Daschle Accuses Bush of Politicizing Iraq Debate
September 25, 2002 11:04 AM   Subscribe

Daschle Accuses Bush of Politicizing Iraq Debate "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is outrageous. Outrageous." The full text of Daschle's comments. Do we finally have an opposition party?
posted by owillis (74 comments total)

 
Finally the Democrats find their spine. Let's hope for some healthy debate on the pros, and cons of this war.

On a side note, thanks Matt for letting me back.
posted by jbou at 11:24 AM on September 25, 2002


Sad that it seemingly took a broadside from Al Gore to spur Daschle to say anything substantive against Bush's obvious election-eve warmongering. Odd that he invoked VietNam and World War II, but not Gulf War Vets, who seem to me to make the strongest and most personally compelling case against diving headlong into this. Opposition party? Yeah, right - let's see how outraged Daschle is tomorrow.
posted by soyjoy at 11:29 AM on September 25, 2002


I know, Daschle gets wapped on the nose and he shuts up. I certainly hope it sticks this time, but I am wary.

Of course, if he keeps it up I'm sure he'll be declared an "unlawful combatant" sometime soon.
posted by owillis at 11:34 AM on September 25, 2002


I've never seen a man wield a wet noodle with such deadly force.
Oh, the humanity!
posted by 2sheets at 11:36 AM on September 25, 2002


I don't know about an opposition, but it 's getting to sound more and more like we have Chauncy Gardener (as played by Peter Sellers in Being There) in the White House:

"My job is to protect the American people," Bush said ahead of an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. "And I will continue to do that regardless of the season."
posted by SteveInMaine at 11:37 AM on September 25, 2002


Spine? They are still going to vote for the Iraq resolution, meaning Bush's "election-eve warmongering" is completely successful.

On Tuesday, Daschle, D-S.D., said he hoped to reach a compromise by the end of the week with the administration on a resolution giving the president the authority to use whatever means necessary to deal with Iraq. He said his party, seeking to return attention to the economy before the election, wants a quick vote on the Iraqi resolution.

Lets just give in and get this pesky little war (and the thousands of inevitable deaths) going, so we can go back to giving in on every domestic issue.

Spineless, Completely.
posted by malphigian at 11:40 AM on September 25, 2002


I'm sorry, could someone please explain to me in what way the Democrats/Liberals/Anti-Bushies have NOT been politicizing this whole thing?
posted by oissubke at 11:41 AM on September 25, 2002


Daschle Accuses Bush of Politicizing Iraq Debate
Funny, Daschle is taking Bush out of context, since Bush's comments that Democrats "are not interested in the security of the American people" is in reference to not passing the Homeland security bill, not on invading Iraq....

You know, the same people who say that we should deal with terrorism here at home first, are dragging their feet on passing a bill to do that....

But hey Daschle get 2 points for trying...

Opposition Party? Nope.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:44 AM on September 25, 2002


The Democrats have apparently given up trying to change the subject from Iraq and terrorism to their domestic agenda (i.e. medicare, abortion, the environment) prior to the November election. To me, it looks like the Democrats are ready to go after Bush on defense issues in hopes that they can somehow frame the debate in a way that benefits Democrats. Daschle plays politics with the war by accusing the Republicans of playing politics with the war first. Go figure.
posted by Durwood at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2002


Steve:

Funny, Daschle is taking Bush out of context, since Bush's comments that Democrats "are not interested in the security of the American people" is in reference to not passing the Homeland security bill, not on invading Iraq....

i didn't think daschle was taking bush out of context. isn't "the war" in reference to "the war on terrorism"? and isn't that necessarily related to the homeland security bill, as written today?
posted by moz at 12:12 PM on September 25, 2002


I'm sorry, could someone please explain to me in what way the Democrats/Liberals/Anti-Bushies have NOT been politicizing this whole thing?

Well, no, I can't explain because those are 3 different groups; they aren't identical, believe it or not. :-) But I can tell you how the Democrats in the Senate have not been politicizing the war effort. It's simple; that's not the issue they want to politicize. They've all been marching along like good little soldiers because Daschle and company didn't want to get tarred with that bad ol' "unpatriotic" brush during the current undeclared and unending war.

Daschle was hoping that there would be a quick resolution so we could go back to finger pointing on the economy, an issue where the party currently in power is vulnerable. Gore's speech yesterday made it unlikely that the Iraq resolution will be quickly finished and swept under the rug. Add to that the fact that Bush's speeches are now running about 4 parts war talk to 1 part economy, it now behooves the Democrat "leadership" to get off its collective butt and catch up with the rank and file.
posted by norm29 at 12:24 PM on September 25, 2002


I'm sorry, could someone please explain to me in what way the Democrats/Liberals/Anti-Bushies have NOT been politicizing this whole thing?

Okey-doke. The ways in which "they" have NOT been politicizing this whole thing is by making cogent non-partisan arguments as to why it's a bad idea. If you haven't seen any of these, you could check the link I posted above. However, there are also ways in which a lot of "them" have politicized it, but that's fine with me, since this whole thing's been politicized by the Bush administration from the very moment he saw that first plane hit on live TV, if not before.
posted by soyjoy at 12:25 PM on September 25, 2002


Personally, I'm struck by the irony of Shrub backhandedly dismissing all the dems (including the WWII and Nam vets) as being not interested in the security of the American people, while Shrub himself valiantly protected Houston from imminent attack by VietCong forces, by way of the Texas Air National Guard...

Kettle, pot, black; glass houses, stones...
posted by ehintz at 12:29 PM on September 25, 2002


Moz:

Bush said that Senate Democrats were slowing debate in a politically-motivated effort to preserve civil service protections that he said would tie his hands.

"The House responded" to the White House version of the bill, Bush said in New Jersey, "but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

"I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure,"

An article in Wednesday's Washington Post, quoted Bush out of context.

Notice in the above quote it says "Senate" not "Democrats" that means members of both parties.
This is about civil service protections, but Daschle attempted to spin it....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:42 PM on September 25, 2002


isn't "the war" in reference to "the war on terrorism"?

According to the President, Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are both part of the war on terror, so you can't make distinctions. At least that's what he said today at a press conference.

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Just one more way of saying that if you disagree with him on any issue, why, you must be a traitor.
posted by norm29 at 12:46 PM on September 25, 2002


As a former Marine and Gulf War Vet, I find the fact that a former high school cheerleader wants to send us to war for, basically, no rational reason disgusting. That he does so with Dick Cheney's puppet hand up his *ss is all the more discomfiting.

The fact that we have abrogated or abandoned just about every act that would earn us good faith (Kyoto, Chemical and Biological Weapons, Land Mines, Nuclear Weapons, International Criminal Court, the UN, free trade) in the world should be enough to give us pause in attacking Iraq for its "bad intentions" (as if that alone were cause for taking over a country).

If, on the other hand, we did show good faith, and the entire rest of the world, via UN Security Council, agreed that it was time for Saddam to go & there was a strategy for achieving victory that would end with a happier Iraq, then I would feel merely sad.

For what it's worth, this seems -- hearteningly -- to be the position of the American people, as taken in a poll in yesterday's McNews.
posted by minnesotaj at 1:00 PM on September 25, 2002


Notice in the above quote it says "Senate" not "Democrats" that means members of both parties.


Yeah, the American people are way too dumb to figure he's taking a poke at Democrats here. After all, there are so many members of his own party standing up to him right now. Give me a break, Steve.

This is about civil service protections,

Read "union-busting." Don't worry, we know what it's about.

but Daschle attempted to spin it....

George says that because some people are hesitating to give him more power than any American President has ever had before, that they aren't concerned about national security, and you accuse Daschle of spinning? Just how would you feel about this if Bill Clinton was still in office?
posted by norm29 at 1:03 PM on September 25, 2002


Norm, I'll give you a break...

Yeah, the American people are way too dumb to figure he's taking a poke at Democrats here.
You got me there, I'll bet we will see who figures this out come election day.

...more power than any American President has ever had before...

Ummm, No. This is a power that every President since JFK has had. Bush already has this power in every other department, the Unions are attempting to keep him from having it in this new department.

Read Democrats & Big Labor hand in hand" Don't worry, we know what it's about.

BTW: Daschle admitted later at a press conference that he was going off the Washington Post article, and not a actual transcript of Bush's speech.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:16 PM on September 25, 2002


You got me there, I'll bet we will see who figures this out come election day.

How true.

BTW: Daschle admitted later at a press conference that he was going off the Washington Post article,

I'm having trouble finding that; can you give me a link?
posted by norm29 at 1:59 PM on September 25, 2002


Just saw it on CNN & FOX, sorry no link...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:08 PM on September 25, 2002


Parse the context all you want, Steve, but Bush still said that the Senate Dems (among whom are WWII and Vietnam Vets) are "not interested in the security of the American people," but rather, "special interests"...

What tremendous gall Bush has to deride his opponents for cozying up to special interests... His domestic policies on energy, the environment, banking, mining, timber, etc... are practically xeroxed of the wish lists of his campaign sponsors...

And all the while, he has the balls to question the dedication to national security of decorated veterans... This, coming from a chickenhawk who hid in the National Guard...
posted by crookdimwit at 2:19 PM on September 25, 2002


I'm not the one "parsing the context"

Ask Daschle about that...


If you want to call out Bush for his special interests fine... Do so... I detest them on both sides.

That still doesn't take away from the the fact that the Nelson amendment is an attempt to overturn over 30 years of civil service policy, by giving the unions more control of the new department.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:31 PM on September 25, 2002


It's not parsing to point out that Bush argued that the Dems are "not interested in the security of the American people"...

That's a pretty offtensive charge to make. And he DID make it.

And it certainly does nothing to undermine the impression that Bush is exploiting 9/11 and Iraq for political advantage...
posted by crookdimwit at 2:36 PM on September 25, 2002


Here's the rest of that quote that norm29 linked:

"They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

That boy don't make a damn bit of sense.

"Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments." Last I heard, it was planes they were after.

"They work in concert." Yeah, because of all the evidence the administration has produced linking Saddam and al Qaeda, right? Right? Oh, nevermind.

Ugh.
posted by UKnowForKids at 2:40 PM on September 25, 2002


Hey Steve -- just a suggestion: maybe you could just sum up your points into a few well-stated comments versus responding individually to various comments?

I know there are many more liberals here and you're a bit outnumbered, but it makes for easier reading (IMO) and more diplomatic debates when the thread is a free exchange of opinions rather than a directed debate that goes liberal-->liberal-->steve-->liberal-->steve-->liberal responding to steve-->steve responding to liberal-->another liberal attacking steve's viewpoint-->steve... et cetera.
posted by jennak at 2:45 PM on September 25, 2002


Lets work it out:

Passing Home-Land Security Bill = Good for Security of the American People

Giving into Union Special Interests = Not Passing Home-Land Security Bill

/?

Giving into Union Special Interests ? Good for Security of the American People
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:49 PM on September 25, 2002


should be:

therefore

and not equal
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:50 PM on September 25, 2002


Here is what Bush said : "So I ask congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America that we are doing everything possible. The house responded but the senate is more interested in special interests in washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a department of homeland security that does not allow this president and future presidents (the flexibility) to better keep the American people secure. People are working hard in washington to get it right in washington, both republicans and democrats. You see this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future..." (My transcription from CSpan)
posted by revbrian at 3:25 PM on September 25, 2002


Well, hell. My ears aren't as good as yours, so I couldn't hear Bush announcing sotto voce the beginning and ending bold tags in his speech the first time I heard it....must be that Texas twang.

But I did the second time:

Here is what Bush said : "So I ask congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America that we are doing everything possible. The house responded but the senate is more interested in special interests in washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a department of homeland security that does not allow this president and future presidents (the flexibility) to better keep the American people secure. People are working hard in washington to get it right in washington, both republicans and democrats. You see this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future..."

Gosh, that bold tag sure changes the emphasis, don't it?

Typical doublespeak. Make it a partisan issue by accusing Democrats of disloyalty if they challenge Bushtard the Illegitimate, then give lip service to bipartisanship.

Like Daschle said...Inouye and others have historically been much more interested in the security of the American people than the chickenhawk currently roosting in the Oval Office.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:45 PM on September 25, 2002


For what it's worth, I'm opposed to a war in Iraq unless we also take out the terrorism-sponsoring governments in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran (among others). Killing a wasp doesn't mean anything unless you also take out the nest.

Also, based on basic American history, I believe we all know that we're basically replacing one government with one that's not any better. See Latin America or East Asia for examples. Of course, once we depose Saddam, we'll have the GO to construct that Haliburton pipeline through Iraq due to a friendly gov being there. Worth sacrificing American lives for something that will not be achieved - ending terrorism - since there are *plenty*of anti-American state sponsors for funding terrorists.
posted by fatchuck at 3:46 PM on September 25, 2002


Here's another one for ya, steve-o:
God is Love.
Love is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Aaaanyway, Mr. Logic Person: assuming your point #1 (passing the homeland security bill will make Americans more secure and safe) is even true- a big "if", really- how do you figure that statement #2, giving in to Union special interests (as opposed to Bush's own pet interests which wonderfully have always been in concert with his political agenda- what luck!) necessarily means the Homeland security bill won't get passed? The "giving in to union interests" is a blocking point for Bush- his refusal to give in is causing the bill to not be passed, you see.

See Steve-a-rino, here on planet Earth we have these "democracies" where "leaders" don't get to rule by "absolute decree". In these "democracies", often two conflicting parties have to "compromise" so that "stuff" gets "done" even if "everyone" doesn't get "everything" they want. If Bush actually cared about homeland security, he'd do whatever it takes to get the bill passed A.S.A.P., even if it meant biting the bullet on something he's opposed to. This would be a sacrific of political goals and beliefs in the interest of pragmatism- but let's not forget he's after all exhorting those "partisan" Democrats to make exactly that sacrifice.

But then, what can we realistically expect from an un-American draft-dodger who doesn't care about the security of the American people? :)
posted by hincandenza at 3:48 PM on September 25, 2002


For some odd reason an incident came to mind while reading this thread, I remember when Clinton tried to take out Osama someone(funny, Bin Laden has disappeared from Dorkboy's vocabulary) the cuntservatives were screaming about a "Wags" scenario to distract from the blowjob thingy. Now the same cuntservatives are cheerleading for something that goes beyond Wags, a real war created to distract and worse yet, to try and win a mid-term election. Politicizing? It's much worse than that.
posted by joemeek at 3:58 PM on September 25, 2002


Ouch. Daschle (quite correctly) took Bush to task for accusing congressmen of not being interested in the security of the American people, and asked for an apology, and what happens??!

Today's CNN poll was whether Daschle owed the president an apology. Fortunately, only a third of those who voted said that he did, but still...
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:03 PM on September 25, 2002


Hincandenza, joemeek, I think you guys need to tone down the rhetorical color there a bit, you're making it hard to read.
posted by hob at 4:11 PM on September 25, 2002


In December, they sent AG Ashcroft out to test the strategy in the real world: the administration's critics bring "comfort to the enemy", he said. Remember?

Since no Democrat asked for Ashcroft's resignation nor laughed him out of Capitol Hill nor even counterattacked with the very reasonable charge of McCarthyism, the White House knew that they could now use this argument all the time.

They mock Gore as "irrelevant" -- even tho, undisputed, he got more votes than Bush. He may be an asshole, but even if he lost Florida the majority of the nation chose him -- how's that for a poll?
Daschle -- who actually served in the military, unlike most of the actual cabinet, except of course Secretary Powell -- is a traitor.

The Democrats are waking up pretty late in the game I think. They either didnt see this coming or they were too scared. Now the ball's not in their hands anymore
posted by matteo at 4:16 PM on September 25, 2002


"They mock Gore as "irrelevant" -- even tho, undisputed, he got more votes than Bush. He may be an asshole, but even if he lost Florida the majority of the nation chose him -- how's that for a poll?
Daschle -- who actually served in the military, unlike most of the actual cabinet, except of course Secretary Powell -- is a traitor."

Does Gore hold a government office of power? Hmmn no so yeah right now he is "irrelvant." The country isnt run by polls. Well it is but not that one and for a reason that doesnt need discussed or even brought up the same as the point you tried to make.
Woohoo Dashle served in the military. What I see in the media is Dashle making a big fuss that makes the leadership of this country look weak. It says our government doesnt trust our leader and therefore we will make sure no one has power or can accomplish anything until we can get him out. Maybe that isnt exactly a traitor but it sure isnt patriotic attacking the president and twisting his words. I honestly dont think Bush said what he did with the meanings the Dashle has given them.
posted by Recockulous at 5:41 PM on September 25, 2002


Again for those of you that can't read:

"So I ask congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America that we are doing everything possible. The house responded but the senate is more interested in special interests in washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a department of homeland security that does not allow this president and future presidents (the flexibility) to better keep the American people secure. People are working hard in washington to get it right in washington, both republicans and democrats. You see this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future..."

Where does he say HEY YOU DEMOCRATS!! YOUR NOT INTERESTED IN THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Bush never said such a thing but he wouldn't be wrong he did. Democrats have a very long history of undermining defense. Not that the Republicans are innocent, but geez the Democrats take the cake. When can America get a real opposisition party?
posted by ZupanGOD at 5:47 PM on September 25, 2002


Why even have the new department if its going to be another inefficient bureacracy? That is Bush's point. If he cant have the power to move people and accomplish things then the purpose of the department is defeated.
posted by Recockulous at 6:11 PM on September 25, 2002


Mr. Logic Person & Steve-a-rino
What, are we on the playground here? You have no real rebuttal, so you mean to taunt and demean me by calling me childish names? Next are you going to shoot spit-wads at me?
Well, grow up....

he'd do whatever it takes to get the bill passed A.S.A.P., even if it meant biting the bullet on something he's opposed to.

Your right, he really should give in on collective bargaining for the new office.. Who cares if the FBI, CIA, NSA or agents vital to national security goes on strike...
This is a power the executive office has had for nearly 40 years now, and has with all other departments, and the unions see an opportunity to gain some more card-holders with the formation of the Office of Home-Land Security... Lets remember: more union members = more union dues = more DNC contributions.

But then, what can we realistically expect from an un-American draft-dodger who doesn't care about the security of the American people?
What does Clinton have to do with this?

even tho, undisputed, he got more votes than Bush [sic]
Ummm Really? Why isn't he in the White House? Last time I checked he was a has-been who is running amuck in his own party. Dacshle & Co. have done every thing in their power to sweep the "war issue" under the rug, and make the election all about the economy, where they think the GOP is weak. Mr. Gore has undone all their work, by polarizing the left and marking it "anit-war" His little speech this week has brought the war to the forefront of the news.... I can only imagine how many "Thank-You" cards Mr Gore is going to receive from Republicans who are going to be elected this fall.....

This is all a distraction to stop people from looking at all of the bills that are sitting on Dacshle's desk, and that he ignoring...
And to distract people from that fact that the unions are forcing the Democrats to put the Nelson amendment into the bill that creates the new office of Home-Land Security. Dacshle's leadership has been questioned and will continue to be questioned this fall, during the elections. This is nothing more than a smoke screen.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:30 PM on September 25, 2002


They mock Gore as "irrelevant" -- even tho, undisputed, he got more votes than Bush. He may be an asshole, but even if he lost Florida the majority of the nation chose him -- how's that for a poll?

And if you repeat that often enough, one day they may completely overhaul the election process to make the 'popular vote' actually count.

But at this point it doesn't, making your statement worthless.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 6:40 PM on September 25, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood: Again, if Gore is a has-been and irrelevant, why are you and your ilk so upset about his comments? His winning of the popular vote is absolutely relevant here. I don't see how you could argue the contrary.
posted by raysmj at 6:54 PM on September 25, 2002


"Steve_at_Linnwood: Again, if Gore is a has-been and irrelevant, why are you and your ilk so upset about his comments? His winning of the popular vote is absolutely relevant here. I don't see how you could argue the contrary."


wow...you sure told him

its not that you CAN'T see how he (or anyone) could argue the contrary its that you WONT see.
posted by Recockulous at 7:07 PM on September 25, 2002


Again, if Gore is a has-been and irrelevant, why are you and your ilk so upset about his comments? His winning of the popular vote is absolutely relevant here. I don't see how you could argue the contrary. [sic]

Who said I was upset? I am ecstatic! In fact, I hope Gore makes more speeches before the elections... Gore is relevant when it comes to media coverage... Just irrelevant to actual policy. The more he can tie the Democrats with the Anti-War left... all the better...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:13 PM on September 25, 2002


"Why even have the new department if its going to be another inefficient bureacracy? That is Bush's point. If he cant have the power to move people and accomplish things then the purpose of the department is defeated."

Exactly! That's why in a matter of national security it is important the President and future Presidents have the power to run the Department of Homeland Security effenciently as possible. And that's why Bush is right when he stated "the senate is more interested in special interests in washington, and not interested in the security of the American people."
If the objective of the Senate is to create red tape and union hurdles to jump through for a Department that hasn't even been established yet and National Security depends on it than they obviously are putting special interests over national security.

-Z
posted by ZupanGOD at 7:22 PM on September 25, 2002


"I think that Sen. Daschle needs to cool the rhetoric," Lott said.

Uh....pot meet kettle.

a comment by Bush that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."

Apparently, Mr. Lott and his GOP can dish it out; however, their poor little feelings get hurt when that mean old Daschle dares to call Dubya on a blatant insult.

Equating a cautious approach to a potentially costly (both in terms of human life and the economy) conflict with disinterest in national security, is simply partisan chest beating. It is just one more example of the bullying, war-mongering philosophy of this president and his administration. I imagine I would have the same attitude if my daddy was former director of the CIA. A million showers could not wash away the stench of corruption that hangs over that family
posted by buz46 at 7:43 PM on September 25, 2002


His winning of the popular vote is absolutely relevant here. I don't see how you could argue the contrary.

Please tell us how the popular vote is relevant. Assuming you realize how U.S. presidential elections are conducted I'd be very interested in your answer.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:06 PM on September 25, 2002


PS

I am not trolling for any of my wonderful, Republican counterparts. Hell, I even shook hands with Connie Morella over the weekend. However I wished I hadn't when I noticed Kathleen Kennedy Townsend watching from nearby. When I made my way over to shake her hand, I apologized profusely, and assured her that I had not turned to the "Dark Side".

In case your wondering, Connie Morella is the Republican, incumbent Congresswoman in my district. LT. Governor Townsend is the Democratic nominee for Governor of Maryland, and the eldest daughter of RFK. They were both campaigning at the Takoma Park Folk Festival, an annual gathering of local artisans and performers. Takoma Park is not a very Republican friendly community, however Miss Morella was treated with polite deference.
posted by buz46 at 8:16 PM on September 25, 2002


buz:

Screw Trent Lott he can stick his comments up his a$$.

What's really going on here is that The Democrats and Media have been spinning this all day.

posted by ZupanGOD at 8:20 PM on September 25, 2002


Apparently, Mr. Lott and his GOP can dish it out; however, their poor little feelings get hurt when that mean old Daschle dares to call Dubya on a blatant insult.

I do belive it was Mr Daschle that threw a hissy-fit this morning on the floor of the Senate.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:29 PM on September 25, 2002


Isn't Daschle politicizing it by making a public statement that Bush is politicizing it? It's politics people. If anyone thinks politicians don't play politics, they haven't been paying attention.
posted by fried at 8:52 PM on September 25, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood: You wrote yesterday: This man has flip-flopped more than fresh fish. Why is anyone still paying him heed?

Then why have you now commented in Gore threads 18 times - and started one of them, putting the total of comments at 19 - in just over 24 hours?
posted by raysmj at 8:55 PM on September 25, 2002


Dennis Murphy: Because more people voted for him, wanted him to be president. It's relevant to debate. Sheesh. Is that so hard to handle?
posted by raysmj at 8:58 PM on September 25, 2002


Then why have you now commented in Gore threads 18 times...in just over 24 hours?

I am sorry, I get guilty pleasure from pointing and laughing at people making fools of themselves in public...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:07 PM on September 25, 2002


Get your fingers off the mouse and keyboard. Go to bed. I am. Goodnight.
posted by raysmj at 9:11 PM on September 25, 2002


I am perpetually amazed at how stupid some people are. And how highly that stupidity correlates with "conservatism".

Gore had 20+ years policy experience... irrelevant? Hey, remember how Bush tried to tell us his own inexperience wouldn't matter because of all the experienced people he'd surround himself with? People who, in experience if not ideology, were the same as Gore? So isn't his a voice we should listen to? How is he any more "irrelevent" than Dick Cheney, who when he joined the campaign as a candidate for vice- presidency had been out of government for EIGHT YEARS? Unless you are fucking retarded or willfully dishonest, you CANNOT reconcile the viewpoint of Gore as irrelevent but the Bush cabinet as Great Men of Wisdom- they were, not so long ago, what Gore was- private citizens (if more corrupt and criminal than Gore). And even if you disregard Gore's political experience... he's still and has always been an American citizen. Is it a tenet of conservatism now that the voice of American citizens must be silenced by their leaders as traitorous or irrelevent? Who knew that conservatism was spelled f-a-s-c-i-... ?

ZupanGOD: (and others) What's really going on here is that The Democrats and Media have been spinning this all day

I give to you the wise words of FreeRepublic founder Jim Robinson, that titan of moderation and coolheadedness.
The Democrat Party is beyond corrupt, It's also evil.

And what is this evil that triumphs when good men do nothing? What are we really talking about here and is it worth fighting for? Is it worth turning our heads and allowing evil to continue on while we do nothing? (and I count voting for a third party candidate when knowing that he has absolutely no chance of defeating the Democrat, and worse, actually planning and hoping to knock out the Republican candidate who otherwise might have defeated the Democrat, as doing nothing).
...

The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt. There is no question about that, but it's way beyond corrupt. It's also evil.
...

IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?

I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.
That's not reasonable non-partisan philosophy; that's fucking eschatological psychosis! That's good vs. evil, end of times hate-mongering bullshit, and you are playing that game. Go back to Freeper land you anti-democratic asswipe. Go back to your pathetic childish fantasies of yourself as a mini-Messiah, a catcher in the rye bringing goodness and light to an evil world conveniently populated with "the other"- be they Negro, Jew, or Lib'rul. You fucking moron...

So long as Jim Robinson and his minions write bullshit like that, so long as Ann Coulter espouses the murder of people who disagree with her, and as long as people fling this unenlighted shit around, I'm going to be a mean-ass nasty-mouthed motherfucker. Why be nice? Why be couth or polite? Why make a convenient fucking doormat for someone unwilling to listen to more reasonable MeFites?!?
posted by hincandenza at 9:34 PM on September 25, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood:

Play finger-gun much growing up or GI Joes? I bet, even though the bullets were imaginary and drool and spittle went everywhere as you went ffffttfffftfffftfffftffftffftfffftffffftfffftffffft running like a miller moth all around your back yard, you still bitched because you just knew that you'd "killed them first" even though they could and did say the same thing about you. But then you could run to mom and exclaim you'd "killed" first and then she'd say "ohhhh. Is that right? Well I think it's about time for you to come in now. Say goodnight to your friends."

And I swear, this had nothing to do with raysmj's post. I didn't even read it, what with all the fffttffftffftffftfffftffffftffffft going on in here I can't even hear myself think or remember what Gore had to say. I think that's probably the way you like it. Drown out the opposition. AM radio here Steve_at_Linwood comes.
posted by crasspastor at 9:34 PM on September 25, 2002


What's really going on here is that The Democrats and Media have been spinning this all day.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to trot out this tired old line.
posted by pmurray63 at 9:39 PM on September 25, 2002


To hincandenza & crasspator, I quote Cicero:

"When you have no basis of argument, abuse the plaintiff."


Really though, I would like to know what I said to ruffle your feathers so much? Why instead of disproving me, do you resort to acting like a child?

Could it be, heaven forbid, I am right?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:15 PM on September 25, 2002


Remind me again why we need an office of homeland security? Sounds like more bureaucracy to me. I thought republicans were against that kind of thing.
posted by whirlwind29 at 10:22 PM on September 25, 2002


Take a breather folks, and read Borowitzs take on this, it gave me a chuckle.



DASCHLE FINDS BALLS ON SENATE FLOOR


Had Lost Them in Senate Cloakroom

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle found his balls on the Senate floor yesterday, just moments before launching into a stem-winding attack on President Bush’s alleged politicizing of national security issues, Senate sources said.

“What are you doing down there?” Senator Daschle said after seeing his balls on the floor of the Senate well. “I’ve been looking all over for you!”

Yesterday’s recovery of Senator Daschle’s balls brought down the curtain on one of the Senate’s longest-running mysteries: what happened to the Democrats’ balls?

The answer to that riddle, as unbelievable as it may seem, is also surprisingly simple: the Democrats’ balls have been in the Senate cloakroom for the last several months, seemingly lost forever.

Charles Hepworth, who runs the cloakroom used by all one hundred senators, said that the Democrats had checked their balls in the cloakroom months ago and had forgotten to claim them.

Somehow, Mr. Hepworth said, the Democratic balls became lost in a tangled mess of other unclaimed items.

“It’s really a disaster area in that cloakroom,” Mr. Hepworth said. “The Republicans lost their economic plan in there months ago and they still can’t find it.”

Yesterday, though, was a time of celebration for the Democrats, who were unanimously jubilant to be reunited with their long-lost balls.

“I’ve got to tell you, it feels great,” said Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

posted by jbou at 10:32 PM on September 25, 2002


Washington Post:
More than a dozen Democrats, who requested anonymity, have told The Washington Post that many members who oppose the president's strategy to confront Iraq are going to nonetheless support it because they fear a backlash from voters. A top party strategist said every House Democrat who faces a tough reelection this fall plans to vote for the Bush resolution. Senate Democrats are so concerned that Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (Minn.) could lose his seat because he will likely vote against the Bush resolution that they are drafting an alternative resolution "because he has to have something to give him cover," a Democratic Senate aide said.

Who is '"politicizing" the war with Iraq?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:14 PM on September 25, 2002


Today's CNN poll was whether Daschle owed the president an apology.

From THE LIBERAL MEDIA? Unpossible! I watch Fox News to get away from the Pinko spin.


Who is '"politicizing" the war with Iraq?
The very fact that "a war in Iraq" even exists and even is being debated is the ultimate act of politicizing foreign policy.

By the way, why don't we invade Iran first?
posted by owillis at 11:22 PM on September 25, 2002


hincandenza: "That's not reasonable non-partisan philosophy; that's fucking eschatological psychosis! That's good vs. evil, end of times hate-mongering bullshit, and you are playing that game. Go back to Freeper land you anti-democratic asswipe. Go back to your pathetic childish fantasies of yourself as a mini-Messiah, a catcher in the rye bringing goodness and light to an evil world conveniently populated with "the other"- be they Negro, Jew, or Lib'rul. You fucking moron...

So long as Jim Robinson and his minions write bullshit like that, so long as Ann Coulter espouses the murder of people who disagree with her, and as long as people fling this unenlighted shit around, I'm going to be a mean-ass nasty-mouthed motherfucker. Why be nice? Why be couth or polite? Why make a convenient fucking doormat for someone unwilling to listen to more reasonable MeFites?!?"

Nice! You came up with that on your own?

You've just put yourself in line with those idiots on the right you despise. Why all that hate? I'm Liberal! I'm just not a socialist one. I will comment on both sides, this time around it just so happens that the Democrats are the one who stinks on this latest political mud slinging incident. Sorry if that upsets you but sorry I will not ignore reason and simple logic when I see it.

-Z
posted by ZupanGOD at 11:58 PM on September 25, 2002


Zupan- you're no liberal! I just reviewed your 18 posts, and there's no way you're a liberal in any meaningful sense of the word. Maybe you aren't a hard right-wing nutjob, but "liberal" or even "centrist Democrat" seems a wee bit of a stretch. You've called yourself a non-socialist liberal, but go on to make statements that suggest otherwise, most of which are either "buuuumps" to Steve or MidasMulligan or bashing Clinton and Gore or pimpin' the Republican party line on taxes or big Gub'mint.

As for the hate- well, that's too damn bad. I suspect the "idiots on the right" as you put it would love for people to roll over and play submissive puppy- and when someone (like Daschle or Gore) dares speak out, they are whipped and slandered without mercy by those aforementioned IotR. At what point does one wake up and stop being all nicey-nice? One doesn't have to sink to outright lies to at least fight back and stand up, to call B.S. on unchallenged slander or gross misrepresentations of the facts.
posted by hincandenza at 12:44 AM on September 26, 2002


hincandenza: Disagreeing is a bit different that calling people "fucking moron" or "fascist", like you did....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:09 AM on September 26, 2002


Because more people voted for him, wanted him to be president. It's relevant to debate. Sheesh. Is that so hard to handle?

It's not hard to handle at all, it's just absurd to think it means anything. This has less to do with who I support as it does with logic.

If texas has 20 million votes, and I know I have no hope of winning it, I simply don't bother with that state. I could campaign and get 7 million votes instead of 5 million, but I'd still lose the state, and, since our system is based on the electoral college and NOT popular vote I'd lose all the votes that state has to offer. So why would I waste any time on a state I can't win.

In other words, if the popular vote meant ANYTHING candidates would campaign completely different.

Of course, it sounds good to say someone won the popular vote, but that doesn't mean it carries any value, because it doesn't, and it couldn't be more useless in this debate.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 3:30 AM on September 26, 2002


Dennis: No, it doesn't mean he should be president, per se, but even the Electoral College part was disputed. But thanks for telling me the wish of the majority meant nothing. I'll remember that the next time some arch-conservative goes off about the minority deciding what's best for the majority, ad nauseam.

By the way, I was of course wrong about Steve_at_Linwood's having participated 19 times in Gore threads. I meant instead Gore-related. In any case, I don't mind multiple postings from one person. It helps, however, to not be the proverbial broken record.
posted by raysmj at 5:53 AM on September 26, 2002


wish of the majority meant nothing = tyranny of the majority


If you understood anything about the Founding Fathers and how they framed our system of government, you would know that they wanted to avoid this at all costs.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:17 AM on September 26, 2002


I have to be a Marxist cheerleader to be Liberal? Please.. I was unaware of such a litmus test to be Liberal.

-Z
posted by ZupanGOD at 8:59 AM on September 26, 2002


The Founding Fathers wanted the wishes of the majority to mean nothing? Always? They didn't want tyranny of the majority, but otherwise, what the hell are you talking about? They didn't want a tyranny of the minority either. They didn't want tyranny, period. Anyway, who said that this was only about what the Founding Fathers thought? You're typing now out of sheer inertia, I guess. Gracious.
posted by raysmj at 9:25 AM on September 26, 2002


raysmj: You are an idiot.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:48 AM on September 26, 2002


Dennis: No, it doesn't mean he should be president, per se, but even the Electoral College part was disputed.

Yes it was. I never argued that fact. That's how our election works, not popular vote.

But thanks for telling me the wish of the majority meant nothing. I'll remember that the next time some arch-conservative goes off about the minority deciding what's best for the majority, ad nauseam.

I never said that. Perhaps you should read what I said again, or refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Maybe I believe the popular vote SHOULD decide the election. Doesn't matter, because it doesn't.

And because of that a candidate doesn't campaign for the popular vote. Case closed.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 1:30 PM on September 26, 2002


As Burr once said to Hamilton, "I know that you are so, but what then am I?"
posted by raysmj at 4:21 PM on September 26, 2002


Actually, I think that was Pee-Wee Herman....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:47 PM on September 26, 2002


« Older Mel Gibson wants to do a movie on the last 12 hour...  |  Similarities between the Unite... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments