08-30-2004, 10:58 AM
Even before Pres Bush was innaugurated, after what was an ugly revelation that election mechanics in the United States are laced with buffoonery -- highlighted by Florida of course -- the assault on him began: shrill, loud, and angry.
"He disenfranchised voters."
"He stole the election."
"Moron."
"Frat boy."
There were claims that President Bush was culpable for 9/11, in that it was deliberately allowed to happen. Like the man or not, like his policies or not, that kind of crap is complete BS.
"We need a regime change, we need to disarm America."
(If you advocate disarming America, you admit that you want chaos and anarchy in the rest of the world. Good for you, the death toll will just go up. See Rwanda for a fine example of just letting things go, Serbreniza, Kuwait 1991. When America sits back, that is what you get.)
The deliberate allusion to the regime change policy statement in re Saddam Hussein was one of the Left's many sound bytes. It is also characteristic of the worst in liberalism, those who hate an America unfettered by constraints to sovereignty. Of course, my comment on regime change at that time was, and remains, "there may well be one in November of 2004. Make sure you vote your conscience." We lived through 8 years of WJ Clinton, I am sure we can survive 4 or 8 years of GW Bush. ;)
Then the real idiocy began. "No BLood for Oil" about the Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. What a crock. That was retribution, plain and simple. It continues. (Gee, big surprise. Still in Bosnia too.)
Of course, the administration did itself no favors by squandering Secretary Powell's credibility on the UN briefing. Used him.
I heard from the Left that it is censorship for a privately owned radio station to stop playing records if they did not care for an artist. That happens all the time, typically when a record stinks. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I imagine it is because a bunch of station owners thought their attitude stunk. (Me, I don't give two craps about them, was never a fan in the first place.) You don't have a right to be successful, you have to earn it. If you throw your hat into the political ring, you have to be brave enough to accept the consequences of your actions. Politics is played by Jungle Rules, it is ugly.
Deal with it.
The sheer venom in the anti-Bush rhetoric was repulsive. Unlike Vice President Gore's speech, in which he noted that he disagreed with but would accept the Supreme Court's ruling*, the opponents of President Bush have done little to show much class. It is the shrillness that churns my stomach, not the issues of disagreement, many of which are concerns of my own.
*(one of the finest pieces of public speaking I have ever seen him do ; indeed, had he been left alone by his handlers to just be himself, I think he'd have won the election. No wooden Al.)
I do not know how much of the venom was in pure retaliation against the venomous rhetoric against President Clinton during the #$%&*@# caper, and how much was for other reasons.
To characterize the two party's rhetoric as "the same" seems an apples and oranges comparison. Terry McAullife went on the attack about President Bush and the Air National Guard bit. DNC. Not a 527 group, the head of the DNC. That slam has been, of course, returned. I don't see it getting any better, but it shows real moral cowardice to me that the attempted remedy is CENSORSHIP!
"YOU CAN"T SAY THAT"
Actually, yes they can. First Ammendment. You can say what you please, though the libel and slander statutes could use, I think, some tightening up. Facts would be NICE!!!
Does it reflect well on the Bush campaign if they endorse personal attacks on Senator Kerry? Not as I see it. Their best ammunition is Senator Kerry's record in the Senate.
Does it reflect well on the Kerry campaign that they make personal attack on the President, Vice President, etc? No. Issues and vision would be interesting, not empty rhetoric like"I could find a better solution, and let someone else do it." Yeah, who else? What course of action that might actually work? I am dying to here it, dear sir.
Who to vote for? Is either worth voting for?
OK, who to vote against?
Damnit, not again! This is getting old. :angry:
Occhi
"He disenfranchised voters."
"He stole the election."
"Moron."
"Frat boy."
There were claims that President Bush was culpable for 9/11, in that it was deliberately allowed to happen. Like the man or not, like his policies or not, that kind of crap is complete BS.
"We need a regime change, we need to disarm America."
(If you advocate disarming America, you admit that you want chaos and anarchy in the rest of the world. Good for you, the death toll will just go up. See Rwanda for a fine example of just letting things go, Serbreniza, Kuwait 1991. When America sits back, that is what you get.)
The deliberate allusion to the regime change policy statement in re Saddam Hussein was one of the Left's many sound bytes. It is also characteristic of the worst in liberalism, those who hate an America unfettered by constraints to sovereignty. Of course, my comment on regime change at that time was, and remains, "there may well be one in November of 2004. Make sure you vote your conscience." We lived through 8 years of WJ Clinton, I am sure we can survive 4 or 8 years of GW Bush. ;)
Then the real idiocy began. "No BLood for Oil" about the Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. What a crock. That was retribution, plain and simple. It continues. (Gee, big surprise. Still in Bosnia too.)
Of course, the administration did itself no favors by squandering Secretary Powell's credibility on the UN briefing. Used him.
I heard from the Left that it is censorship for a privately owned radio station to stop playing records if they did not care for an artist. That happens all the time, typically when a record stinks. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I imagine it is because a bunch of station owners thought their attitude stunk. (Me, I don't give two craps about them, was never a fan in the first place.) You don't have a right to be successful, you have to earn it. If you throw your hat into the political ring, you have to be brave enough to accept the consequences of your actions. Politics is played by Jungle Rules, it is ugly.
Deal with it.
The sheer venom in the anti-Bush rhetoric was repulsive. Unlike Vice President Gore's speech, in which he noted that he disagreed with but would accept the Supreme Court's ruling*, the opponents of President Bush have done little to show much class. It is the shrillness that churns my stomach, not the issues of disagreement, many of which are concerns of my own.
*(one of the finest pieces of public speaking I have ever seen him do ; indeed, had he been left alone by his handlers to just be himself, I think he'd have won the election. No wooden Al.)
I do not know how much of the venom was in pure retaliation against the venomous rhetoric against President Clinton during the #$%&*@# caper, and how much was for other reasons.
To characterize the two party's rhetoric as "the same" seems an apples and oranges comparison. Terry McAullife went on the attack about President Bush and the Air National Guard bit. DNC. Not a 527 group, the head of the DNC. That slam has been, of course, returned. I don't see it getting any better, but it shows real moral cowardice to me that the attempted remedy is CENSORSHIP!
"YOU CAN"T SAY THAT"
Actually, yes they can. First Ammendment. You can say what you please, though the libel and slander statutes could use, I think, some tightening up. Facts would be NICE!!!
Does it reflect well on the Bush campaign if they endorse personal attacks on Senator Kerry? Not as I see it. Their best ammunition is Senator Kerry's record in the Senate.
Does it reflect well on the Kerry campaign that they make personal attack on the President, Vice President, etc? No. Issues and vision would be interesting, not empty rhetoric like"I could find a better solution, and let someone else do it." Yeah, who else? What course of action that might actually work? I am dying to here it, dear sir.
Who to vote for? Is either worth voting for?
OK, who to vote against?
Damnit, not again! This is getting old. :angry:
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete