard to top this one. Well said, Mike.

[Samurai]

So yeah, George Bush is an arrogant lying prick, but then so is Harry Reid. And Rick Santorum. And Hillary Clinton. And Bill Frist. And John Kerry. All pricks.

And the sooner people get over treating these people like members of the sports team they back and more like elected officials who are sorely inadequate and give them all the broom, the better.
Funny, I didn't see you mention Peter Camejo or Elaine Brown as sorely inadequate pricks... You are trying to give the appearance of real impartiality when in fact you are simply partial to a 3rd party. You treat your own party as a sports team that you back no matter what just as much as anyone here does with their own party... your desire to see Elaine Brown elected even after she was shown to be an utter loon and racist by her own words is evidence of that.

[Mike Smash!]

Funny, I didn't see you mention Peter Camejo or Elaine Brown as sorely inadequate pricks... You are trying to give the appearance of real impartiality when in fact you are simply partial to a 3rd party. You treat your own party as a sports team that you back no matter what just as much as anyone here does with their own party... your desire to see Elaine Brown elected even after she was shown to be an utter loon and racist by her own words is evidence of that.I already discussed this in that other thread, but I did extensive searches and couldn't find any of the Elaine Brown quotes listed or anything remotely like them. Everything I found was positive, if not neutral. Even Wikipedia said nothing of such comments, and that was a site that was fair to Lyndon LaRouche for pity's sake!

As for Peter Camejo, based on what? That he ran for President with the Socialist Workers Party in 1976? Is that what you've got on him? I've issues with some of his takes on the 2004 Green Party primary, but I've seen nothing to put him in even the same country as people like Santorum or Frist, both of whom have shown a disgusting penchance for subjagating facts or science to ideology.

I am a partisan. I've never made bones about that. I support the Green Party and it's platform and its candidates. There are only a handful of Greens that I've met that I wouldn't want to personally associate with, none of whom get very far.

I'm not however, a blind partisan. I could very easily have a break with the Green Party in the future, if they were the go the pro-war, corrupt, corporate route that befell the Green Party of Mexico. If we went that route or merged with the Democrats or moved against my values, I'd walk.

You, on other other hand, are the worst apologist for the Republican Party line that I've ever met. I've never seen you step outside of the official talking points once and for you to lecture me is laughable at best...

[macul]

I already discussed this in that other thread, but I did extensive searches and couldn't find any of the Elaine Brown quotes listed or anything remotely like them. Everything I found was positive, if not neutral. Even Wikipedia said nothing of such comments, and that was a site that was fair to Lyndon LaRouche for pity's sake!

------

You, on other other hand, are the worst apologist for the Republican Party line that I've ever met. I've never seen you step outside of the official talking points once and for you to lecture me is laughable at best...

Yeah. I hope I'm not the only person to see the irony in this.

[Guts/Batman]

The truth sucks. It just does. We apologize for far too many things in this world?

[Mike Smash!]

Yeah. I hope I'm not the only person to see the irony in this.What, that I did a search and checked it out before responding to those charges?

Yeah, I did, including many sites that I've found, like Wikipedia, to be fair and comprehensive. I've criticized other Greens in the past. I'm an admirer of Camejo's but I've gotten quite a few headaches from a number of his more ardent supporters over the last year. And there is a pair of Nader supporting Greens in my state, who are so annoying and hostile that I've used their last name as a verb for giving a contemptous diatribe before.

I have serious disagreements with many local and national Greens.

Now, notice that when I talked about my thoughts on Samurai's blanket partisanship, which I think is over the top, I never mentioned you. Though we have our disagreements, I've never found you nearly as stubbornly and blindly acquiessant as Samurai is to whatever the Republican talking points are.

[macul]

So the interview is not authentic? Is that what you are trying to say? You could always contact the people who conducted it for more information. At least I think it was them. If there were questions to that extent of the person I was endorsing I might do a bit more than some Google searches.

http://www.proudfleshjournal.com/

[Mike Smash!]

So the interview is not authentic? Is that what you are trying to say? You could always contact the people who conducted it for more information. At least I think it was them. If there were questions to that extent of the person I was endorsing I might do a bit more than some Google searches.

http://www.proudfleshjournal.com/First of all, please don't put words in my mouth. I never called it fake. I simply did an hour long search and could not any of the quotes listed and that, crossed with the fact that people I know personally, have worked with extensively and respect have no problem with her candidacy was enough for me to stop looking.

On the other hand, you or Samurai have yet to try and defend any of the people I had on my list. Deflection's nice and it's a favorite of Rush Limbaugh, but it's a shitty debate tactic.

[phoenixrising]

*sigh*

Don't you guys know that fighting about a verbal insult this stupid is exactly what "the media" wants? They release some pointless little thing like this that in no way relates to the actual issues coming from Capitol Hill just to get all of you up in arms about something that doesn't matter as your country gets taken away piece by piece in the meantime.

Why must you all be so easily malleable?

[macul]

First of all, please don't put words in my mouth. I never called it fake. I simply did an hour long search and could not any of the quotes listed and that, crossed with the fact that people I know personally, have worked with extensively and respect have no problem with her candidacy was enough for me to stop looking.

Hey, whatever works for you. But think back to your feelings about the Democrats around election time. For the longest time I couldn't get you to say one bad thing about Dean, and the Kucinichiadoaijdfa, and then Kerry. Something made you change your mind eventually, but there was a point during which you had almost a blinding allegiance to them as well.


On the other hand, you or Samurai have yet to try and defend any of the people I had on my list. Deflection's nice and it's a favorite of Rush Limbaugh, but it's a shitty debate tactic.

Defend people I didn't and would't vote for? Why would I do that? Nice job of adding in the Limbaugh (someone you probably listen to more than I do considering I've not tuned in his show in years) comment, though. I'm sure that had a purpose. Not sure what it was, though.

Edit: wait a second...you are accusing me of deflection because I won't answer your questions about evil Republicans? Questions that are also nothing but a deflection away from this thread's topic? ;)

[Samurai]

Now, notice that when I talked about my thoughts on Samurai's blanket partisanship, which I think is over the top, I never mentioned you. Though we have our disagreements, I've never found you nearly as stubbornly and blindly acquiessant as Samurai is to whatever the Republican talking points are.
Well then, you obviously haven't been listening to me, or asking the right questions... I'm opposed to numerous Republican party issues, even some "conservative" issues.

I'm opposed to Bush's amnesty program for illegals

I'm opposed to Bush limiting govt funds for Stem Cell research (however, I'm also opposed to the lies saying he tried to ban it)

I'm opposed to prayer in school (though a non-denominational "Under God" in the pledge doesn't bother me at all)

I'm in favor of unrestricted 1st term abortions and restricted 2nd term abortions (I just 3rd term should be banned except for the life of the mother, and I believe minors need to notify their parents before getting abortions)

I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and I'm for civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage

I'm not opposed to assisted suicide... it should be a patient's right and a doctor's decision on whether they are willing to help.

Social Security needs to change if it's going to survive until I'm ready to retire, but I'm not yet convinced the President's plan is the best way to do it... I like some parts of it, not so much others.

I support the war on terror, but I think the rebuilding and planning for post-war Iraq could have been better... it slowed the implementation and effectiveness of the reconstruction.


There are many others too... I look at each issue and decide for myself how I feel about it. Many times I happen to agree with the conservative view... that's why I'm a conservative and a Republican (they are the only viable conservative-leaning party, even if I don't always agree with them). Mike, can you say that you disagree with at least this many Green Party issues? I doubt it. It seems that despite all the times I've previously mentioned the above issues, and others as well, where I disagree with the Reps, you seem to still see me as a brainwashed zombie who buys everything Bush says as though it were gospel. It seems you really don't know me at all, and you don't care to learn... I'm willing to bet that in the not-so-distant future, when I stand up for some issue I do happen to agree with the Reps on, you'll again claim I NEVER disagree with them or think for myself.

I think it comes down to an inability on your part to honestly believe ANYONE could look at the issues and come to a conclusion different from your own. If someone is a Republican, in your mind it MUST be because they are a brain-dead dupe who doesn't have an original thought in his head. Can you even concieve of someone who is as open-minded and intellectually honest as you feel yourself to be looking at a variety of issues and reaching conclusions closer to my beliefs than yours?

[spoon_jenkins]

My problem is that he's a man who constantly complains that the president - who goes out of his way to be polite and well-spoken to Democrats; just look at how he and Clinton get along, for God's sake - refuses to work with he and other Democrats, and then goes out and calls him a "loser" in public.
This is really a load of bull. President Bush is not polite toward Democrats. First of all, I think plenty of us know that it's a Presidential tactic (not just for this one) to use subordinates as proxies to engage in the more brutal rhetoric so the President appears above the fray. Cheney and Andy Card are two such proxies in the administration. Don't tell me you don't think that Card speaks without the President's okay. Folks throughout the administration use the same accusatory talking points.

Second, a lot of times the President's remarks are crafted to implicitly impugn the integrity of others. During the campaign, Bush intentionally stoked the "liberal Massachusetts" thing to build the latent regional hatred some Southerners and Westerners have towards the Northeast. Bush only pays lip service towards uniting people; he utilizes divisiveness.

He tries to paint opponents as putting "partisanship" above "doing the people's business", when that's actually what Bush is all about. He (and his cronies) spit out comments about "obstructionism" in a tone implying that opposing is dereliction of duty. Senators have a responsibilty to oppose harmful legislation.

He implies that Senate Democrats are particularly partisan in their opposition to judicial nominees. This is crap, pure and simple. Republicans in the Senate blocked 62 of Clinton's judicial nominees from getting an up or down vote. Democrats have only blocked 10 Bush nominees. Democrats have blocked the few most messed-up screwballs among Bush nominees.

Bush isn't interested in working with Democrats; he's interested in having Democrats work for him. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington, D.C. He has. He's destroyed whatever comity and compromise existed there. There was a history of using procedures to make the judicial nomination process smooth and amiable whenever possible. Clinton consulted with leading Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee about nominees. As a courtesy, President's sought the approval of the two Senators from a nominees home state. It seems Bush is seeking to dismantle cooperation.

[Valmore]

And finally, not only is it appropriate to disrespect Bush, it would be appropriate to see him share a cell with Milosovic and Saddam. He could teach them how to play pinochle. Maybe.

Pinochle? Bush can't even figure out Pokemon, let alone Pinochle. Maybe they can play War.

[Wesley Dodds]

Pinochle? Bush can't even figure out Pokemon, let alone Pinochle. Maybe they can play War.

Did you know Saddam has a giant photo of Bush in his cell?

Hmmm. They'd play something more like "hide the salami" I think...

[Hawk]

...I'm not even reading those seven pages.

What's inappropriate is the guy taking back what he said. Make a stand, dammit

[Mike Smash!]

Hey, whatever works for you. But think back to your feelings about the Democrats around election time. For the longest time I couldn't get you to say one bad thing about Dean, and the Kucinichiadoaijdfa, and then Kerry. Something made you change your mind eventually, but there was a point during which you had almost a blinding allegiance to them as well.This is categorically untrue.

I was never uncritical of Kerry. Never.

There was a period of time where, to be totally honest, I was trying to convince myself to like the guy. It was always holding my nose, and always forced. My breaking point came when I couldn't deny it any longer.

As for Dean, I never had "blind allegiance" to him. I was willing to criticize him, especially his stance on gun control, which I wasn't completely cool with. I genuinely liked Dean and supported him, but I never covered for everything he said. I always realized that I didn't match him 100%, but that was before I admitted to myself that watching him in debates was more like praying he wouldn't fail than cheering him out. Post-Gore endorsement, the guy just abandoned himself and fell into the typical pandering that we saw from Kerry later on... suddenly finding religion...etc.

As for Dennis Kucinich, he remains to this day, one of my political heroes. I stand with him on just about every issue, but to be honest I think that Democrats like Congressman Kucinich inadvertantly hurt their own goals, but giving credibility by association, to Dems like Hillary and Kerry. People like Kucinich and not Kerry, but figure if they're in the same party, Kerry can't be a total douchebag... I figure that McCain serves the same function of George Bush.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Pinochle? Bush can't even figure out Pokemon, let alone Pinochle. Maybe they can play War.

I now have this image in my head of Laura Bush and Dick Cheney trying to teach W how to play Pokemon, and Bush being even more confused than usual.

Thank you, Valmore.

[macul]

This is categorically untrue.

I was never uncritical of Kerry. Never.

There was a period of time where, to be totally honest, I was trying to convince myself to like the guy. It was always holding my nose, and always forced. My breaking point came when I couldn't deny it any longer.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I recall asking you, after you had moved your support to Kerry, what it was about Kuciniahiojpaijsdfa and Kerry that you initially did not like. My reasoning was that you didn't support these guys at first choosing Dean over either of them. There had to be something you didn't like. It isn't as if they all held the exact same position on all matters.

Your reply was basically there was nothing about them you didn't like. I think you just summed it up pretty well. You were trying to convince yourself to like the guy until you finally realized what you were doing. Whether it was personally or politically, there was something about them you didn't like and you weren't ready to admit that for a very long while.

[Valmore]

I now have this image in my head of Laura Bush and Dick Cheney trying to teach W how to play Pokemon, and Bush being even more confused than usual.

Thank you, Valmore.

If it amused you and brought a smile to your face - you're welcome.

If not... uhm, sorry?

[Alex]

Did you know Saddam has a giant photo of Bush in his cell?

Thats a form of torture, they should charge bush with war crimes.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If it amused you and brought a smile to your face - you're welcome.

If not... uhm, sorry?

Quite amusing! Thanks.

[Mike Smash!]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I recall asking you, after you had moved your support to Kerry, what it was about Kuciniahiojpaijsdfa and Kerry that you initially did not like. My reasoning was that you didn't support these guys at first choosing Dean over either of them. There had to be something you didn't like. It isn't as if they all held the exact same position on all matters.

Your reply was basically there was nothing about them you didn't like. I think you just summed it up pretty well. You were trying to convince yourself to like the guy until you finally realized what you were doing. Whether it was personally or politically, there was something about them you didn't like and you weren't ready to admit that for a very long while.In Kerry, I never said there was nothing about him I didn't like. That is untrue. I never liked his votes for the war or the PATRIOT Act or how stodgy and robotic he was...

Ask Cronin. He and I used to make fun of Kerry via AIM, even when I was backing the guy!

And the reason I initially chose Dean over Kucinich was (1)that I hadn't heard of Kucinich (2) while Dean was getting coverage and taking a very strong anti-war stance, which was the issue that pulled me into politics in the first place.

Did I have differences with Dean? Absolutely, but at the time, they seemed smaller than I thought and my opinion changed of him while backing him. I didn't jump ship to Kucinich mainly because at the time, I didn't think he could win (not that I ever did, but a point came where my ideals were proven more important to me than strategy).

It wasn't an easy decision to abandon Dean for Kucinich, especially since it happened right before the Iowa caucuses, and I was going from backing the frontrunner to someone at the rear of the pack, but to be honest, in the debates, it was Kucinich that made me smile, that made me say "damn straight". With Dean, I liked him, but the guy just seemed so uncomfortable in his own skin and it felt like he was just avoiding mistakes in debates rather than nailing points. Holding his ground, instead of gaining any.

And leaving Kucinich for Kerry was exactly what you say it was, and I realized that after about 3 months of realizing that it was the Democratic Party that I needed to abandon, not Kucinich. Frankly, I wish Kucinich would become a Green. Not at all likely, but I can hope.