Other Disaffected Republicans?

[GDollars37]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

An easy example is the chairman of the Democratic Party (at the time he was a candidate for the nomination) implying that Bush had prior knowledge and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Rather than ignore or denounce this lunancy, Dean gives it national attenton, call it an "interesting theory "and then mealymouths a statement that he is not sure if it is true. Dean is not some fringe nut. He is the chairman of the party.

[/quote]

Great example.

[Professor_X]

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

An easy example is the chairman of the Democratic Party (at the time he was a candidate for the nomination) implying that Bush had prior knowledge and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Rather than ignore or denounce this lunancy, Dean gives it national attenton, call it an "interesting theory "and then mealymouths a statement that he is not sure if it is true. Dean is not some fringe nut. He is the chairman of the party.

Great example.[/quote]

Is it?

I found this from http://mediamatters.org/items/200407280006

ABC Radio and FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity admitted, in a July 27 interview with The Al Franken Show co-host Al Franken, that he had accused former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean of “saying that the president knew about 9-11 ahead of time” and said that he “misspoke” when he made the accusation. Confronted with audio from the May 11 edition of FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, during which Hannity repeated the accusation against Dean, Hannity said, “You’re right. You’re right. … I’ll concede your point.”

As Media Matters for America previously noted, Salon.com senior writer Eric Boehlert reported on January 13 what Dean actually said as a guest on the December 1, 2003, edition of The Diane Rehm Show (a daily talk show on NPR member station WAMU in Washington, DC, with a weekly nationwide audience of 1.4 million): “When Rehm asked Dean in a Dec. 1 interview why he thought Bush wasn’t more forthcoming with the commission investigating the terrorist attacks, Dean replied, ‘The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.’”

Challenged by Franken as to whether he had accused Dean of “saying that the president knew about 9-11 ahead of time,” Hannity claimed on The Al Franken Show that “99 percent of the time,” he qualifies the assertion by saying Dean “advanced the theory.” Although Hannity has often said Dean “advanced the theory,” MMFA discovered numerous other examples of Hannity on FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes more directly distorting Dean’s statement:

Why is information so crossed?

[vroom]

But the Democrats are doing a worse job than has ever been done before. And it’s letting Republicans define them.

With respect to the concept of being defined, this is an area where the republicans are shining.

See ProfX’s blurb about FOX news mischaracterizing Howard Dean’s statements.

The right is getting very good at twisting the stance and message coming from the left and blasting it out to the public as a mischaracterization. This little trick is becoming very common here on the forums as well.

The democrats aren’t letting themselves get defined by a lack of message, the republicans have become very adept at mischaracterizing what the democrats are saying and setting the democrats up to be a radical fringe group of haters, and many are eating this up hook, line and sinker.

The fact that it comes from Hannity, perhaps, or some other mouthpiece, does not stop it from getting spread around and commented on – it simply gives the republicans an easy way to denounce the left, as usual, by taking the statements made by an “entertainment” source as a “news” source.

If you don’t see it, fine, but don’t by any stretch of the imagination assume that half of your entire country is deluded and misguided and then go on to further claim that you have faith in the general electorate.

To go back a bit, the republicans have easy access to issues that are almost guaranteed to bring out the votes. Talking about gay marriage, for example, is a great way to electrify conservatives and ensure that they come out and vote.

Democrats generally don’t have such well defined hot buttons. A democrat knows the world won’t end whether or not gay marriages are allowed, so driving them to get out and vote to make it happen isn’t effective. Taking away rights they already have, however, is a much riskier proposition. This is probably something that democrats should be labelling the conservatives with, very carefully, so that they aren’t easy to label with whatever counter micharacterization is likely to ensue.

Finally, don’t think that the democrats are the only ones who have their money sources. Surely the republicans have rich benefactors that also are able to provide direction to the party. For example, the concept that environmentalism is currently simply a tool to disadvantage the USA is complete bullshit.

I can’t believe I see people saying this type of thing on here.

[Professor_X]

[quote]vroom wrote:
The right is getting very good at twisting the stance and message coming from the left and blasting it out to the public as a mischaracterization. This little trick is becoming very common here on the forums as well.[/quote]

What makes it worse, is many will gladly claim that they don’t even listen to news from any other news sources. It is as if they don’t realize that this sets them up to only get one side of the story. I generally watch MSNBC, CNN (rarely), and FOX. The difference between the way FOX generally views a situation is so drastically different (take FEMA’s troubles for instance), it makes me wonder why anyone would ONLY watch them as a source for info. Someone trying to get the real story would view even the news sources they may not initially agree with.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:
See ProfX’s blurb about FOX news mischaracterizing Howard Dean’s statements.[/quote]

Dean said that he thought it was an ‘interesting theory’, regardless of some talking head’s mischaracterization of it.

The right is getting very good at twisting the stance and message coming from the left and blasting it out to the public as a mischaracterization. This little trick is becoming very common here on the forums as well.

How is that? And when? Or do I get another cryptic, empty response?

The democrats aren’t letting themselves get defined by a lack of message, the republicans have become very adept at mischaracterizing what the democrats are saying and setting the democrats up to be a radical fringe group of haters, and many are eating this up hook, line and sinker.

Just do the math, Vroom. In 2000, Nader siphoned off enough votes to essentially lose the election for Gore - why did those folks vote for Nader? Because the Democratic Party didn’t represent their interests anymore. The Democratic Party, knowing full well that a Nader effect is still a problem, have opted to keep the Naderite left-wing voting Democratic - you don’t do that by moderating.

To go back a bit, the republicans have easy access to issues that are almost guaranteed to bring out the votes. Talking about gay marriage, for example, is a great way to electrify conservatives and ensure that they come out and vote.

Is gay marriage not a legitimate political issue on which to be voted? And are conservatives not eligible to exercise their political right and vote for issues they want a voice in?

This ‘gay marriage brings out the vote’ canard has run its course. Any issue that resonates with voters is gonna bring out the vote - and so long as a conservative has a vote to cast, who cares? Isn’t that how the system works?

Can I say that Democrats used anti-war rhetoric to bring out its base to get voters to the polls? Of course they did - and who cares?

Democrats generally don’t have such well defined hot buttons. A democrat knows the world won’t end whether or not gay marriages are allowed, so driving them to get out and vote to make it happen isn’t effective. Taking away rights they already have, however, is a much riskier proposition. This is probably something that democrats should be labelling the conservatives with, very carefully, so that they aren’t easy to label with whatever counter micharacterization is likely to ensue.

Your rights aren’t being taken away.

Finally, don’t think that the democrats are the only ones who have their money sources. Surely the republicans have rich benefactors that also are able to provide direction to the party.

Yep - mostly hard money in the form of mail-in campaigns. There are certainly corporate donors as well, but the GOP is much less reliant on soft money.

For example, the concept that environmentalism is currently simply a tool to disadvantage the USA is complete bullshit.

Although not all environmentalism fits this bill, your statement is wrong. Many endorse the idea that cutting back greenhouse gasses a la Kyoto creates the great side effect of economic ‘levelling’ among countries.

I can’t believe I see people saying this type of thing on here.

Well, you’ll need to dig deeper so that your hyper-sensibilities aren’t threatened. There are two distinct ‘green’ camps: environmentalism and conservation. Big difference - most environmentalists have a broader agend beyond just natural resources, sustainable energy, and preservation.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

An easy example is the chairman of the Democratic Party (at the time he was a candidate for the nomination) implying that Bush had prior knowledge and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Rather than ignore or denounce this lunancy, Dean gives it national attenton, call it an "interesting theory "and then mealymouths a statement that he is not sure if it is true. Dean is not some fringe nut. He is the chairman of the party.

Great example.[/quote]

How about the former chairman of the DNC attending the premier of F911 and lavishing praise on it?

How about Michael Moore being seated next to Jimmy Carter in the box at the DNC?

How about pandering to Al Sharpton every time he shows up somewhere, anywhere?

[reddog6376]

The present day Democrats are more like the communist party from 50 years ago.

The present day Republicans are more like the Democrats from 50 years ago.

There are a few true Republicans ( http://tancredo.house.gov/index.shtml ) around, we just need to get them into leadership roles.

[vroom]

[quote]Is gay marriage not a legitimate political issue on which to be voted? And are conservatives not eligible to exercise their political right and vote for issues they want a voice in?

This ‘gay marriage brings out the vote’ canard has run its course. Any issue that resonates with voters is gonna bring out the vote - and so long as a conservative has a vote to cast, who cares? Isn’t that how the system works?[/quote]

Thunder,

What the hell are you talking about. I am not complaining about this, it just is. I don’t see what you are getting agitated about.

Open your eye and take a look at the real world sometime.

[GDollars37]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
The right is getting very good at twisting the stance and message coming from the left and blasting it out to the public as a mischaracterization. This little trick is becoming very common here on the forums as well.

What makes it worse, is many will gladly claim that they don’t even listen to news from any other news sources. It is as if they don’t realize that this sets them up to only get one side of the story. I generally watch MSNBC, CNN (rarely), and FOX. The difference between the way FOX generally views a situation is so drastically different (take FEMA’s troubles for instance), it makes me wonder why anyone would ONLY watch them as a source for info. Someone trying to get the real story would view even the news sources they may not initially agree with.[/quote]

I basically agree with you, and I almost never watch Fox, because it’s even more biased than ABC or CBS (just in the other direction). TV news in general is garbage, I’d even rather read the propaganda machine at the New York Times than watch any of the news networks.

[anon31651765]

Oh Howard Dean…that you didnt scream at that rally…we may have had a shot…

Tis’ a sad world when a politician gets run out of town because he got excited…

And the Democrats being Commies and Repubs being the Dems of 50 years ago is plain stupid.

This is called “Progress”, and it is what happens. Anyone who was in power in the 50’s is not someone I want near the White House, or Washington.

[GDollars37]

And DeLay got indicted for money laundering today too, granted by the same guy.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
See ProfX’s blurb about FOX news mischaracterizing Howard Dean’s statements.

Dean said that he thought it was an ‘interesting theory’, regardless of some talking head’s mischaracterization of it.[/quote]

I still don’t understand your point. This means nothing when the entire quote was:

" ‘The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.’"

You said this brought it national attention. Apparently not until the words get twisted into appearing as if he was spreading this rumor as truth. There is a big difference between that quote above and “giving a theory national attention”.

If you truly don’t see the issue there, then something is very wrong.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
How about the former chairman of the DNC attending the premier of F911 and lavishing praise on it?[/quote]

What were his exact words?

How about Michael Moore being seated next to Jimmy Carter in the box at the DNC?

This needs to be denounced?

[quote]
How about pandering to Al Sharpton every time he shows up somewhere, anywhere?[/quote]

Pandering? The last generalization you thre out was pretty weak. Why not be specific if you throw out an accusation like that?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
rainjack : would you still have voted for bush knowing the way he has handled things? [/quote]

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but my answer has to be “Yes,” because the choice was Bush v. Kerry, not Bush v. Reagan.

[BostonBarrister]

vroom wrote:

I’m not so sure this is true. It’s hard to be the “opposition” party and also be the party of leadership and ideas. While you oppose you generally criticize and don’t want to put anything out there for criticism on your own until an election.

thunderbolt23 wrote:

Actually, I think the opposite is true. When you are the opposition party, you have the advantage of less to lose. The Contract With America circa 1994 is a good example.

The opposition party will always criticize - that is fine. But no one is content with just criticism - criticism without a plausible alternative will never advance any party to anything beyond minority status.

So, in my view, if you want to be something other than the minority party, you have to voice an alternative a long time before elections - like, by doing your job in the legislature. That is what elected officials do.

Excellent point Thunder.

The problem the Democrats have is that their base is fairly staunchly and loudly left, so they have a hard time crafting a position on issues they could easily use to create a populist break in the Republican base – the most obvious one to me is on immigration – and they are left criticizing the Republicans for not spending enough and not taxing enough, when not making general critical noises about the topic du jour.

[GDollars37]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
rainjack : would you still have voted for bush knowing the way he has handled things?

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but my answer has to be “Yes,” because the choice was Bush v. Kerry, not Bush v. Reagan.[/quote]

Hindsight is 20/20, but voting libertarian is looking like it might have been defensible…

[vroom]

[quote]Actually, I think the opposite is true. When you are the opposition party, you have the advantage of less to lose. The Contract With America circa 1994 is a good example.

The opposition party will always criticize - that is fine. But no one is content with just criticism - criticism without a plausible alternative will never advance any party to anything beyond minority status.

So, in my view, if you want to be something other than the minority party, you have to voice an alternative a long time before elections - like, by doing your job in the legislature. That is what elected officials do. [/quote]

Thunder (& Boston),

Yes, in a republican controlled house and senate you think the democrats aren’t doing enough? Hahahahahahahaha! I suppose they need to be doing more rubber stamping of administration initiatives? Ahahahahaha!

Anyhow, too bad nobody actually lived up to that supposed contract.

I find it continually amusing that things are so close when the democrats are supposedly so fucked up. Stop living in a dream world and consider how things work when you aren’t in power.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I find it continually amusing that things are so close when the democrats are supposedly so fucked up. Stop living in a dream world and consider how things work when you aren’t in power.[/quote]

I swear vroom - the smarter you try to sound - the more idiotic you come across. What you say is utter bullshit.

The republicans hold more seats now than they have since before FDR. We will hold even more seats in 2006. Things are not that close. And they will only get worse for the democratic party if they don’t figure out how to fix the hemmoraging from the middle.

I don’t know what your definition of “dream world” is - but must not include looking at the proof - election results.

The republicans have only “been in power” since 1994. If the truth be known, I think part of the problem with the republican leadership is that they still don’t know how to operate while in the majority. There were entire political careers spent being an effective minority party. Just ask Bob Dole.

So don’t give me that “Stop living in a dream world and consider how things work when you aren’t in power” horse shit. Every one on here that is old enough to have voted for GWI in 1988 has been there. Save your crapola for the “I love the left” pep rally.

[vroom]

I swear vroom - the smarter you try to sound - the more idiotic you come across. What you say is utter bullshit.

Maybe you should consider that I’m not trying to sound smart… and perhaps from time to time I succeed even. Wow.

I don’t think that the republicans were well able to elucidate positions when they weren’t in power either. The contract with America may be an exception, but it doesn’t mean it is easy to accomplish.

I know you can’t see it and would never admit it, but when the republicans were not in power they sounded like a bunch of whiny crybabies who had nothing to offer but criticism too.

Get over it.

[reddog6376]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And the Democrats being Commies and Repubs being the Dems of 50 years ago is plain stupid.

This is called “Progress”, and it is what happens. Anyone who was in power in the 50’s is not someone I want near the White House, or Washington. [/quote]

How is it progress when a true fiscal conservative doesn’t stand a chance of getting near the White House, because nobody wants the spending towards their pet pork, cut?