Politics – Why is it that republicans who support George Bush think that saying anything bad about him is disrespecting "the office" of president?
I wouldn't paint all Republicans with as broad a brush as you have for there is a sizable percentage of them that are just as appalled at what has happened to their party as anyone else. They were blindsided by the neocons who presented themselves as being one way when they were actually the other! The fact is that some are finally beginning to "find" their voice once again and should be encouraged, not castigated!
Very good comment, John.
The republicans are really 5 disparate contingents.
1. Neocons
2. Fiscal and social conservatives
3. Religious fundamentalists who want a theocracy originally duped by neocon campaign strategists .
4. A small contingent of libertarians
5. A group of people force fed stale slogans and propaganda who neither know what the party stands for nor cares, but they are staunch republicans no matter what cause BillO says.
Amen to JQP's comment, and amen to this simple little article that points to a trend in the new emerging MEGA-MEDIA that really disturbs THIS life-long Republican... i.e. that any sort of criticism of the Bush administration is immediately cast as unpatriotic. Bush is the one who has degraded the Presidency, NOT regular Americans for God sake!
I guess I can understand (to some extent) why any administration works to cover its own ass, but WHAT IS UP with so many national commentators (O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh two of the primest examples) always trying to degrade ANYone who takes an opposing view to the White House?! It appears to be an effort to control the masses, which is not only grossly unpatriotic, it borders on being criminal. We ALL need to start paying better attention to what the FCC allows, folks. With the trend toward media conglomeration (allowed by the FCC) things are only going to get worse (if we let it).
"(O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh two of the primest [sic] examples)
"It appears to be an effort to control the masses, which is not only grossly unpatriotic, it borders on being criminal. We ALL need to start paying better attention to what the FCC allows, folks."
Yeah newswarrior, let's outlaw conservative voices on the airwaves. That sounds "democratic".
A perfect example of what namecritic was attacking.
I am not so sure that was NewsWarrior's intent. He is not trying to outlaw all conservative commentators. To be sure though, do we really need to have those behind the mic who will do nothing more than use vitriol to shout down as unpatriotic anyone who disagrees with President Dimwit?
Umm, it sure sounded like NW's intent. What was your take?
"To be sure though, do we really need to have those behind the mic who will do nothing more than use vitriol to shout down as unpatriotic anyone who disagrees with President Dimwit?"
Fine, you shut up the vitriolic Olberman and I'll shut up the vitriolic Limbaugh.
Oh, "President Dimwit"? Kinda shows your level of maturity (or lack thereof).
One difference:
Kieth Olbermann may be angry, but with good reason. ...and he is truthful. IMO, he is the Edward R. Murrow of this generation.
On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh is a disciple of supply-side Reaganomics. His mission is not the truth. His mission is to cast his flawed philosophy is the best light possible, even if it means doing so through distortion and lies.
And most historians seem to agree that President Bush will go down as the worst president in the history of his great country.
K.O. is a pompous, petty, biased, partisan snipe. Edward R. Murrow he is not.
Limbaugh spins to the right just as much as Olbermann spins to the left.
"And most historians seem to agree that President Bush will go down as the worst president in the history of his great country."
Really? Which historians do you refer to? Do tell please.
A better question would be "Which historians do not agree?" The list would be VERY short!
No, a better question would be "Why don't you list the historians you refer too"?
Answer the question instead of changing the subject.
You risk being labeled as one of those who namecritic accuses of avoiding questions, don't you agree?
History WILL be the judge...
and BTW, here's one of MANY links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
History will NOT be kind to that nimrod.
Please scott, Foner is a liberal, to put it mildly.
In the story you link to Foner himself says: "Historians are loath to predict the future." He goes right on though to do that very thing that historians loathe, doesn't he? This was written about a year ago. Does that make it "history"?
Oh, and he cherry-picks Lincoln doesn't he? If I'm not mistaken Lincoln suspended suspended habeas corpus for Americans, didn't he?
Illegal, enemy combatants never had any rights under our constitution. They are condemned by the Geneva Convention. You lose, please try again.
Not sure if you are a lawyer or not, however, you seem to be a bit lacking in terms of the law. As I recall, the USA PATRIOT Act allows the President the power to declare anyone (including US citizens) to be apprehended and put in confinement. Enemy combatant status can be thrust upon anyone, which last I checked is in direct violation of the US Constitution.
"If I'm not mistaken Lincoln suspended suspended habeas corpus for Americans, didn't he?" Of course he did you twit! He did so during a time of grave national emergency and surely you are not so stupidly foolish as to be claiming that such currently exists in this Country today are you?
Really? - condemned by the Geneva Conventions huh? The same Geneva Conventions that also outlaw waterboarding? The same Geneva Conventions that Bushie boy says we are not required to follow in certain instances?
TONY:
"Umm, it sure sounded like NW's intent. What was your take?"
My take is that NEWSWARRIOR is urging us to be more vigilant media consumers. Just because the FCC allows something to be aired does not mean that news article is free from bias, political/personal agenda, and misleading assertions. I don't think NEWSWARRIOR wants to "outlaw [all] conservative voices on the airwaves," especially since NEWSWARRIOR himself admits that he is a "life-long Republican." Or did you miss this detail in your rush to condemn him?
TONY:
"You shut up the vitriolic Olberman and I'll shut up the vitriolic Limbaugh."
Olbermann's news commentary personality was only created in response to people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin. So, "shut them up" and Olbermann will also fall silent in response.
Ybdogsct,"Just because the FCC allows something to be aired does not mean that news article is free from bias, political/personal agenda, and misleading assertions."
No kidding, that's not their job. There are those who would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (born 1949, died 1987). It is a liberal dream though. NW mentioned only Bill and Rush in reference to "paying better attention to what the FCC allows,...". Whether he is a life-long Republican or not makes not one whit of difference to me.
You made me chuckle here: "Olbermann's news commentary personality was only created in response to people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin. So, "shut them up" and Olbermann will also fall silent in response." If I shut up 5 conservative voices one liberal voice will "fall silent"? What can I trade for the NYTimes, WAPO, Bostglobe, LAtimes, NBC, CNN, NPR,...Thanks for the laugh.
Yah Tony, don't forget it was one of your icons who vetoed the Truth in Telecommunications Act with BS rationales too. So why not allow both sides to be presented regardless of time, particularly if that is the only medium in some areas?
Our current bush appointed FCC Chief would love to allow big media to further control the smaller limited markets - like the Repug energy bill has thrown out the anti-monopoly laws from the 1930s. What greed adn evil from the repugs put into action daily for more power and control!
TONY:
"There are those who would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine"
The Fairness Doctrine does NOT attempt to control the views of reporters and commentators. It only asks that news outlets demonstrate their commitment to public service by giving both political sides an equal opportunity to respond on air. What's the matter? Don't you like your news outlets to be "fair and balanced"?
TONY:
"What can I trade for the NYTimes, WAPO, Bostglobe, LAtimes, NBC, CNN, NPR"
How about a conservative print news affiliate that has as many Pulitzers as the NYTimes, Boston Globe, and LA Times have? (Oh, I'm sorry. There is NO conservative print affiliate with nearly as many Pulitzers). Or how about a conservative broadcast news outlet that has won as many Peabodies as PBS, NPR, CNN, and NBC? (Oh wait. There is NO conservative print affiliate with nearly as many Peabodies either.) Thank YOU for the laugh, Tony. It goes to show just how reliable your news sources are.
Another post with the sole purpose to slam the president and give all the anti-Bushies another propaganda platform. To say that all Republicans are neocons & believe that attacks on the president are unpatriotic is in itself a leftist lie. Republicans & Dems with a brain in their head knows the difference in a personal attack on the President or a legitimate attack on his or his parties politics. There's a big difference between calling the President a dimwit, a drunken dope head and so on, and calling the war policy stupid. And what makes the righteous think that all conservatives think lock step w/ O'Reilly or Limbaugh? The liberals put this out as another lie no better than than the lies about people who disagree with the war as being unpatriotic. This post was interesting in that it gave a good list of all the lies put out by liberals against conservatives. The bloggers jump right in and then add more lies. The biggest lie of all is accusing the other side of lies.
When the former Repug led 109th Congress so blatantly supported this president and committed so many other evils, the real nature of the repugs is obvious! Newt lied in his Contract to America. Stevens' bridges to nowhere and his position that the Big oil CEOs don't even have to pledge to tell the truth to Congress. A medicare prescription bill that mandates no negotiating lower drug prices. Hastert doing nothing to improve congressinal ethics after either the Foley or Abramoff scandals. All those earmarks (almost 20,000 in 2006 alone) of the sole source, no audit kind in violation of US procurement law. Sensenbrenner shutting down the testimony on Patriot Act renewal by turning off the mikes and just walking out. (continued)
(continuation) Suppoting torture, Gitmo, loss of habeas corpus for detainees, eavesdrpping w/o a warrant on Americans, preemptive war, the first political assasination by our military, denying 10 million more poor kids health support, throwing out all the anti-monopoly laws of the 1930s meant to protect Americans... such evil the Repugs have supported and still back Dumya's vetos of!
Gosh donald51, since the dems have had the majority for a year why haven't they reversed or prevented all these "evils"?
Because a slim majority isn't enough to overcome veto power, TB. Especially with people like Joe "I'll caucus with the Democrats if you elect me as an Independent" Leiberman in office.
Just wait until the Dems have a true majority with more than 60 seats in the Senate come 2008 (we won 9 out of 13 contested seats in the last election). Yes, it will happen. And with a real leader for change in the White House! Say it with me now: President Obama!
cosmogenium
"Because a slim majority isn't enough to overcome veto power",
Good point! So how did the other 108 congresses (over the last 200 years) manage to get things done without a 60% majority?
Presidential vetoes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Sta...
George Washington 1st veto April 5 1792
Total vetoes to date (1792 to 2008) 2556
Total vetoes overridden to date (1792 to 2008) 107
Percentage vetoes overridden (1792 to 2008) 4%
You would be hard pressed to come up with a more lame, whinny excuse than that.
Strangely enough you did.
"TB. Especially with people like Joe "I'll caucus with the Democrats if you elect me as an Independent" Leiberman in office."
That would be Sen. Joe Leiberman, the ones the Dems tried to "S"can but failed, thus making Sen. Joe Leiberman a "King Maker" in the Senate"
"Just wait until the Dems have a true majority"
Is there a "False" Majority?
"with more than 60 seats in the Senate come 2008 (we won 9 out of 13 contested seats in the last election)."
With a 37% turnout in a midterm election. If your "stare" hangs on the hope of another 37% turnout, prepare to be disappointed.
Since it is highly likely that the American electorate will choose a democrat as President this year having an overwhelming democratic majority in both the House and Senate is not necessarily a good thing. It can be shown that the government has run best when those in the White House and the Capitol are from different parties. The few times that one Party has controlled both for any significant period of time there have been egregious excesses and abuses of power - the current administration is a prime example of this!
What you and your ilk so studiously ignore is that is years past there was practiced an art form unknown by todays republicans and that is the art of compromise for you see the republicans in both the House and Senate have betrayed their respective Oaths of Office and the American citizens that elected them by placing party loyalty and allegiance to a failed political ideology over and above the needs of the Nation!
The American people are aware of the stonewalling of the republicans and come this November will express their displeasure by once again firmly relegating the republicans in Congress to well deserved and earned minority status and though you can, and certainly will, try and spin it otherwise the fact remains that you have brought this upon yourselves!
"Because a slim majority isn't enough to overcome veto power, TB. Especially with people like Joe "I'll caucus with the Democrats if you elect me as an Independent" Leiberman in office."
Yep, that will do it. One vote changes everything.
America didn't elect an overwhelming democrat majority for a reason.
From one old fart to another ;)
"Because a slim majority isn't enough to overcome veto power, TB.
With as much whiny BS about Presidential Vetoes and and the Dem NEED a 60 seat majority to get ANYTHING done. I looked it up, NO party has had a 60 seat majority since 1979!
So do the Dems really need a 60-seat majority or are they really that pathetic?
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_it...
Congress / Years with 60 seat majority
95th Congress (1977-1979) Dem (61 seats) Repub (38 seats) Total Seats: 100
94th Congress (1975-1977) Dem (60 seats) Repub (38 seats) Total Seats: 100
90th Congress (1967-1969) Dem (64 seats) Repub (36 seats) Total Seats: 100
89th Congress (1965-1967) Dem (68 seats) Repub (32 seats) Total Seats: 100
88th Congress (1963-1965) Dem (66 seats) Repub (34 seats) Total Seats: 100
87th Congress (1961-1963) Dem (64 seats) Repub (36 seats) Total Seats: 100
86th Congress (1959-1961) Dem (65 seats) Repub (35 seats) Total Seats: 100
Not a member? Sign-up today!
denilsonzx
elliotthicks1965
daviant701973
getbackerzoo
adrielh791966
leeharris1969
mp3_music_fan
Radiofreeeuropa
jonathanphillips
WorldClassPoet
Oxyon
PSIAII
Helixbuilder
orlando37
BJTJ
totalmania
MidnightPrism
ML2007
aceofspades1
Itachirumon
jovial
ShadowX
splitrch
baddad59
macpoff
suznmy
schristoforides
Wolfie2007
Ratskii
allasam
JOEY EVANS
scott4261
lamalanga
simonsez
Artists and Writers
spkguy
kwilco
lenseview
cosmogenium
Tadalafil
david_nwpa
GrainOfSand
Bacalao
doppich
cschisser
179)
Come on now!
Just because O'reilly claimed that Sweden's suicide rate was the highest in the world when it's really 35th, and that his facts aren't even half right doesn't make him any less entertaining than that drunk I see at the bar every few weeks.
Of course the drunk knows he's just spouting crap.
And the drunk doesn't have a national audience.
...and the drunk is not on a network that claims to be "fair and balanced"!
... and the drunk doesn't work for Roger Ailes, one of the most biggotted people in news!
...and the drunk could care less how the stock market ends each day while everyone at Fox has a new year's wish not for peace, but for more stock profits! I know, I watched their new year's wishes one early january first!
Hey everyone, the town drunk and I would like you to hold the noise down. He is trying to make a point about something. Tell that blathering idiot O'Reilly to shut his yap too. I cannot hear what is being said about how global warming is caused by polar bears.
He is a pathological lier. You can see him fighting himself to get the lies out...I blame these guys for the dumbing down of America.
Hear, hear!