Re: A Hero for Our Times

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:00:08 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:02:45 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:57:49 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:20:46 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, the "Dems diving through their own sphincters attempting to 
>>>>>>>>paint it in a negative light" certainly isn't unique to the Democrats.  I
>>>>>>>>wonder what the Republicans would have said if a Democrat had been in 
>>>>>>>>office and had done the exact same thing? I can hear the accusations of 
>>>>>>>>"Shameful photo op!!!" loud and clear now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You needn't wonder. I'm sure you're right. There must be oodles of 
>>>>>>>examples of similar Republican responses to the exact same thing when 
>>>>>>>Clinton visited Bosnia and Johnson visited Viet Nam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A lot of us Democrats felt that way when Johnson visited Vietnam --
>>>>>>not that it was a photo op, but that it was a ludicrous garnish on a
>>>>>>senseless war.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I remember reading story after story about all you Dems who voiced 
>>>>>that very opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What can I say -- that's the way we felt about it, and we were hardly
>>>>reticent about showing our feelings about Johnson.
>>>
>>>Uh-huh.
>> 
>> 
>> Translation: "It's not convenient to believe this, so I won't bother."
>
>Tactics, Josh? My, but you do seem to hate it when Billo uses them on 
>you, but don't seem to be loathe to use them yourself, eh?
>
>I'll reply anyway, as that's the kind of sweetheart guy I am. Ask anyone.
>
>It's not a matter of conevenience, Josh. It's a matter of you getting 
>away from the central point, which is, in case you've forgotten, that 
>the Dems are twisting themselves into a knot trying to paint as negative 
>an act that was, by no stretch of the imagination, negative in any way, 
>regardless of motive. They're doing this for one reason only. That is to 
>try and win an election at any cost. You can pull up all the history you 
>like and it won't change this fact an iota. You can point to Reps doing 
>similar things and it still won't change it.

I just don't see any evidence of that. I read an article in the Times
yesterday about the Democratic responses to the President's trip, and
the responses were varied, but many praised the trip and criticized
the war, which seems to me the right thing to do if one is opposed to
the war:

'Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts issued a statement saying that
the trip was "the right thing to do for our country." But, he added:
"When Thanksgiving is over, I hope the president will take the time to
correct his failed policy in Iraq that has placed our soldiers in a
shooting gallery." '

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/politics/campaigns/28DEMS.html?hp

>>>>>So while I can't say I feel that way about the war in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Iraq, I don't think you can point to Democratic hypocrisy here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Haven't said a word about Dem hypocrisy. I addressed what I was sure 
>>>>>must've been similar Republican behavior when faced with the exact same 
>>>>>circumstances the Dems are shitting themselves silly over now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most Republicans supported the Vietnam war, so the situation isn't
>>>>analagous.
>>>
>>>I see.
>> 
>> 
>> Translation: "I can't counter this, so I'll say 'I see.' "
>
>See above.
>
>>>>>Nor do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you can paint the Republicans as models of virtue -- it was
>>>>>>Trent Lott after all who proclaimed loudly and publicly that Clinton
>>>>>>had attacked Iraq to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair, a
>>>>>>statement for which he had to apologize the next day when the Pentagon
>>>>>>made it clear that the attack had been timed on the basis of the
>>>>>>military's recommendation. (Sen. Kennedy later returned the favor with
>>>>>>Bush, and IIRC was forced to apologize as well).
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, now. This changes everything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My point exactly. You see, there's no real parallel in the examples
>>>>you mentioned -- most Republicans, as I said, supported the Vietnam
>>>>War, while many Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, so one must look for
>>>>parallel circumstances before gauging the behavior of one or another
>>>>party. Lott's outburst gives the lie to the notion that the
>>>>Republicans are somehow more supportive of the Commander-in-Chief when
>>>>there's a war on.
>>>
>>>'Course. Absolutely. Has not a whit to do with nine aspirants to the 
>>>Oval Office who couldn't give two craps about Iraq, other than what 
>>>political fodder it offers and who will attempt to spin absolutely 
>>>anything this President does into a negative, regardless of whether or 
>>>not they appear to be assholes in the process.
>>>
>>>But, I will admit, watching all this wriggling and rationalization is 
>>>tickling the crap outta me.
>> 
>> 
>> Translation: it's always so much easier to impute motive than to stick
>> to facts. "Bush just went to Iraq to boost his popularity with the
>> voters." See?
>
>Sorry, Josh, the position of Billo is taken by one imminently more 
>qualified than you.

Imminently?

-- 

Josh

To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.