From the Wall Street Journal:
In the days after the successful mission to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, White House officials recoiled at any suggestion they would frame his death in a political context. One year later, Republicans say they are doing exactly that.
A new Obama campaign Web video spotlights former President Bill Clinton praising President Obama's decision to order the mission and questions whether Republican challenger Mitt Romney would have done the same.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Republicans, of course, would never engage in such tactics. Their way is always truth, honor, and justice....except when it's not.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg/220px-Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg)
Quote from: Ed W on April 28, 2012, 09:05:28 PM
Republicans, of course, would never engage in such tactics. Their way is always truth, honor, and justice....except when it's not.
The difference, of course, being that crowing over your lack of achievement and calling it "mission accomplished" is just humor. When you've actually accomplished the mission, pointing that fact out in response to claims you're "weak on defense" is boorish gloating.
What's really funny is how everyone expects Republicans to be complete smile heels, so nobody really cares when they are. The Republicans, however, expect Democrats to be perfectly civil and extremely mindful of decorum and whine loudly when they are not. For the party that calls itself the tough one, they sure act like wimps. I suspect it's just an extension of the persecution complex that many of their hangers-on harbor.
Quote from: Ed W on April 28, 2012, 09:05:28 PM
From the Wall Street Journal:
In the days after the successful mission to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, White House officials recoiled at any suggestion they would frame his death in a political context. One year later, Republicans say they are doing exactly that.
A new Obama campaign Web video spotlights former President Bill Clinton praising President Obama's decision to order the mission and questions whether Republican challenger Mitt Romney would have done the same.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Any chance of you quoting the entire article? I choose not to subscribe to the WSJ just to get one article.
Click this link, then click through to the article: Google News Search (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Republicans+Decry+Obama+Campaign+Video+)
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2012, 09:30:21 PM
What's really funny is how everyone expects Republicans to be complete smile heels, so nobody really cares when they are. The Republicans, however, expect Democrats to be perfectly civil and extremely mindful of decorum and whine loudly when they are not.
The Democrats promote themselves as the politically correct, never offending anybody....... party. There's no sense in letting an opportunity to point out that they are not to slip by.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2012, 11:28:32 PM
Click this link, then click through to the article: Google News Search (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Republicans+Decry+Obama+Campaign+Video+)
Thanks
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 28, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
The Democrats promote themselves as the politically correct, never offending anybody....... party.
No. Some Democrats think that's what the party should be. Many others do not. Kinda like some Republicans believe in evolution and others don't.
I think most all Democrats do believe they shouldn't be racist, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced against others merely for the circumstances of their birth. That is not at all the same thing as saying they don't want to offend anybody or care much about being nice.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
That is not at all the same thing as saying they don't want to offend anybody or care much about being nice.
Then they need to work on their presentation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 28, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Then they need to work on their presentation.
Given that the only things the part of the Republican party that is presently electing people to office hear about the Democrats comes from right wing talk radio, I don't think presentation is really the problem here. The problem is that the part of the electorate with the most influence over the party only ever hears one side of the story.
The Democrats, for better or worse, don't suffer from the same problem (or enjoy the same luxury, if you prefer). By and large, only moderate Democrats get elected in most of the country, and they don't have the big messaging machine that the Republicans have. That's not to say that the left "wing" (more aptly described as "a feather with a bit of gristle"..not my invention) didn't try with Air America, but they haven't really been successful. I guess the best effort so far is the MSNBC of the last few years, but they still get less than half the viewers Fox News does.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 28, 2012, 11:21:58 PM
Any chance of you quoting the entire article? I choose not to subscribe to the WSJ just to get one article.
I think the links on Google News go directly to the piece, circumventing any paywall. But I could be wrong. Also, I've learned there's a way around the newly installed 10 article limit on the New York Times site, though I haven't had a need for it yet. Dunno if it works with the Whirled.
I normally use excerpts because they're protected as a fair use of the material, though AP tried to insist that as few as 5 words constituted theft of their rights at one time. Dunno if they ever pursued anyone for it. I'd be unhappy to find that someone took one of my pieces in its entirety, so I'm careful to extend that same courtesy to others.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2012, 11:59:30 PM
Given that the only things the part of the Republican party that is presently electing people to office hear about the Democrats comes from right wing talk radio, I don't think presentation is really the problem here. The problem is that the part of the electorate with the most influence over the party only ever hears one side of the story.
You are over simplifying or in denial of what an acceptable alternative is. Someone here (I don't remember who at the moment.) poo-pooed the concept of looking at a candidate's philosophy as opposed to what they have/will accomplish. I think a candidate's philosophy is still important. If enough candidates with a like philosophy get elected, it creates a majority and their philosophy becomes law within some limits. I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy. I will admit there are several in the OK legislature that need to be voted out just to make sure we don't get more "Personhood" type bills. As I told Heiron, give us some acceptable alternatives, acceptable to Republicans.
Quote
The Democrats, for better or worse, don't suffer from the same problem (or enjoy the same luxury, if you prefer). By and large, only moderate Democrats get elected in most of the country, and they don't have the big messaging machine that the Republicans have. That's not to say that the left "wing" (more aptly described as "a feather with a bit of gristle"..not my invention) didn't try with Air America, but they haven't really been successful. I guess the best effort so far is the MSNBC of the last few years, but they still get less than half the viewers Fox News does.
You are focusing on the media presentation. That is only part of what I had in mind.
Quote
I think most all Democrats do believe they shouldn't be racist, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced against others merely for the circumstances of their birth.
In order to show this, words become unacceptable or otherwise politically incorrect. Other words are chosen to take their place until they too become unacceptable as they develop the same derogatory connotations the old words did because the new words did not fix the underlying problem.
Quote from: Ed W on April 29, 2012, 10:48:06 AM
I think the links on Google News go directly to the piece, circumventing any paywall. But I could be wrong. Also, I've learned there's a way around the newly installed 10 article limit on the New York Times site, though I haven't had a need for it yet. Dunno if it works with the Whirled.
I normally use excerpts because they're protected as a fair use of the material, though AP tried to insist that as few as 5 words constituted theft of their rights at one time. Dunno if they ever pursued anyone for it. I'd be unhappy to find that someone took one of my pieces in its entirety, so I'm careful to extend that same courtesy to others.
I understand and agree with the copyright issues. The little bit of writing style lessons I remember about newspapers is the the glory stuff comes first. Supporting details come later. Judgement about the supporting details can lead to a different analysis of the glory stuff.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 11:08:29 AM
I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy.
Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans. The right wing's demonization of the term "liberal" has had quite a significant effect.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans.
Depends on the policy and what part of the country you are in.
Quote
The right wing's demonization of the term "liberal" has had quite a significant effect.
Care to explain why the left wing's demonization of "conservative" hasn't been as successful? It's NOT all FOX News. This has been going on for more than the 15 years FOX news has been on the air/cable. (I think it's their 15th anniversary they just celebrated.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 05:54:17 PM
Care to explain why the left wing's demonization of "conservative" hasn't been as successful? It's NOT all FOX News. This has been going on for more than the 15 years FOX news has been on the air/cable. (I think it's their 15th anniversary they just celebrated.)
Probably because the "mainstream" Democrats have been moving in that direction for 25 years now. Why would they demonize the ideology they are moving toward? It makes no sense. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but I don't really feel like getting deep into our nation's change from having a market economy to a market society and how it relates to the historical left/right divide at the moment.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2012, 06:39:09 PM
Probably because the "mainstream" Democrats have been moving in that direction for 25 years now. Why would they demonize the ideology they are moving toward? It makes no sense.
So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 10:00:00 PM
So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.
Which nearly every politician right now is full of.
But the wacko righties seem to have it down pat.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 10:00:00 PM
So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.
No. The
electorate supports many "leftist" policies as long as you don't call them "liberal." The
elected, on the other hand, have been moving rightward. Or more correctly, they've been moving toward the philosophy shared with Republicans that we should have a market society, not merely a market economy. The electorate does not believe everything should be for sale. Our "betters", in both parties, disagree.
That's not to say that the parties are identical, by any means, but on that one point there is little contention in mainstream US political thought.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
No. The electorate supports many "leftist" policies as long as you don't call them "liberal."
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The electorate agrees with many centrist policies, which may seem leftist to some, but the electorate is not as left or liberal as many left of center would like. I expect we will have to disagree on this one.
Quote from: Hoss on April 29, 2012, 10:36:35 PM
Which nearly every politician right now is full of.
But the wacko righties seem to have it down pat.
The wacko righties are like teenage terrible drivers, just enough to skew the statistics.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 11:05:57 PM
The wacko righties are like teenage terrible drivers, just enough to skew the statistics.
The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 12:10:32 AM
The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.
Depends on where you draw the wacko line. You seem to draw it anywhere to the right of Obama.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2012, 12:10:32 AM
The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.
When I say 'wacko righties', I mean those who sort of fall under the Santorum way of thinking. No birth control, etc, etc....I wouldn't consider Boehner a 'wacko'. A little bronze, maybe...
This year is going to suck. The left is pissed off because Romney didn't slap down a question about Obama and "treason"? Sheesh...
Quote from: guido911 on May 07, 2012, 05:07:59 PM
This year is going to suck. The left is pissed off because Romney didn't slap down a question about Obama and "treason"? Sheesh...
He should slap her down because she probably doesn't vote.
Quote from: Townsend on May 07, 2012, 05:12:20 PM
He should slap her down because she probably doesn't vote.
That's more like it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 11:04:31 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The electorate agrees with many centrist policies, which may seem leftist to some, but the electorate is not as left or liberal as many left of center would like. I expect we will have to disagree on this one.
Which shows how far right the hijacked Republican party has been able to pull the country.
And why Obama is a Republican and Reagan was a moderate.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 29, 2012, 11:08:29 AM
You are over simplifying or in denial of what an acceptable alternative is. Someone here (I don't remember who at the moment.) poo-pooed the concept of looking at a candidate's philosophy as opposed to what they have/will accomplish. I think a candidate's philosophy is still important. If enough candidates with a like philosophy get elected, it creates a majority and their philosophy becomes law within some limits. I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy. I will admit there are several in the OK legislature that need to be voted out just to make sure we don't get more "Personhood" type bills. As I told Heiron, give us some acceptable alternatives, acceptable to Republicans.
You are focusing on the media presentation. That is only part of what I had in mind.
In order to show this, words become unacceptable or otherwise politically incorrect. Other words are chosen to take their place until they too become unacceptable as they develop the same derogatory connotations the old words did because the new words did not fix the underlying problem.
Looking at philosophy should be an indicator of what may be possible to accomplish. And yet, so often, isn't. The biggest part of the problem is the absolute disconnect between stated philosophy and actions performed and accomplished.
You have been shown a very acceptable list of alternatives (and I personally have even expressed approval of Tom Coburn, even with his right wing leanings - proving my abilitiy to support an acceptable alternative, even if I don't agree with all of it). The problem is that you have absorbed so much of the Kool-Aid that you cannot accept that there are exceptional alternatives to the one in particular (Inhofe), and that inability to retreat from the extremist position even an inch shows that it is NOT about acceptable alternatives, but IS about the dogma. In this case, no matter how much extra money Inhofe has cost the taxpayers with his past grafty actions, his vicious lies and unjust/untrue attacks on opponents (that right there is called evil - or politics...), and no matter how ineffective he was for SO many years representing the voters of this state (couldn't even get a committee appointment for his first few terms as representative), as long as he gives the philosophical lip service, the actions/results just don't matter. As so many Oklahomans believe and vote.
Nothing but the extremist position would be "good" enough. How sad...
Dan Boren. Would make a very good Senator to complement Coburn.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2012, 09:00:16 PM
Looking at philosophy should be an indicator of what may be possible to accomplish. And yet, so often, isn't. The biggest part of the problem is the absolute disconnect between stated philosophy and actions performed and accomplished.
You have been shown a very acceptable list of alternatives (and I personally have even expressed approval of Tom Coburn, even with his right wing leanings - proving my abilitiy to support an acceptable alternative, even if I don't agree with all of it). The problem is that you have absorbed so much of the Kool-Aid that you cannot accept that there are exceptional alternatives to the one in particular (Inhofe), and that inability to retreat from the extremist position even an inch shows that it is NOT about acceptable alternatives, but IS about the dogma. In this case, no matter how much extra money Inhofe has cost the taxpayers with his past grafty actions, his vicious lies and unjust/untrue attacks on opponents (that right there is called evil - or politics...), and no matter how ineffective he was for SO many years representing the voters of this state (couldn't even get a committee appointment for his first few terms as representative), as long as he gives the philosophical lip service, the actions/results just don't matter. As so many Oklahomans believe and vote.
Nothing but the extremist position would be "good" enough. How sad...
Dan Boren. Would make a very good Senator to complement Coburn.
You need to get a hobby.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2012, 09:05:23 PM
You need to get a hobby.
Got one! Trying to help you back to the light!
I know you didn't start this way....you passed engineering school for crying out loud!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2012, 09:20:02 PM
Got one! Trying to help you back to the light!
You have a distorted view of back to the light. I would try to do the same for you but I really think you have gone to the dark side forever. When will you have your final Darth Vader moment. Hopefully before your death bed so you can enjoy life again.
Quote
I know you didn't start this way....you passed engineering school for crying out loud!
Funny, I kind of have the same thoughts about you. What happened to you?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2012, 09:25:27 PM
You have a distorted view of back to the light. I would try to do the same for you but I really think you have gone to the dark side forever. When will you have your final Darth Vader moment. Hopefully before your death bed so you can enjoy life again.
Funny, I kind of have the same thoughts about you. What happened to you?
I stayed in the center. Fiscal conservative, social moderate. Well, almost center...
(And having a continuous Stealers Wheel moment my entire life....how will I ever get down the stairs?)
I believe in things like personal liberty - as in limiting the role of government in peoples lives - and that means women's lives, people who want to enjoy a touch of mother nature, as well as staying out of people's way to start a business, make a living and become wealthy doing it - as much as possible. And many more. Those pesky little liberties so oft quoted by the extremists as being in the Constitution, but then repudiated by their meddling actions. And that the government has the duty to protect it's citizens rather than act as a shield to certain "chosen ones" to impose their vested interests on the rest of us.
And lest you think I am just going after your side, no, I am not - the left has it's own problems with personal liberty as in trying to dictate to me what type of casual sporting activity I "should or should not" indulge in. And they have been getting worse about it since 1968!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2012, 09:30:24 PM
I stayed in the center. Fiscal conservative, social moderate. Well, almost center...
You need to visit an optometrist. A good pair of eye glasses would help you see your positions more accurately. You are putting too much weight on the right side of the distribution.
Edit:
I know what happened..... You killed a LOT more of your brain cells in the 60s and 70s than I did. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
You need to visit an optometrist. A good pair of eye glasses would help you see your positions more accurately. You are putting too much weight on the right side of the distribution.
Edit:
I know what happened..... You killed a LOT more of your brain cells in the 60s and 70s than I did. ;D
Go back...I made edits...
Yep, do need new glasses...got some John Lennon's now...says so on the carrying case!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2012, 09:47:03 PM
Go back...I made edits...
It's not worth my time to review your posts since Jan 2010.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2012, 10:12:31 PM
It's not worth my time to review your posts since Jan 2010.
And yet, you just keep getting pulled back in....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
And yet, you just keep getting pulled back in....
Don't try to take away all my fun.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2012, 10:40:15 PM
Don't try to take away all my fun.
Wouldn't think of it at all...the more you participate, the more opportunity to help you on this journey to enlightenment! I will continue to help and guide, to bring you to that "center" that everyone should enjoy - being in balance with nature and your true inner self. Rust never sleeps!