Why Democrats Are Better Than Republicans

[Nyarlathotep]

Saying that Republicans are in control of the government and are thus deserving of Harsher criticism than Democrats, does NOT answer the question of whether you think that Bush should be the ONLY public figure whose comments are held to scrutiny. It's a very simple question.

One could also argue that Carter is "helping keep the One Party Rule status quo alive" with his comments, though inadvertantly. When a Democratic ex-resident makes comments of such mind boggling stupidity, it makes the whole party look bad. Further, it helps foster the simple-minded "Us=Good, Them=Bad" mentality that permeates politcs these days and is as poisonous to democracy as any official policy that any poltician of either side can come up with.

Personally, if anyone starts talking nonsense and using an assortment of logical fallacies, whether that person be a president, an ex-president or me or you, SOMEONE ought to call them on it. BUt maybe that's just me.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

Saying that Republicans are in control of the government and are thus deserving of Harsher criticism than Democrats, does NOT answer the question of whether you think that Bush should be the ONLY public figure whose comments are held to scrutiny. It's a very simple question.

First, don't get me wrong--I don't disagree with you.

But I think you're trying to force Mark into a false dichotomy. EITHER everything is important and everything is worth analytical criticism, OR nobody but Bush merits criticism.

I can go to the local Waffle House and hear some guy start rambling about how the Jews and Chinese Communists are conspiring with the Democrats to keep the working man down*. Aside from the humor value of the situation, what difference does it make what some lunatic in a Waffle House thinks? Who cares? Does it merit a thread and deep discussion, or is it just some guy rambling and not worth the electrons involved?

Obviously Carter ranks a wee bit higher up the ladder of "people who matter," but my point is that there's a lot of middle ground there that you're ignoring.

[* Note - this is based on an actual conversation I overheard at a Waffle House once. Really.]

[Dr Adequate]

He should have added are you for or against cancer?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally Posted by Cleon

First, don't get me wrong--I don't disagree with you.

But I think you're trying to force Mark into a false dichotomy. EITHER everything is important and everything is worth analytical criticism, OR nobody but Bush merits criticism.

I can go to the local Waffle House and hear some guy start rambling about how the Jews and Chinese Communists are conspiring with the Democrats to keep the working man down*. Aside from the humor value of the situation, what difference does it make what some lunatic in a Waffle House thinks? Who cares? Does it merit a thread and deep discussion, or is it just some guy rambling and not worth the electrons involved?

Obviously Carter ranks a wee bit higher up the ladder of "people who matter," but my point is that there's a lot of middle ground there that you're ignoring.

[* Note - this is based on an actual conversation I overheard at a Waffle House once. Really.]

Actually, I agree it IS a false Dichotomy, but Mark was the one who wedged himself into it when he started using the "How can you talk about Carter when Bush is performing crimes X, Y, and Z?" line of reasoning. I just turned it around on him.

I think since Carter is a public figure and IS a figure that some people listen to and possibly even admire, that his words are deserving of at least a modicum of public scrutiny, whether his words be wise and profound or just plain stupid.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Cleon

First, don't get me wrong--I don't disagree with you.

But I think you're trying to force Mark into a false dichotomy. EITHER everything is important and everything is worth analytical criticism, OR nobody but Bush merits criticism.

I can go to the local Waffle House and hear some guy start rambling about how the Jews and Chinese Communists are conspiring with the Democrats to keep the working man down*. Aside from the humor value of the situation, what difference does it make what some lunatic in a Waffle House thinks? Who cares? Does it merit a thread and deep discussion, or is it just some guy rambling and not worth the electrons involved?

Obviously Carter ranks a wee bit higher up the ladder of "people who matter," but my point is that there's a lot of middle ground there that you're ignoring.

[* Note - this is based on an actual conversation I overheard at a Waffle House once. Really.]

Couldn't say it any better.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

Saying that Republicans are in control of the government and are thus deserving of Harsher criticism than Democrats, does NOT answer the question of whether you think that Bush should be the ONLY public figure whose comments are held to scrutiny. It's a very simple question.

One could also argue that Carter is "helping keep the One Party Rule status quo alive" with his comments, though inadvertantly. When a Democratic ex-resident makes comments of such mind boggling stupidity, it makes the whole party look bad. Further, it helps foster the simple-minded "Us=Good, Them=Bad" mentality that permeates politcs these days and is as poisonous to democracy as any official policy that any poltician of either side can come up with.

Personally, if anyone starts talking nonsense and using an assortment of logical fallacies, whether that person be a president, an ex-president or me or you, SOMEONE ought to call them on it. BUt maybe that's just me.

You are ignoring this comment from BPSCG:

Quote:

Next time you hear him complain about how the "religious right" has a political agenda, keep in mind that this is what Jimmy Carter teaches in Sunday school. See Matthew 23:27-28

As if somehow Carter's recruiting negates all the excesses of the Religious Right.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

Actually, I agree it IS a false Dichotomy, but Mark was the one who wedged himself into it when he started using the "How can you talk about Carter when Bush is performing crimes X, Y, and Z?" line of reasoning. I just turned it around on him.

I think since Carter is a public figure and IS a figure that some people listen to and possibly even admire, that his words are deserving of at least a modicum of public scrutiny, whether his words be wise and profound or just plain stupid.

Sure. But I think it's also fair to say that in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter that Jimmy Carter poisoned a proverbial well in Sunday school. (If it wasn't proverbial, that would be news. )

ETA: I think it's also fair that when someone criticizes Carter for this grievous misdeed and at the same time launches an attack on people who criticize Republican fundies, it opens the way for some criticism of its own.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally Posted by Mark

You are ignoring this comment from BPSCG:


As if somehow Carter's recruiting negates all the excesses of the Religious Right.

Yes, I ignored his comments so much that my FIRST comments on this thread were addressing a BS implication that he was making.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

Yes, I ignored his comments so much that my FIRST comments on this thread were addressing a BS implication that he was making.

Spare me the rolleyes. You (wrongly) imply that I only want Bush and the Republicans criticized, when my comments were in direct response to what BP said.

How interesting that you take my comments totally out of context as far as this thread. Following your logic, you are allowed to respond to BP, and I am not.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Actually, ex-presidents have had a tradition of not commenting on politics after leaving office - a wise practice, IMHO.

Can you support the existence of this "tradition"? I doubt there is a "tradition" of non-criticism by ex-presidents, merely, some ex-presidents didn't criticize their predecessors, others did. For example, Teddy Roosevelt criticized Taft and Wilson. Hoover criticized FDR. Cleveland criticized Harrison.

[jj]

Politicians (rule 8)

N.B. This is a party-orthogonal declaration.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Mark

Things are getting so bad for the Republicans they are now attacking...Jimmy Carter! Who was elected 30 years ago!

I love it.

The Pahlavi dynasty has a long memory. Jimmy Carter was soft on Iran. Jimmy Carter lost Iran, just as Truman lost China. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. 2008 looms, Iraq is sooooo yesterday's immediate threat, positively yawn-inducing, but Iran is a greenfield site not yet shown to conceal a quagmire. And Democrats are soft on Iran (see Jimmy Carter).

When you've got bugger-all else going for you, this is an attractive expedient. If the Republicans win in 2008, they'll be running againgst FDR's record in 2012.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Jimmy Carter smug alert:

Next time you hear him complain about how the "religious right" has a political agenda, keep in mind that this is what Jimmy Carter teaches in Sunday school. See Matthew 23:27-28

* Poisoning the well.
** False dilemma.
*** Poisoning the well.
**** And so on...

Do you think that Republicans should take your mom and dad out and shoot them or do you think Democrats should give you a puppy?

Jesus H. Christ Jimmy. I thought George Bush had a difficulty with logic.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The Pahlavi dynasty has a long memory. Jimmy Carter was soft on Iran. Jimmy Carter lost Iran, just as Truman lost China. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. 2008 looms, Iraq is sooooo yesterday's immediate threat, positively yawn-inducing, but Iran is a greenfield site not yet shown to conceal a quagmire. And Democrats are soft on Iran (see Jimmy Carter).

When you've got bugger-all else going for you, this is an attractive expedient. If the Republicans win in 2008, they'll be running againgst FDR's record in 2012.

That is the Republican mantra. They usually get away with it, too. Illusion is king!

Truth is, Jimmy Carter was tough on Iran and sacrificed his political career in the process; being tough is usually the more difficult path, especially in the United States. Reagan immediately grabbed his ankles for Iran and gave them all the weapons they wanted...and yet he is still regarded as the tough one.

We "lost" Iran because we had installed a corrupt, brutal regime and the people there hated us for it. Which is exactly the way things are heading in Iraq...and, somehow, the Democrats will end up blamed for it. You watch.

[joobie]

Originally Posted by Tony

Can you support the existence of this "tradition"? I doubt there is a "tradition" of non-criticism by ex-presidents, merely, some ex-presidents didn't criticize their predecessors, others did. For example, Teddy Roosevelt criticized Taft and Wilson. Hoover criticized FDR. Cleveland criticized Harrison.

plus, out of the other presidents in the recent past: nixon was in no position to say anything and no one would have listened, ford couldn't be bothered to have a political opinion when he was in power, let alone afterwards, reagan was too senile while still in office to say anything besides COMMUNISM IS BAD, and bush major is hardly going to criticize his prodigal son.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by joobie

plus, out of the other presidents in the recent past: nixon was in no position to say anything and no one would have listened, ford couldn't be bothered to have a political opinion when he was in power, let alone afterwards, reagan was too senile while still in office to say anything besides COMMUNISM IS BAD, and bush major is hardly going to criticize his prodigal son.

?

Thanks for that...I guess. I suppose it didn't occur to you that George H. W. Bush could criticize Clinton? "Ford couldn't be bothered to have a political opinion"? Does this stuff just come to you and you type? Yes, Regan had Alzheimer's. But those who are interested in more than just rhetoric and are intellectually honest will note that your statement is BS. Regan actually had a lot to say after he left office but to acknowledge that wouldn't serve your ad hominem argument then would it.

Whatever.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Actually, ex-presidents have had a tradition of not commenting on politics after leaving office - a wise practice, IMHO.

What about Hoover on FDR? I suspect you've made this tradition up - or it's been made up for you. Ex-Presidents may have called up this phantom when expedient, but have often disparaged and campaigned against their successors. Who are usually younger, and who doesn't resent youth when they're past it? I know I do.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

?I suppose it didn't occur to you that George H. W. Bush could criticize Clinton?

Who'd listen to "Watch My Lips"? As ex-Presidents go, Bush Major was not a PR treasure. That whiny New England intellectual monotone (irony) against Carter's Southern, equally intellectual but down-home drawl? Bush Major's mistake was to put himself in the shop-window instead of being the puppet-master. In defeat, and chastened, he reverted to eminence grise and, in close concert with Uncle Karl Rove, fashioned Bush Minor into the Reagan mould.

Quote:

"Ford couldn't be bothered to have a political opinion"?

Entirely wrong, I agree. He felt it was important to have the political opinions he was told he had. Which were good ones, of course, good for 'Murrica.

Quote:

Yes, Regan had Alzheimer's. But those who are interested in more than just rhetoric and are intellectually honest will note that your statement is BS. Regan actually had a lot to say after he left office but to acknowledge that wouldn't serve your ad hominem argument then would it.

What did Reagan actually say after he left office? Say personally, not conveyed by Nancy or Uncle Karl or some other channeller? Alzheimer's is not some "whatever" triviality.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Who'd listen to "Watch My Lips"? As ex-Presidents go, Bush Major was not a PR treasure. That whiny New England intellectual monotone (irony) against Carter's Southern, equally intellectual but down-home drawl? Bush Major's mistake was to put himself in the shop-window instead of being the puppet-master. In defeat, and chastened, he reverted to eminence grise and, in close concert with Uncle Karl Rove, fashioned Bush Minor into the Reagan mould.

I don't buy this at all. Bush has been more than willing to speak his mind and at one point during his son's campaign thretend Clinton that if Clinton didn't back off Bush was going to come out swinging. He did this on national television. IIRC Clinton backed off.

Quote:

What did Reagan actually say after he left office? Say personally, not conveyed by Nancy or Uncle Karl or some other channeller? Alzheimer's is not some "whatever" triviality.

I guess not much. His letter to the American people seems to be one of his last communications.

So I was wrong, it was still a cheap shot for a man who left office with the highest approval rating since FDR. A man known as the great communicator. The point was right but the comment was crap.

RandFan

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Mark

We "lost" Iran because we had installed a corrupt, brutal regime and the people there hated us for it. Which is exactly the way things are heading in Iraq...and, somehow, the Democrats will end up blamed for it. You watch.

I think if you read up on the history of Iran you will discover we did no such thing.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I think if you read up on the history of Iran you will discover we did no such thing.

I have and you are wrong.

Quote:

Operation Ajax (1953) (officially TP-AJAX) was an covert operation to overthrow the elected government ([1][2][3][4]) of Iran and Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and consolidate the power of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

Rationale for the intervention included Mossadegh's socialist rhetoric and his nationalization, without compensation, of the oil industry which was previously operated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which later changed its name to The British Petroleum Company) under contracts disputed by the nationalists as unfair. A particular point of contention was the refusal of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company to allow an audit of the accounts to determine whether the Iranian government received the royalties it was due. Intransigence on the part of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company led the nationalist government to escalate its demands, requiring an equal share in the oil revenues. The final crisis was precipitated when the Anglo-Iranian oil company ceased operations rather than accepting the nationalists' demands...

...Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a plot to overthrow a democratically elected government. The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a year later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

[joobie]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I suppose it didn't occur to you that George H. W. Bush could criticize Clinton?

actually, it did.

Quote:

Regan actually had a lot to say after he left office

if he did, i don't remember any of it. the couple short biographies i've read of him certainly make no mention of it, although they do mention that he was incapable of answering even basic questions in a 1986 interview.

i am aware of his support for a line item veto and a constitutional amendment supporting a balanced budget (which i find somewhat laughable coming from him), but i would hardly consider that to be "a lot to say."

[joobie]

Originally Posted by RandFan

ISo I was wrong, it was still a cheap shot for a man who left office with the highest approval rating since FDR

ad populum.

Quote:

A man known as the great communicator.

from what i've seen of his speeches and his debates, this is quite a bit of a misnomer. he obviously needed a whole crapload of preparation and appeared to be quite poor at speaking off the cuff - imo, quite bad at being "the great communicator".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by joobie

ad populum.

Fair enough.

Quote:

from what i've seen of his speeches and his debates, this is quite a bit of a misnomer. he obviously needed a whole crapload of preparation and appeared to be quite poor at speaking off the cuff - imo, quite bad at being "the great communicator".

Interesting since after my post I watched "The Presidents" on cable last night. Historians don't agree with you but then that could simply be dismissed as an appeal to authority. But I would take their word over yours any day. I think the historians constitute a good authority. Again, you are entitled to an opinion but I see no reason for anyone to agree except and unless they are looking for reasons that fit with their world view. He was pretty good at speaking off the cuff. He was a damn great communicator for the reasons stated by the historians. He spoke with confidence and inspired the same of Americans. Unlike the "malaise" BS from his predecessor.

You don't like Republicans and you only see them in the worst possible light, we get that. Thanks.

[joobie]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But I would take their word over yours any day. I think the historians constitute a good authority.

fair enough. they're entitled to their opinion. i will say that they are perhaps blinded by his reputation rather than objective fact.

Quote:

You don't like Republicans and you only see them in the worst possible light, we get that. Thanks.

excellent job at putting words and opinions in my mouth. as you previously asked me in this thread, do you just make this stuff up as you type? sort of like you made up "Regan actually had a lot to say after he left office..."? hopefully you used more critical thought in forming the other opinions in this thread - i'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. for the record i dislike politicians in general and am registered to vote as a republican.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by joobie

fair enough. they're entitled to their opinion. i will say that they are perhaps blinded by his reputation rather than objective fact.

Right, it wasn't a rah-rah look at presidents. They talked about what they thought were the presidents flaws. But hey, only you are looking at this objectively, without even hearing their arguments you dismiss them. Ad hominem from ignorance, a compound fallacy.

Quote:

...excellent job at putting words and opinions in my mouth. as you previously asked me in this thread, do you just make this stuff up as you type?

Right, you are objective. Never mind that Nixon achieved a degree of respect later in life and could have weighed in on events and that George H. W. Bush certainly could have criticized Clinton and Carter for that matter.

Quote:

...sort of like you made up "Regan actually had a lot to say after he left office..."?

I made a mistake. I honestly thought he had. I made the effort and checked the record and realized that I was wrong. Instead of pretending (as so many do) that I didn't know the truth I ate humble pie and admitted that I was wrong. In a world full of pompous pricks that can't bring themselves to admit that they are wrong that ought to count as something, guess not.

Quote:

...hopefully you used more critical thought in forming the other opinions in this thread - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. for the record i dislike politicians in general and am registered to vote as a republican.

If so then I can only ask, what's the point?

I don't much care for black and white points of view. I grew up with that BS from all of my conservative friends and family who hated FDR, JFK, Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. And then I moved to California and found a new set of friends who were liberal only to find they hated Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Something is wrong with that equation and none of them can figure that out.

So, I guess you are saying that you just don't like politicians, well, if that is critical thinking in your book then fine. It's not mine. I choose to be skeptical of politicians but judge them by the totality of their actions. I never voted for Clinton and I likely wouldn't have voted for Carter but I have given them both credit for what I think they did right, on this forum and have defended them to my family and friends who think I'm crazy. What can I say, I'm funny that way.

[Whoracle]

I didn't bother to read all of the replies so if this remark has already been said I apologize, but is this real? This just seems so fake. I've seen these damn questions in a million emails before.

Right now I can't think of a single reason to support democrats (on the whole) other than they are not part of the Bush administration. Anyone but Bush is all they mostly are. What do they even stand for lately? They are all trying to play me too to get Republican voters and then say no way to the liberals. They all voted for the war before they voted against it. Maybe not literally but they all come out saying they thought the war was a good idea in the beginning to look tough but now they are against it now that it looks bad. They are against gay marriage but for civil unions. Hillary is running aroung trying look like a bible thumper getting the bible into speeches and railing against Grand Theft Auto.

There is just no reason in the eyes in the voting pubilc to vote for them. Might as well just vote for the people who really believe this stuff as misguided as it may be than to vote for panderers.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Whoracle

There is just no reason in the eyes in the voting pubilc to vote for them. Might as well just vote for the people who really believe this stuff as misguided as it may be than to vote for panderers.

Yeah, I suppose it's better to vote for the people who actually BELIEVE that they're paving the way for Jesus as opposed to voting for those who pander to the general public who are stupid enough to believe that we need to pave the way for Jesus.

It makes all the sense in the world.

[Whoracle]

Well I think people can see a difference between Bush and Hillary Clinton. Does anyone really buy it when she says "my understanding of the scriptures" on illegal immigration. I'm not naive enough to say every religious conservative Republican really believes everything he says about religion, but I believe they believe it a lot more than Hillary does.

I don't think Karl Rove had a plan in 2000 to make the party fake being the God party. I think they got a religious guy that the fundies really started to like after 9/11. This huge shift towards to the right really being the God party didn't really start until after 9/11 so by and large I do believe these guys believe a decent portion of what they say when it comes to religion.

[joobie]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Right, it wasn't a rah-rah look at presidents. They talked about what they thought were the presidents flaws.

actually, i was merely discussing the possibility that their opinions of reagan may be colored by their reputation. this is a trait i see quite often. to be honest, i think the cult of personality that surrounds him is ridiculous. just look what happens when any criticism is made of him.

Quote:

But hey, only you are looking at this objectively,

i didn't claim to be.

Quote:

Right, you are objective. Never mind that Nixon achieved a degree of respect later in life and could have weighed in on events

not sure about a great deal of respect, although i do realize he rehabilitated his image somewhat. who knows how history would remember him were it not for watergate and associated crapola. then again, i didn't even mention him in my first post in the thread.

Quote:

and that George H. W. Bush certainly could have criticized Clinton and Carter for that matter.

he can criticize anyone he wants, and i won't get my panties in a wad. after all, free speech is one of the things that makes the USA great, is it not?

Quote:

In a world full of pompous pricks that can't bring themselves to admit that they are wrong that ought to count as something, guess not.

sometimes it does, but then again i was only echoing your own words.

Quote:

I don't much care for black and white points of view.

me either, and i largely agree with that entire paragraph. i try and take in the bigger picture; i admit this doesn't always work.

Quote:

...I choose to be skeptical of politicians but judge them by the totality of their actions.

that's precisely why i dislike them in general.

[American]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

* Poisoning the well.
** False dilemma.
*** Poisoning the well.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." -Robert Anton Wilson



"Mugged by reality" is an understatement. Believe in work, think-don't-feel, and don't act naive. Outside the bubbles of academia and lifestyle, and beyond one's outward vanity, there is only one enlightened wisdom, and it is conservatism.

Most learn this by trial-and-error. The younger, the better.

[jj]

Originally Posted by American

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." -Robert Anton Wilson



"Mugged by reality" is an understatement. Believe in work, think-don't-feel, and don't act naive. Outside the bubbles of academia and lifestyle, and beyond one's outward vanity, there is only one enlightened wisdom, and it is conservatism.

Most learn this by trial-and-error. The younger, the better.

That's funny, when I was a kid, I was accused of being a right-wing nutcase.

Now, people who talk like you call me a "leftist". Thing is, my political positions haven't changed.

That rather puts the lie to your libertarian SF author's quote, doesn't it?

And, I'll have to note your arrival to show that indeed the election spin is starting for sure.

[BryanLower]

Originally Posted by jj

That's funny, when I was a kid, I was accused of being a right-wing nutcase.

Sorry, I miss-read your post.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BryanLower

Sorry, I miss-read your post.

Welcome to the forum Bryan. Are you a commie pinko or a neo-con? Nope, those are the only options. Don't like it then go somewhere else.

just kidding

[gnome]

Originally Posted by manny

You know, given the Bush administration's spending habits, there are many many Democrats who can complain about the size of the federal debt. Jimmy Carter is not one of them.

Personally I think his comments to the child were stupid. Another case of laying out an agenda based on hating things that everyone hates.

"We're against human trafficking... and um... eating puppies! Vote for us! Do you hate puppies?!"

But... I feel he has every right to criticize the size of the federal debt, considering he came very close to balancing the budget.

[BryanLower]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Welcome to the forum Bryan. Are you a commie pinko or a neo-con? Nope, those are the only options. Don't like it then go somewhere else.

just kidding

Thanks, RandFan.

I guess I'm a pinko.

I've read probably more about this subject (political philosophy-- right, left, middle, and other) than most people. But I'm reluctact to jump into this conversation. I think about all the typing I would have to do to explain myself.... and I've just discovered in another thread that life is meaningless. So what'st he point?

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by American

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." -Robert Anton Wilson



"Mugged by reality" is an understatement. Believe in work, think-don't-feel, and don't act naive. Outside the bubbles of academia and lifestyle, and beyond one's outward vanity, there is only one enlightened wisdom, and it is conservatism.

Most learn this by trial-and-error. The younger, the better.

American! You're back! I missed you: the JREF comedy quotient went way down after you left.

[Jocko]

Originally Posted by jj

And, I'll have to note your arrival to show that indeed the election spin is starting for sure.

Hey, you already gave that particularly little paranoid prize to me, Ace.

OTOH, You never did tell me whose candidacy I was endorsing/sabotaging.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Jocko

Hey, you already gave that particularly little paranoid prize to me, Ace.

OTOH, You never did tell me whose candidacy I was endorsing/sabotaging.

Yep, election time for sure, the vilification goes on and on.

Just goes to show how close to "taliban" we can get.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't buy this at all. Bush has been more than willing to speak his mind and at one point during his son's campaign thretend Clinton that if Clinton didn't back off Bush was going to come out swinging. He did this on national television. IIRC Clinton backed off.

Perhaps you recall that Bush Major didn't come out swinging and have extrapolated Clinton's backing off? Just a thought. I doubt the Bush Minor campaign was very keen on Bush ""Only Born Once" Major taking a very public role. It would tend to associate their man with his single term (by definition not very popular).

Quote:

I guess not much. His letter to the American people seems to be one of his last communications.

I wasn't on the mailing list so I'm not privy to this, but are we sure he penned it himself?

Quote:

So I was wrong, it was still a cheap shot for a man who left office with the highest approval rating since FDR. A man known as the great communicator. The point was right but the comment was crap.

What cheap shot? Alzheimer's is not trivial, it's bloody tragic. The original "whatever" was yours.