Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 86 | WILLisms.com | Is 'The Surge' A Bad Idea? »

Blogging Blahs, And Barney Frank Needs To Resign

I have to apologize for the paucity of posts of late. I am in the blogging doldrums, nothing really seems to animate me to write anymore. I usually need to feel some kind of outrage in order to get up and write a post, something I just haven't felt lately.

Until I read about this from Bryan at HotAir.

In this video, Barney Frank says that the federal government's inaction in New Orleans after Katrina is a form of ethnic cleansing:

 

I agree with Bryan - Barney Frank needs to resign from Congress. If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame. At long last, when is someone going to be forced to answer for poisoning our discourse? Is any Democrat brave enough and principled enough to dare take Frank to task, and instruct him that his corrosive bile is unacceptable? I would be a breath of fresh air if that happened, but I'd put good money down that Frank will suffer absolutely no backlash from his despicable comments, neither from the press nor from his party.

Remember how rightly horrified Democrats were that some whackjobs on the right accused President Clinton of killing Vince Foster, and others? We now have a Congressman accusing the President of something several orders of magnitude worse: committing genocide against American blacks. Okay Dems, saying Clinton killed Foster was wrong, but saying Bush is committing genocide is . . . okay?

Be consistent, be ethical, and censure Barney Frank at the very least.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 5 January 2007 11:00 AM

Comments

Oh My Gosh! What a Total idiot he is. Barney Frank just wants his New Orleans whore houses back. Oh wait a minute! His lover already has made that possible for him right where he is... Ken, the sad thing about the mood in Washington is that it has the BIGGEST Hangover from the Clinton Administration. As far as I am concerned, I believe we need an entire makeover! Both sides. There are Very Few I would even Consider keeping. The focus has been Partisan political Jihad attack on Republicans and to heck with our countries REAL business. I definately think Barney Frank needs to go bye bye! AND should have long ago...

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 11:34 AM

Resign? I think he's a breath of fresh air and one undoubtedly that the American people want to hear from. They voted the bums out, this isv what we got and there's NO way it could be worse than the morons that have been there the last 6 years. Go Barney!!

Posted by: Suka at January 5, 2007 11:54 AM

The Vince Foster scandal at Least had merit. The body was moved! Hurricane Katrina was an unfortunate act of nature AND an Unfortunate act of stupidity upon the state of Louisiana for electing Governor Blancho. She Stopped the National Guard and refused Help! Mayor Naggin also was an unfortunate fate for New Orleans. IF the President had gone ahead and taken over the operations for Katrina he would have been critisized for usurping the States authority! Barney Frank is an Idiot!

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 12:15 PM

SUKA... Uh, I hate to tell you this BUT Barney Frank is one of those"morons" that have been there for the last 6 years.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 12:19 PM

Right, Barney Frank should resign. And so should Nancy Pelosi. And Hilary Clinton. And Howard Dean. And Bill Clinton...oops, I mean John Kerry. And what's Al Gore doing? Whatever it is, he should resign from it immediatedly.

They should all resign because they're the reason why politics is so poisonous. I mean if it wasn't for these poisonous, evil liberals the majority Republican House, Senate, White House and Court System could've gotten something done the past six years. If only those Republicans had a chance against the words of Barney Frank. If only there was some way for the Republicans to show fair minded politics in the last six years. Sigh, if only those puny, weak and defenseless Republican majority for 12 years had some way to stave off those poisonous words. Hmmm...oh well!

Posted by: autry at January 5, 2007 12:20 PM

But if you make all the people who tell the truth resign, then the only people left in DC will be the Republic Party!!

Oh, that's right - you members of the Republic Party despise truth, you hate God and the US and you demand the right to steal the taxpayer's money.

TRAITORS!

Posted by: fiskhus jim at January 5, 2007 12:32 PM

The Democrats have been in power for 24 hours and the Republican Whine Fest has already started.

Now, Barney Frank is uncivil! Heavens to Betsy!Those Republicans are such delicate and sensitive little souls. Cry me a river. They are hurt.

Want some cheese with that Whine?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 5, 2007 12:37 PM

Funny how conservatives moan and groan when a liberal person says something that's the least bit questionable, yet remain silent when their own spew forth bile, ignorance and hate.

When you start criticizing what Republicans say, I'll take you seriously

Posted by: Rosie the Riveter at January 5, 2007 12:39 PM

I just love to see a wingnut squeal. You are so touchy! Are you girly-men or what? Can't take a little publicity from the folks you've tried so hard to shut up the last 12 years?

I've seen a number of Republicans speculating that the 'cleansing' of New Orleans will allow them to win more elections in Louisiana. Rep. Frank was saying nothing different - except that he thinks people's lives should come before such callous political calculations.

So - keep whining about how mean Democrats are. It's music to my ears.

Posted by: liberalpercy at January 5, 2007 12:50 PM

This is apart of that Spirit of bi-partisanship that Nancy Pelosi was talking about! What Barney Frank said is MUCH more than "the least bit questionable".
What I say is we need to start over fresh! Both sides of the aisle. The hangover of the Clinton era has lingered long enough. OUR county needs to get rid of the garbage. Throw the trash out. Enough is enough.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 12:55 PM

REPUBLIC PARTY - PRICELESS !!!

Really, you think Newt, DeLay, Grover, et al. have not been poison ? Wake up.

Idiot.

Posted by: Brave Captain of Industry at January 5, 2007 01:07 PM

I am sure you look at Katrina's work as merely a good start in cleansing nasty black and brown people from your ideal nazi homeland! At least he didn't go Cheney's route and drop the F bomb!

Posted by: madmatt at January 5, 2007 01:20 PM

Oh ZsaZsa - we DID throw the garbage out - George Allen, Rick Santorum, Rick Pombo, Conrad Burns, etc. - it was a beautiful.

As for wingnut whining - how hypocritical can those people get? A congressional minority bill of rights? Hahaha. The Repubs will be treated far better than they deserve because at least our side respects both the rules and the traditions of Congress.

For me personally, the Democrats have not been nearly mean enough.

Posted by: JH3 at January 5, 2007 01:25 PM

Besides being a crybaby, our outraged friend is also a Big Silly.

"Ethnic Cleansing" isn't genocide; it's removing an unwanted population from an area where they're not welcome. Remove African-Americans from South Louisiana, and voila, a GOP paradise.

Nobody says Bush caused Katrina. But the administration's malign neglect isn't for nothing.

Actually, I think Barney Frank's exaggerating. Where Bush is concerned, sheer, staggering incompetence and indifference to anybody but himself should never be discounted.

Besides, the moron essentially called Dems traitors before the election. To hell with him.

Posted by: jethro at January 5, 2007 01:29 PM

"If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame"

Uncivil? Quit clutching your pearls and shut your cakehole, you simpering little twit. How's that for uncivil?

Ever since the Republican "Revoultion" of the 90's rolled over with a sickening crunch over Washington's foot, politcs went from mildly bad theatre to an inbred circus, dangerous midway rides and all.

Many thanks for such can be given to Gingrich's "Go Negative" GOPAC strategies, Bob Dornan's "Barney Fag" jokes and a littany of Scaife-funded yellow-press reports implicating the Clintons with everything from dope-dealing to murder. Anything to bring down the presidency at any cost. Clinton's worst crime? Lying under oath over an extra-marital dalliance. Wow. Such a scandal.

Spare us your outrage, the nation is tired of a war started over a personal vendetta rather than the threat of mushroom clouds and most definitely tired of knowing the actual orchestrators of 9-11 are still on the loose.

Frank was excoriating the far from brilliant crisis control run by a person whose prior job experience was running horse shows. Thousands died needlessly and countless others are still living in squalor. Yet the Right continues to shift the blame to the local level or worse, the victims themselves.

You're whining about civility? Go to hell. Better yet, if you still proudly align yourself to a party agenda thats slightly left of Eichmann, get a head start by burying yourself in a firesuit.

You lowered the bar of discourse. Now you will be beaten over the head with it. Be lucky you're getting off that easy.

Posted by: MyPetGloat at January 5, 2007 01:38 PM

Pretty much what I expected - tu quoque arguments from leftists more interested in excusing Barney Frank's horrid comments than in actually doing something about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington.

I don't recall Newt Gingrich accusing President Clinton of ethnic cleansing (yes, it is a euphemism for 'genocide' jethro, but then again you knew that already). Gee, in fact I don't recall him saying anything as remotely repugnant as 'your ideal nazi homeland!' as one commenter above did here.

Are you guys all here to prove me right perhaps - that Democrats have poisoned the debate? Your comments sure offer some definitive evidence! Where are the rational, detached Democrats who really do want to clear up the incivility? Not to be found, apparently.

But gee, I guess anything a Democrat says, no matter how rude, how obscene, how disgusting, is just okay because he is one of your guys. And because, well you know, Republicans are evil - so anything nasty we say about them is just fine.

MyPetGloat, did I, or did I not say that I disapprove of what the Foster conspiracy nuts believed? And what in god's name does the Iraq War have to do with any of this?

And please explain this quote, I find it impenetrable - "You're whining about civility? Go to hell. Better yet, if you still proudly align yourself to a party agenda thats slightly left of Eichmann, get a head start by burying yourself in a firesuit."

Are you accusing me of being a little Eichmann, or something like that?

Is that all you've got, sputtering nazi-related insults at people?

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 5, 2007 02:05 PM

Ken, Happy New Year! I have missed you... This is an example of that bipartisan leadership Nancy Pelosi has for us. Correct me if I am wrong BUT aren't the Nazis the ones who hated the jews? I support Israel and hope for Peace. It is more like Neo-Lib anti Israel Democrats are calling it all wrong. Perhaps the libs are trying to take the focus off of themselves? Good try. Ha!

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 02:39 PM

When you start out with a statement that Democrats are solely responsible for the climate of partisan strife in this country - well, such a position seriously boggles the mind.

Besides it's mind-blowing internal contradiction - "I blame those Evil Democrats for being the only people who blame people!"

Are you seriously suggesting that the GOP did not attempt to make an issue of Democrats' patriotism, any time the Dems contradicted or questioned Bush's policies?

Are you entirely forgetting Cheney's contemptuous public cursing towards a fellow member of government, for daring to question him?

You **are** entirely forgetting the GOP's game plan with the Katrina catastrophe - put ALL of the blame on the local (conveniently Democratic) government. And forget that while the catastrophe unfolded, FEMA utterly blew it, Bush flew around to eat cake with John McCain, play guitar, and scare senior citizens about social security...and Condi bought shoes.

There's enough blame to go around. Trying to shift all the blame onto someone else, is what's increasing partisan strife.

Now if your argument is that Barney Frank is an example of the partisan talk that is damaging the US, because BOTH the Democrats and the Repupblicans engage in it - that's a much more sensible argument.

But if your argument is that Barney Frank is bad because he's saying mean things about Republicans, and that Republicans haven't been saying mean things about Democrats for the past 6 years (at least) - well, I just don't know what to say.

Posted by: jim at January 5, 2007 02:42 PM

Oh no, I'm not done.

"tu quoque?" What's with that French-sounding surrender speak?

Barely a day out of the majority and you discover like a bright nebula, that Barney Frank is making an "outrageous comparison".

Sorry, there are two wars going on with no end in sight and yet again I'll repeat: The real perpetrators of 9-11 are still free. So Your story of the day doesn’t exactly reside at the top of the list for those who live in a sphere called reality.

But Barney Frank's comments are at the top of your list but I'll move on.

Okay, so you're not a "Little Eichmann." Maybe not personally. But lets look at those who demand civility have accomplished in 5 years as per my 'impenetrable remark':

-Extrajudicial arrests? Check.
-Use of torture? Check.
-Sureveillance of population? Check.
-No civilian oversight of the executive branch? Check.
-Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Check.
-Pre-Emptive Military Attacks? Check.
-Dissent = Treason? Check.
-Associating specific religions with Evil? Check.

I'll stop there and let you make the historical comparisons. Not too big a stretch for you, is it?

But go on, bawl over our lack of civility. I'm still being lenient.

Posted by: MyPetGloat at January 5, 2007 02:49 PM

I an saying our country is suffering from the Clinton administration hangover. I am saying there are two sides to every story, I am saying it is time for us to CLEAN HOUSE. Start over as if there was a fire that damaged everything and all there is are ashes. A rebirth so to speak? Younger people who care about where our country is going. AND where our country is Today. Barney Frank has got to go IF he can't keep from spewing hate and so does anyone else who can't refrain from disruptive antics. There is alot of business to be delt with.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 03:03 PM

Who left the fucking asylum unlocked?

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 5, 2007 03:04 PM

Those ashes could make our country more fertile and prosperous. OR we can all just bitch about the past? Whatever? Same old same old is not making or country better, only worse. It is up to us. We all as citizens of the USA, Dems, Republicans and everything in between make the real decisions. I am so sick of all the partisan Garbage!

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 5, 2007 03:10 PM

Ken, from one longtime Republican to (I presume) another: Dude, you seriously need to get out more.

Specifically, when you start lecturing everyone on the need for civility in political discourse, will you please at least acknowledge that Newt Gingrich was advising GOP candidates to call their opponents "sick" and "un-American" -- no matter who they were or what their positions were -- back when half of today's Congressional staffers were in short pants?

I'll do you the favor of being a little more civil than MyPetGloat, but I'm also going to give you some unvarnished truth that you seriously need to recognize: To start clutching your pearls and getting the vapors over something Barney Frank says that actually has at least a small grain of truth in it is just sad. Pull yourself together, man.

Posted by: Lex at January 5, 2007 03:13 PM

people are still dying here in new orleans and it comes from the failures of ideologies when they are applied to real world problems.

Posted by: ibfamous at January 5, 2007 04:46 PM

There's a small grain of truth that there is ethnic cleansing going on in New Orleans?

You can't be serious.

Maybe you don't mind your party being accused of engaging in ethnic cleansing, but I certainly do. You don't understand the outrage because it isn't your ox being gored, now is it.

Find for me the quotes where Gingrich called every opponent no matter who they were or what their positions were that they were sick or unamerican.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 5, 2007 05:00 PM

OK - I'll lay it right out:

If Barney Frank needs to resign, because he's created a partisan atmosphere - does that mean Cheney has to resign too?

Why or why not?

Posted by: jim at January 5, 2007 06:42 PM

If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame.

That is what you said.

Please show me how Barney Frank caused Dick Cheney to curse on the Senate Floor.

Please show me how Barney Frank caused the GOP to suggest any Democrats who question the President have no patriotism.

Please show how Barney Frank caused the GOP to run racist attack adds in Tennessee, or caused the GOP to illegally bomb Democrat phone lines.

Otherwise please admit you fell victim to hyperbole because Barney Frank hurt your feelings, and move on.

Posted by: jim at January 5, 2007 06:49 PM

Link to the phone jamming incident:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html

Link to racist attack ads in GOP:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15403071/

Oh, and remember this? Amputee VETERAN Senator Max Cleland has his patriotism impugned so he will lose an election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html

Go read up on that. Seriously. Your party, the GOP, had the disgusting gall to call a man WHO LOST HIS LIMBS FIGHTING FOR THIS COUNTRY a man who supported Osama Bin Laden.

Just think about that for a second. Please.

Now do you still think that Barney Frank "and Democrats like him" are solely responsible for the partisan atmosphere??

Posted by: jim at January 5, 2007 06:55 PM

Vince Goddamn Foster, huh Ken? How about if we stick to something that took place within the past decade. Well, where the hell is the explanation for the assorted incidents raised in the last few comments by Jim? Maybe you could explain how Barney Frank is more responsible for the toxic partisanship in Washington than those who perpetrated every one of these attacks. Can't wait for the distinction; maybe you'll come across as someone who actually gives a crap about codiality, than a whining, self-serving Republican hack. If not, I'm sure you'll understand how anyone with an ounce of objectivity will continue to regard you as more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.

Posted by: legaleagle at January 5, 2007 07:19 PM

Wow, quite a bunch you have here. So much ground to cover.

The Democrats had a majority in both houses for most of 1958-1994. Despite the fevered claims of "control" by Republicans over the last 12 years, they actually had small majorities. That has torqued Democrats off so much that they have become unhinged. Do I claim that the Democrats have caused all the partisan incivility? Most of it. What has been listed of how uncivil the Republicans have been has been short on specifics and long on name-calling. The few specifics have been inaccurate or exaggerated. Tu quoque, indeed. As to whining, I think the Democrats have something of a headstart.

I think conservatives are aware that liberals think we have been uncivil. Repeating that more loudly and slowly, without supporting evidence, is unlikely to be convincing. I hear you that it's your impression that we are uncivil. What I don't hear is anyone questioning whether their impression might be inaccurate. Use of words like "ethnic cleansing," "American Taliban," "fascist," "no better than Saddam," and the like is simply irresponsible, and such phrases have dropped from the lips of Democrats. To call someone unpatriotic is small potatoes in comparison.

Look, just because you feel something very powerfully and just know it in your bones doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 5, 2007 11:38 PM

Unless Barney Frank has specific knowledge of policies intended to harm New Orleans residents, his metephor is innaccuate and irresponsible. If everyone who said something stupid, was forced to resign, we'd have 50% unemployment in this country. Frank is a good congressmen. He's smart and he's a good policy maker. Too bad so many people don't like him.

Posted by: Neil Sagan at January 5, 2007 11:50 PM

Wow, quite a bunch you have here. So much ground to cover.

The Democrats had a majority in both houses for most of 1958-1994. Despite the fevered claims of "control" by Republicans over the last 12 years, they actually had small majorities. That has torqued Democrats off so much that they have become unhinged. Do I claim that the Democrats have caused all the partisan incivility? Most of it. What has been listed of how uncivil the Republicans have been has been short on specifics and long on name-calling. The few specifics have been inaccurate or exaggerated. Tu quoque, indeed. As to whining, I think the Democrats have something of a headstart.

I think conservatives are aware that liberals think we have been uncivil. Repeating that more loudly and slowly, without supporting evidence, is unlikely to be convincing. I hear you that it's your impression that we are uncivil. What I don't hear is anyone questioning whether their impression might be inaccurate. Use of words like "ethnic cleansing," "American Taliban," "fascist," "no better than Saddam," and the like is simply irresponsible, and such phrases have dropped from the lips of Democrats. To call someone unpatriotic is small potatoes in comparison.

Look, just because you feel something very powerfully and just know it in your bones doesn't make it true.

Quick hitter, Jim. No one questioned Cleland's patriotism. That was claimed, but the actual quotes don't support it. It was a trumped up charge, as most of the "you're calling us traitors" charges are. Read your own link closely (it's an editorial, BTW, not a news story), and you will find that there is little there that you could actually take into a court of law and try to prove that his patriotism was impugned. The criticism of Cleland was quite different.

As to the phone jamming, it happened here in NH, and the parties were convicted. Read the full list here and see which party gets mentioned more. http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/cat_voter_fraud.html

Simple exercise on all accusations: try and make your case to a visitor from Mars who is unmoved by your anger and does not accept your claims that A=B just because you say so.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 5, 2007 11:55 PM

Ah, so it did go through the first time after all. Very sorry.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 5, 2007 11:56 PM

Please show me how Barney Frank caused Dick Cheney to curse on the Senate Floor.

Ah yes, Cheney throwing an f-bomb is just as bad as saying the President caused genocide.

Check.

Please show me how Barney Frank caused the GOP to suggest any Democrats who question the President have no patriotism.

Its only in your fevered imagination. No one in the administration has said that if you question the President, you have no patriotism.

Please show how Barney Frank caused the GOP to run racist attack adds in Tennessee, or caused the GOP to illegally bomb Democrat phone lines.

Do you mean the ads against Harold Ford? Those were 'racist' ads? Well you just lost more points if you think that is anywhere close to saying the President cause genocide.

Otherwise please admit you fell victim to hyperbole because Barney Frank hurt your feelings, and move on.

Well, considering how very weak your examples are, I will of course concede no such thing.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 6, 2007 01:27 AM

Wow, people are doing such wonderful things with selective amnesia nowadays.

OK, Assistant Village Idiot:
- "Use of words like "ethnic cleansing," "American Taliban," "fascist," "no better than Saddam," and the like is simply irresponsible, and such phrases have dropped from the lips of Democrats. To call someone unpatriotic is small potatoes in comparison." -

I think I understand.

1) When your fellow conservatives call Democrats and liberals unpatriotic, imply they're partial to Al Qaeda and people who hate America, and actively want the US to lose and our soldiers to die for nothing...that's enlightened political discourse.

But when a Democrat says mean things about YOUR side, that's creating a mean partisan atmosphere all by itself. Just for the hell of it.

Is that about the size of it?

-- "Look, just because you feel something very powerfully and just know it in your bones doesn't make it true." --

I know. Which is why I listed specific facts with links.

--"Quick hitter, Jim. No one questioned Cleland's patriotism. That was claimed, but the actual quotes don't support it."--

Oh? It's not the text quotes that are the problem. The problem is alternating clips of him with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I guess that's what passes for enlightened bipartisanship? Certainly no mean partisanship there, eh? Is that your stance?

--"As to the phone jamming, it happened here in NH, and the parties were convicted."--

Good. I'm glad. So?

What's that got to do with the GOP being innocent in creating a partisan atmosphere?

Nada.

Posted by: jim at January 6, 2007 02:58 AM

- "Ah yes, Cheney throwing an f-bomb is just as bad as saying the President caused genocide." -

Not the argument.

Your argument is that Barney Frank and 'Vicious Democrats like him' are responsible for all the mean partisanship in Washington.

I'm not saying cursing someone out for daring to ask you an honest question, is equally as someone else accusing you of ethnic cleansing. That argument could be made, but I'm not.

I'm showing you that Barney Frank and the Democrats are not responsible for all the mean bipartisanship in DC. And that's being very charitable on my part.

And if you can't see that the ads which were run against Harold Ford were blatantly stomping all over the whole "Black men are going to screw our white women!" racist fear trigger, I just don't know what to say.

Do you really, really not see that?

Have you seen those ads?

Posted by: jim at January 6, 2007 03:04 AM

Clarifying this sentence:

"I'm not saying cursing someone out for daring to ask you an honest question, is equally as **rude as** someone else accusing you of ethnic cleansing. That argument could be made, but I'm not.

Posted by: jim at January 6, 2007 03:05 AM

Here's a little more on that Cleland incident.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland

"The text of the ad is as follows:

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.

"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."

"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."

"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people."

So, misrepresenting a veteran's voting record so that it looks like he was entirely against the agency that HE PROPOSED. So that he loses. And implying he's one and the same with Saddam Hussein in the bargain.

Is that the GOP contributing to a bipartisan atmosphere of cooperation and respect?

Yes or no?

Posted by: jim at January 6, 2007 03:14 AM

"Its only in your fevered imagination. No one in the administration has said that if you question the President, you have no patriotism."

Interesting narrowing of the argument. I didn't say the Administration, I said the GOP.

However, even within the conveniently narrow confines of your answer, here's an ad sponsored and put out directly by the Bush Administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/23/elec04.prez.democrats.gop.ad/

You know, the anti-Democratic Party ad that said "people are attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."

Saying that Democrats are against President Bush BECAUSE he's attacking terrorists - don't you think that's accusing Democrats of being in league with terrorists?

Wouldn't you say that a statement like that poisons the discourse just a wee tiny bit?

Yes or no?

Posted by: jim at January 6, 2007 03:23 AM

Jim,

There is no point trying to reason with the right-wingers. They are completely delusional and blindly biased in favor of the Republicans. No example you can offer of bad behavior on the part of Republicans will sway them. You are wasting your time and energy.

Anyway, expect more of this non-sense as time goes by. The right-wingers are foaming at the mouth because a majority of Americans could no longer tolerate the stench emanating from the GOP cesspool. They are just sore losers, and like bullies who have been beaten back, they are also whiners.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 6, 2007 06:54 AM

It looks like Zsa Zsa is afflicted with CDD(Clinton Derangement Disorder). Either that, or she (he?) has been sleeping for the past six years.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 6, 2007 10:22 AM

Jim, once again you fail to see the gravity of what is being said here.

No one in the GOP attacked Cleland's patriotism, they only questioned his judgment.

You guys keep imagining attacks that never really occured.

No one here has quoted or linked to anything remotely as horrific as what Frank said - and frankly little lists of election year dirty tricks are not what have poisoned the discourse. Those things have been going on forever, and if you want to go toe-to-toe over whether Republicans or Democrats have come up with worse election shenaningans for the last few decades, well, you Democrats have lost that argument before it has even begun.

I don't recall any Republicans actually firing live ammunition at Democratic election offices, for example.

Face it, Democrats are far ruder (which makes them 'authentic' somehow, in their eyes) and you guys have done nothing more than prove it yet again with your comments.

Thank you for making my case for me.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 6, 2007 12:07 PM

Jim, to answer your question by the way, that ads characterization is a perfectly fair one. Ever since 9/11 we have had little more than foot dragging and obstructionism from the left of the Democratic party. They fought the Patriot Act tooth and nail as well as its extension, 'voted for the 87 billion before they voted against it', leaked details about secret government programs, lied shamelessly about torture and abuse of the Koran at Gitmo, called the terrorists in Iraq 'minutemen', called the President 'Hitler' accused him of causing insane and impossible numbers of casualties in Iraq . . . I could go on and on and on and on and on . . .

So, Jim, you can excuse me perhaps for thinking that that ad is actually correct, and that many on your side in fact are indifferent to fighting terrorists, if not openly siding with them.

Yes, it is Democrats who consistently and pervasively destroyed what little political civility we had.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 6, 2007 12:19 PM

I am a right-winger, if we have to use that continuum, and a Republican. I have been a right winger for decades, but not always a Republican. It is unconscionable for Barney Frank to accuse the administration of ethnic cleansing; no excuses justify such calumny. The most disapponting thing about the slur is Frank's status as an elder statesman. In all the crap from the libs above there is nothing comparable from the Repubs, just the typical kos litany of complaints based on exaggerations and straw men. One way for the atmosphere to become less caustic is for partisans to call their own to task when they err; based on the ridiculously off point and ad hominem comments from the libs above, that ain't happenin' on the left.

Posted by: b from t at January 6, 2007 04:02 PM


You folks are amazing. The obvious person to resign is Bush. With your typical projectionism, you disallow any comment that points to the truth of the situation in New Orleans. Perhaps this offense is taken so that your righteous indignation can prevent a pause for rational
thinking, and you can continue to avoid the realities of your horseless cowboy's dismal (and lethal) performance. Thank God, Barney didn't mention Iraq,or you'd be calling for his hanging. Whining has always been the rightwingers' salient characteristic, and your post was proof.

Posted by: horatio at January 6, 2007 04:28 PM

With your typical projectionism, you disallow any comment that points to the truth of the situation in New Orleans.

Ah, so you think the truth shows that there IS genocide going on in New Orleans, Horatio?

Plus, I have an open commenting policy. No comment on my posts have ever been 'disallowed'.

Again, you guys miss the mark. No one here is saying things were handled perfectly in New Orleans and that no criticism is valid.

Just, you know, saying it is genocide seems gratuitously vicious.

I guess you guys are okay with that though.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 6, 2007 06:35 PM

This is the dumbest blog and dumbest comments I've seen yet.

Posted by: Ralph Deeds at January 7, 2007 07:23 AM

Thank you Ralph for those cogent and timely comments.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 7, 2007 02:51 PM

Devil's A, The only stench I smell is from the partisan BS as usual mantra that is spewing from the liberal cesspool comments. IF you really believe there has not been a Clinton hangover punishing the GW Bush administration and the GOP? You might want to stop drinking so much of that liberal Kool-aid ? Both parties are responsible for the Clinton hangover so don't think for a minute I am only accusing the Libs...Out with the old and In with the new is what I say.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 7, 2007 03:27 PM

The Democrats have attacked Bush for attacking the terrorists. Many of them have said it was unnecessary, that it was premature, that it was unilateral, that it was illegal, that improper methods have been used. You might think any of those qualifiers are correct, or all of them, but the fact remains. They said it. You might believe that the statement is misleading without one of those qualifiers, but it's not inaccurate.

To make the argument: as some Democrats have attacked Bush on these and other grounds whenever he attacks the terrorists, I conclude that it is the attacking per se, and not the qualifiers, that are their real reasons. The porridge is always either too hot or too cold for them. As a consequence of that conclusion, I further conclude that criticizing Bush is more important to them than the success of the GWOT. That must seem harsh. But to say "we want to win only if it's done our way" is not the same as wanting to win.

As a further-derived conclusion from the other two, I believe some Democrats are more loyal to party than to country. Being more loyal to party than country is something that can be, but is not necessarily, disloyal and traitorous. I don't doubt that they have some loyalty to country, and some limits of what they would do for party. I am not making the extreme black/white, either/or accusation that the Democrats are always disloyal. I make the claim that they have been disloyal to the country in some instances of their criticism.

Just because criticism is not always disloyal does not mean that disloyalty can always be covered by saying "it's just criticism." The Cleland events remain an excellent example. The Republican belief was that opposition to the bill gave advantage to the terrorists. Making that claim visually is cheesy, but not the same as questioning someone's patriotism. That the Democrats discussing that issue continually fail to see that leads me that they simply refuse to for partisan reasons. When Ted Kennedy and John Conyers have claimed that the administration's actions have borne comparison to Saddam's, no Republicans claimed "They're attacking our patriotism."

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 7, 2007 03:29 PM

Right barney should resign! Goode is my man. Calling those Muslims sneaking across our borders out! Shame about macaca not getting re-elected. He really raised the bar! Don't know whats wrong with these idiots who call themselves Americans who elected the democrat pukes. I say bring back Delay and Cunningham and Foley-that was the good old days!!!besides, who cares about New Orleans anyways-even Barbara Bush knows those people were better off living in the Astrodome. That's not ethnic cleansing Barney, thats Republican style affimative action!

Posted by: nancy at January 7, 2007 03:51 PM

I see you don't believe that Governor Blancho and Mayor Naggin have anything to do with New Orleans problems. The murder rate for this year so far is quite interesting too. AND it is only January 7 2007! Hmmm? Ethnic cleansing. I suppose the President is encouraging that too??? Interesting concept.

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 7, 2007 04:27 PM

MANY many of the Katrina "victims" were shopping at the Galleria for Louis Vuitton on the tax payers dollars. Gifts from the goodness of peoples heart were taken advantage of and drunken parties were observed by many Houstonians. This was NOT ethnic cleansing! This was a free ride for many ABLE bodied individuals to take advantage of TAX dollars. No one owes anyone anything. BUT for some reason the Katrina "victims" sure do think so???

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 7, 2007 04:41 PM

Lets not forget the approximately 1 Billion wasted by FEMA by awarding no bid contracts to politically connected companies. That also was a free ride for many able bodied individuals to take advantage of TAX dollars. But thats not as bad a black people being so uppity as to loot Luis Vuitton at the Galleria.

Posted by: nancy at January 7, 2007 06:56 PM

Hilariuos.

Yet again the Right gets their panties in a bunch over criticism.

But they'll protect us from terrorists.
As far as you know.

Posted by: Robert at January 7, 2007 10:40 PM

"The Democrats have attacked Bush for attacking the terrorists."

Assistant Village Idiot, you apparently believe this is true.

That may explain the divide in this discussion of this subject, between me and you and some (but not all) other conservative posters on this board.

Your statement follows:

"Many of them have said it was unnecessary, that it was premature, that it was unilateral, that it was illegal, that improper methods have been used."

First, to point out flaws in something someone is doing, is not necessarily to attack them. Those criticized can perceive it that way, but if the arguments have merits then they will stick, and if not the arguments will go away. To point out how someone is doing something wrong *helps everyone*.

Second, and much more importantly:

THE TERRORISTS WERE NOT IN IRAQ.

Therefore when Bush invaded Iraq, he WAS NOT ATTACKING THE TERRORISTS.

And, as we all know but which bears constant repeating, Osama Bin Laden - the REAL terrorist who HELPED KILL 3000 OF OUR CIVILIANS - went free.

[Why doesn't that boil your conservative blood??? How can you accept that??? He got away! He's laughing at us!]

So - the Democrats did NOT 'attack Bush', AND Bush 'was not attacking the terrorists'.

"As a consequence of that conclusion, I further conclude that criticizing Bush is more important to them than the success of the GWOT."

Conclude that all you want - but

a) criticizing is NOT attacking
b) Bush was not attacking terrorists by invading Iraq
c) the ad is therefore lying about Democrats AND implying they are traitors who ACTIVELY WANT terrorists to win.
d) your FEELINGS that this ad is accurate, does not contain any facts and is not relevant to whether or not these sort of attacks coming from the GOP, also poison the atmosphere.

Understand?

This may have a feeling of truthiness to you.

And, interestingly, this is exactly the same sort of truthiness that Barney Frank is expressing about the Bush admin's handling of the Katrina catastrophe.

And if it is wrong when the non-GOP side does it, then it 's wrong when the GOP side does it. Period.

That's really all there is to it.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 02:53 AM

"So, Jim, you can excuse me perhaps for thinking that that ad is actually correct, and that many on your side in fact are indifferent to fighting terrorists, if not openly siding with them."

Well, Ken, perhaps you can then excuse those who, from their worldview, think Barney Frank's statement is correct.

But GOOD LORD.

Indifferent to fighting terrorists? Are you KIDDING me?

OPENLY SIDING WITH THEM?

Pardon me - but that 'God Hates Fags' freak is conservative. He's the one who's dragging his freakish Christian cultists around to military funerals; he's the one that's happy soldiers are coming back in body bags.

Think about him the next time you accuse Liberals of being the people who want us to lose.

That's it. I'm done and I give up. Carry your victimization theory all you want. It keeps you blind and easily manipulated by the GOP, so they can play you for a sucker while they decimate the treasury and throw soldiers' lives away like a rich kid's christmas toys...

Meanwhile all the liberal predictions that

a) there are no WMD's worth invading for
b) the war WON'T be over in 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months...
c) the war WON'T pay for itself
d) we AREN'T going over there with enough soldiers to do it right
e) the war will increase worldwide terrorism and Al Qaeda's prestige specifically
f) Civil War is very likely

etc. etc....one after another of these predictions for why this would be a terrible idea comes true...but you just want to cling to these points as "unwarranted evil meany attacks" that prove Democrats are bad people.

...but this victimization feeling that you have, the same sort of theory that has welfare-addicts feel sorry for themselves; that feeling will help keep you righteously warm at night. I guess that's something.

Or you could stop feeling sorry for yourself, and look at your own party critically too. Like our nation's founders intended.

Just a thought.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 03:05 AM

Ken, as I leave, here's one other thing I'd like you to consider:

You said this,

"No one in the GOP attacked Cleland's patriotism, they only questioned his judgment."

But as I've just showed you, they did FAR MORE than just question his judgement

The GOP stated that Cleland voted AGAINST Homeland Security Agency, when it came from a bill he SPONSORED and the only votes he cast against were procedural, so that he could get a BETTER VERSION of that bill.

Isn't that dishonest?

Isn't that twisting the truth?

Because you see, as I remember Bill Frist cast a vote FOR gov't funding of stem cell research. He did this for some procedural reason, perhaps so that he could get past cloture.

So, let's say Democrats put an ad together saying Frist was lying when he said he was against Stem Cell research, because he voted for it - would they be twisting the truth, and therefore wrong and bad?

In other words - is it ok when the GOP does it, but wrong when the Dems do the exact same thing?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 03:24 AM

Nice work, Jim.

You've moved the goal posts to the hockey rink, basketball court and now they're sitting in the swimming pool.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 8, 2007 08:10 AM

Whatever.

You may all now stay secure in your victimization, that Barney Frank and the Mean Democrats are solely responsible for the divisive charged atmosphere.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 11:09 AM

You're kidding, right? It's the Democrats who have been poisoning our national discourse? That's cute.

Posted by: Tim at January 8, 2007 11:46 AM

Oh no Tim, calling Bush 'Hitler', accusing him of starting a war for oil and Halliburton, and accusing him of genocide is just rational, civil discourse, I suppose.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 8, 2007 01:11 PM

Ken, sigh, I will only paraphrase my earlier point, made several posts ago:

"Now if your argument is that Barney Frank is an example of the partisan talk that is damaging the US, because BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans engage in it - that's a much more sensible argument."

I am by no means saying Barney Frank said something dignified and useful for building unity.

All I've been saying this whole time is, a statement that says Barney Frank and 'vicious Democrats like him' are SOLELY responsible for how "the atmosphere in Washington is horribly uncivil nowadays" - is a statement that simply ignores reality.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 01:34 PM

good to know republicans have done ZERO soul searching since their historic loss in november. more outrages that no thinking person is outraged at.

Does anyone remember pen gate? when John Kerry brought a pen to the first debate in apparent violation of the rules. they had video at little green footballs of him allegedly holding notes in the pen. this is what the GOP has become.

Posted by: lester at January 8, 2007 03:30 PM

Nice one, Lester. I don't remember that. Why? Because all I read about was that Chimpy had a microphone taped to his back so Rove could feed him answers.

Or at least that was what you all were screaming about.

And Jim, now you've moved the goal posts to third base. Stop it already.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 8, 2007 03:37 PM

Find for me the quotes where Gingrich called every opponent no matter who they were or what their positions were that they were sick or unamerican.

It was in GOPAC's training materials for Republican candidates for office (GOPAC being the organization Newt founded). I got to see it because I went to college with Newt's older daughter. You can find a ton of references to it here.

There's a small grain of truth that there is ethnic cleansing going on in New Orleans? You can't be serious. Maybe you don't mind your party being accused of engaging in ethnic cleansing, but I certainly do. You don't understand the outrage because it isn't your ox being gored, now is it.

Yeah, a small grain: Lots and lots of mostly poor, mostly African American former residents of New Orleans have been forced to leave, with no mechanism created or planned for them to return. That might not have been the intent of the various governments involved (and for the record, I've said repeatedly that there were enough Katrina-related screwups to cover both parties and all levels of government in shame), but it has damn sure been the result. Even if it wasn't intended to be ethnic cleansing, and I have no reason to think it was, I can see how a lot of people might think it looks like ethnic cleansing.

And that's the thing about government by and for grownups: Results count for a lot more than intentions.

Posted by: Lex at January 8, 2007 03:52 PM

ok hoodlumman, in calling for the author to treat Democrats the same as Republicans, I've moved the goalposts.

Barney Frank and other Democrats are entirely responsible for the current hate-filled partisan atmosphere, and no Republicans have ever been unfair to any Democrats, in public or in private.

Furthermore Cheney did not tell a senator to go f___ himself, Cleland's record was not twisted deceitfully, and this very article blaming a Democrat instead of Democrats and Republicans for something - this very article itself did not occur.

The GOP, just completing a 12-year majority, are the only persecuted minority in American politics.

Anything else I should add, to put the goalposts where you think they should be?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 04:02 PM

Hoodlumman, please show how I've moved the goalposts. I'm interested in finding out how you've come to that conclusion.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 04:03 PM

Jim, you just don't get it.

Ethnic cleansing is a crime, punishable by death in some countries as we have seen in Iraq.

It is the most horrible thing that anyone can be accused of.

By comparison, calling someone 'unpatriotic' is practically a compliment. Hell, I have met liberals who considered themselves internationalists and basked in their proud claim to be against American nationalism and patriotism.

Many of the people on your side happily say they are unpatriotic, or at least not a patriot towards America today as they see it.

Even if some of you guys on the left blanch at having your patriotism being questioned, gee, it isn't like you are being accused of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY now is it.

Your efforts to somehow equate the nastiness of the left with the relative tameness of the right have failed quite miserably.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 8, 2007 06:05 PM

OK, Ken, thanks. I believe I get it.

a) It's bad because you don't like it,
b) that means Democrats are totally wrong and responsible for everything that's bad,
c) and that means the GOP is never wrong and totally innocent.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 06:22 PM

You know that all you have to do is retract that one sentence in your original whole article, right?

The one where you say that Barney Frank and other vicious Democrats are SOLELY TO BLAME for all the bad mean atmosphere in Washington.

That one overstatement on your part, that you're absolutely refusing to let go of.

Why is that? What do you have to gain by holding onto this?

Hm, I wonder - I bet it's that, now that the Democrats are in control of Congress and the Senate, this will help you feel like the way they're about to shut the GOP out is totally unfair, and not at like the GOP has done to the Democrats in the past 6 years.

is that what the real subtext here is?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 06:25 PM

I mean ken, you are continually blowing my mind here.

Arguments like this:

By comparison, calling someone 'unpatriotic' is practically a compliment. Hell, I have met liberals who considered themselves internationalists and basked in their proud claim to be against American nationalism and patriotism.

Well, gee Ken, I've met people who would consider "Fascist" and "Nazi" a compliment. Nazi Skinheads, in fact. Wouldn't that mean, by your logic, that Barney Frank was paying the GOP a compliment?

I'm guessing your answer is no.

Now isn't it funny how these arguments just don't work any more, if they're applied to your side too?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 06:34 PM

But let's say for a second that your argument has some merit, and that what Barney Frank said makes every single other GOP action pale in comparison.

Every racist inflammation (Harold Ford), deceitful manipulation of the facts regarding a disabled veteran (Max Cleland), contemptous public obscenity (Dick Cheney), outright willful fraud (phone bombing) or indictment of literally half of America as wanting America to fail and suffer - etc. etc. ad nauseum.

That would still mean that the GOP did *something*. that they had *some part*, even if it's in your eyes tiny, in poisoning the cultural discourse for the gain of their party.

Can you see that at least?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 06:38 PM

No, Jim.

Nothing you or anyone has mentioned here is remotely as repugnant as saying the President committed a crime against humanity.

You haven't even come close, nor can you.

Rather than defending Barney Frank to the bitter, bitter end perhaps you should engage in a little reflection and admit, finally, at long last, that what Frank said was horrible.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 8, 2007 07:51 PM

We're getting back to where the goalposts should be now: Barney Frank and his jaw-droppingly stupid slur against the President.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 8, 2007 08:51 PM

Oh my God. Wow.

I mean...wow.

I really feel that you are missing my point, to an incredible agree. I really should give up, but it just baffles me.

Maybe you think that I'm defending Barney Frank. OK, I'm not. Nor have I, once, in this entire post.

Are we clear on that?

Not once on this entire blog, have I said that Barney Frank DIDN'T say something that was uncivil.

My SOLE point, which you continue to not address, is YOUR SENTENCE HERE:

"If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame."

You're standing behind this statement as absolutely 100% true, and you're stating that NO ONE in the GOP is to blame ***at all*** for why Washington is "horribly uncivil"?

Not one person?

Is that really your stance?

You do realize that you can continue to state that Barney Frank is horribly uncivil, should resign, other Democrats should force him to resign, etc. etc., and your entire case will be STRONGER without this overreaching statement? A statement that even one of your fellow Republicans here has pointed out is reaching beyond the facts?

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 09:08 PM

I point out again that, in your post, you don't say Barney Frank and the Dems are responsible for 70% of the uncivil atmosphere. Nor do you say 90%. Nor do you even say %97.8 percent. You say ALL. 100%. WHich puts the GOP at 0% blame.

Do you get what I'm saying?

That's what this whooooolllle argument is about.

So how much bad or worse than the Dems, is IRRELEVANT to what I'm pointing out to you. If the GOP is 1/100th as bad as the Dems, that still means that your sentence is wrong and impossible.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Please tell me you do, or please tell me what you don't understand in what I'm saying.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 09:12 PM

Hoodlumman, if that's what you thought I was arguing against, then i could understand why you thought I was moving the goalposts.

But that is not what I was arguing against, from the beginning until now.

Posted by: jim at January 8, 2007 09:14 PM

Sorry Jim, but I have not seen any comments from Republicans that fit into the absolutely caustic statements invented and developed by the Left, the kind that makes any dialogue with the Left impossible.

The most strident, politically divisive and slanderous statements I have come across from people, whether in person or online, have always, invariably, consistently come from Leftists and Democrats. The Leftist blogosphere just seethes with it, and even Democrat leaders such as Howard Dean say they hate the Republicans.

Hate.

Man, you guys vilify and spit acid even at your own Democrats, like Lieberman being called 'Rape Gurney Joe.'

That was real classy, as we say here at WILLisms.com

You guys don't have to put up with crap like this, because it is coming from your own people. You should try being on the receiving end of it. You have no idea what it is like.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 8, 2007 09:59 PM

Jim, is it even possible for you not to write four posts in a row? And lay off the all caps. Online, that is considered the symbolic expression of screaming, not emphasis. I doubt that's how you want to come across. Especially in a discussion about civility.

No terrorists in Iraq? Well, it would have been the only country in the Middle East, Central Asia, or Europe without them then. Of course there were terrorists in Iraq. That they were not the 9-11 terrorists is irrelevant, and has been since the beginning. We are dealing with transnational groups aided by governments. Asymmetrical warfare seems to be evolving in that direction, and in the future, governments will assist terrorists from an even greater distance, with even greater deniability. But they will still be helping them, and still be legitimate targets.

If you would rather we invaded Iran or Syria, you might have a point. Is that your claim? Or is it your idea to invade no one and wait for "international pressure" to fix the situation.

As to the civility of discussion, I stand by my original comments. One can certainly find right-wing comments that are vicious and hateful. On the left, however, they are the mainstream. The examples you give of how vicious and unfair the Republicans have been are not persuasive. You are supplying your own soundtrack to the comments of others, quite sure you read their motives when you are only imputing them.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 8, 2007 11:05 PM

OK.

Assistant Village Idiot, once again, I'm not even arguing for whether the Democrat and GOP statements are in the same ballpark.

Ken's article asserts that Barney Frank and the Dems are entirely responsible. That is the assertion I am responding to.

I end up using caps, because I think if I capitalize it, you guys will get it. But fine. I'll stop capitalizing if you will please read the entire next paragraph, and then only respond to the statement in this next paragraph:

"Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is not at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Yes or no?

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 01:56 AM

Well, it would have been the only country in the Middle East, Central Asia, or Europe without them then.

Exactly.

But if we listen to the experts, that's the facts.

Which is yet another of many terrible reasons why invading Iraq was a bad idea.

I can send you the verified information, which by the way we had beforehand and which has been doubly verified by now, why this is true. I'm happy to. All I ask is that if I post it, you will read it.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 01:59 AM

At the risk of a 3rd post - and my apologies - here's how that statement should read:

""Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

Agree or disagree?

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 02:18 AM

Hey Jim, Barney Frank's comments were reprehensible and lower the quality of discourse in this country.

Agree or disagree?

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 9, 2007 02:29 AM

Barney Frank is not 100% responsible . There are alot of other Dems responsible too. HA!

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 9, 2007 08:47 AM

OK, yes, Barney Frank's comments are reprehensible and lower the quality of discourse in this country.

Now, do you agree or disagree with:

"Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 09:36 AM

Jim, just for clarity, can you point to where your quote appears in the post or the comments?

"Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 9, 2007 10:45 AM

ok, hoodlumman. Let's walk the cat backwards.

This original sentence appears in the original article:

"If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame. "

My first disagreeing response:

"There's enough blame to go around. Trying to shift all the blame onto someone else, is what's increasing partisan strife.

Now if your argument is that Barney Frank is an example of the partisan talk that is damaging the US, because BOTH the Democrats and the Repupblicans engage in it - that's a much more sensible argument."

Many posts followed, in which I brought up numerous examples of the GOP engaging in vicious and divisive statements and actions that couldn't help but poison the atmosphere.

When these examples were acknowledged at all, it was stated basically that they're small in comparison to Barney Frank's statement. This is an entirely separate argument than the one I'm making.

So I hope that's clear.

I figured some slipperiness in the original sentence is to blame. It puts 100% of the blame on the Dems, and doesn't additionally state this means 0% blame for the GOP.

So to make it clear exactly what I'm disagreeing with, I rephrased the sentence as so:

"Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

So - hoodlumman - I can agree, wholeheartedly, that Barney Frank said something reprehensible, with no factual backing, that is inflammatory and harmful because it gets in the way of our different parties actually working together make things better for America.

Do you agree or disagree that Barney Frank and the Demorats have created this poisoned cultural discourse entirely by themselves, and the GOP has played no part in it whatsoever?

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 12:33 PM

Really, Jim, you are being silly.

Did I, or did I not concede right in my post that Republicans do and say over the top things, like accusing Bill Clinton of murdering Vince Foster?

I stand by my original proposition however, that the Democrats are the ones responsible for the acrid atmosphere in Washington.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 9, 2007 12:44 PM

So, Ken, does that mean you agree or disagree with this statement?

"Barney Frank and the Dems are 100% responsible for the vicious atmosphere in Washington, and no one in the GOP is at all responsible for any little bit of it. Not even 1 %, or half of 1%, or less."

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 01:02 PM

In your post you conceded to the exploitation of Vince Foster's death as GOP poisoning of the discourse; but you mention this as if

a) that was a separate, disconnected era.
b) the GOP has been entirely innocent of any poisoning of the atmosphere for the 7 years since Bill Clinton was in office.

So, do you continue to stand by the idea that Democrats are 100% responsible, and the GOP is 0% responsible for the current atmosphere as it is today?

If so, then please state exactly that. Because that is what your article states.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 01:09 PM

It wasn't just the GOP speculation about Vince Foster's death. The police and investigators were the ones who stated the body had been moved. AND implied there was a cover up...SO your accusations of the GOP poisoning the atmosphere in Washington is lame. It still remains a mystery about Vince Foster. Jim. have you heard the saying, Where there is smoke there is fire? The Clinton administration had a great deal of smoke! Frome travelgate to the very end...No one is perfect. BUT think about all the "smoke" Bill Clinton was surrounded by???

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 9, 2007 01:34 PM

Zsa zsa, I understand your feeling that where there is smoke there is fire.

However, I would like to point out that this translates to: where there is smoke there is fire - if it's pointing at someone we don't like.

If it happens that the smoke is near someone we like, then the smoke is a bunch of mean-spirited and unfounded speculation.

Do you follow me?

This is something all humans of all political stripes do. And this is why it's utterly important to stick to verifiable facts, even if we happen to also be certain we are right.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 01:57 PM

To bring the point closer to home:

Smoke surrounding Vince Foster's death, and various other matters, means to most conservatives that the Clintons are probably guilty of something.

At the same time, the great amount of smoke surrounding Bush's decision to invade Iraq, means to most conservatives that Bush is probably not guilty of anything.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Now for a liberal worldview, just flip those two: Clinton was innocent and Bush is guilty, because where there's smoke there's fire.

Does that mean that one is wrong and the other is right? No, not necessarily. The only way to get close to knowing is to go straight for the facts.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 02:05 PM

No Jim, I don't see what you are saying.

I do not presume that either Clinton or Bush are 'guilty' in regards to what you are saying. Sometimes smoke is just smoke.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 9, 2007 02:42 PM

Ken, I was responding to Zsa Zsa, and was not saying that you presume Clinton's or Bush's guilt.

Basically I was describing how ideology itself can be blinding, and using Clinton or Bush as examples.

So, Ken, do you continue to stand by the idea that Democrats are 100% responsible, and the GOP is 0% responsible for the current atmosphere as it is today?

Yes or no?

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 02:56 PM

Jim, you did a little stretching to get to the position you've staked this thread on. Don't pull anything. And honestly, your tit-for-tat defense is a pretty weak one.

But kudos to you for sticking this one out almost 100 posts deep. Most of your like-minded bretheren spewed a bunch of laughable talking points and bolted.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at January 9, 2007 03:05 PM

Well, thanks for that - some faint praise, but I'll take it. :)

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 03:21 PM

What do you think President Bush is guilty of? You really can't compare Bill Clinton & G W Bush. Bill Clinton is a common criminal accused of multiple sexual crimes, being a liar under oath, etc... George W Bush is accused of going to Iraq with the idea that there were WMD. Oh ya, and doing it for Iraqi Oil??? Is that right?

Posted by: zsa zsa at January 9, 2007 04:13 PM

Well Zsa Zsa, that's a whole different argument, with many different aspects to it.

For now, I'll just point out that:

1) being accused of something is quite different than being a criminal.

2) Bill Clinton was never actually convicted of anything. Not even perjury.

So if you think that Bush should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, that also means you must treat Clinton as innocent until proven guilty.

I understand you probably hate Bill Clinton quite a bit. But if you're truly interested in justice, then that's the only fair way to go about it.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 04:30 PM

Jim, I think my earlier posts also acknowledged that there were vicious comments from the right at times. Your retreat into the point of "well, the original post claimed that it was the Democrats were 100% to blame, so any counterevidence is disproof of the premise" just won't wash. In normal discourse, we say that the husband who cheats serially on his faithful wife is "to blame" for their bad relationship without remotely implying that she is faultless. We say that the drunk driver on the wrong side of the road was "at fault" even if the driver she hit was speeding or talking on a cell phone. I suspect you use these words in similar ways, so your attempting to hold final ground by insisting on purity is rather like the sixth-grade pedant who says "no, you only have four fingers on that hand, because one of them is a thumb." You have tried manfully, but it doesn't hold. I would have a similar objection to your "well, some people like to be called nazi, so I guess it's a compliment by your reasoning" idea. We do get the point you were trying to make. We are rejecting it as unimportant in the larger context of who is at fault for the incivility of discourse in today's political climate.

You're a smart guy, you work hard at your arguments and you do some research - all good things. I made similar arguments when I was a liberal years ago myself. I was fortunate, in a sense, to work in a very liberal environment, where people made unguarded comments, assuming everyone else must be liberal. I also have conservative acquaintances who know I am conservative and make unguarded, and unfair comments about liberals. But taken on balance, I was eventually driven to the conclusion that the liberals were far more vicious and unfair.

Perhaps I would see that differently if I lived or worked in a very conservative area, rather than being in human services in New England. But I no longer seriously worry about this possibility. The rhetoric of the conservative fringe is the same as the liberal mainstream.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 9, 2007 05:56 PM

I'm sorry that you view me as retreating into that position. That's been my problem with the article from the beginning, and that's what caused me to post here in the first place.

I would disagree with a position that Barney Frank and the Democrats are responsible for most of the poisonous atmosphere. But that's highly subjective, and open to debate.

But to state that Barney Frank and the Democrats are responsible for all of the partisan strife, is simply impossible. Literally, logically impossible. Honestly, it's such an absurd position that it baffles me why Ken refuses to acknowledge it.

Whatever your reasons for rejecting it, are not relevant. As long as you refuse to acknowledge so little as one ounce of responsibility on the GOP side of the aisle, you are absolutely refusing to acknowledge reality.

And that's fine, that's your privilege.

But if that's what your doing, you should at least be straight up about it.

So AVI, do you agree that Barney Frank and the Democrats are 100% responsible, and the GOP are 0% responsible? Or do you disagree with that position?

Yes or no, please.

Posted by: jim at January 9, 2007 06:11 PM

'In normal discourse, we say that the husband who cheats serially on his faithful wife is "to blame" for their bad relationship without remotely implying that she is faultless. We say that the drunk driver on the wrong side of the road was "at fault" even if the driver she hit was speeding or talking on a cell phone.'

I'd say that pretty well sums it up. I don't know why Jim persisted in his '100% versus 0%' argument when I said right up front that the Vince Foster thing was wrong.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 10, 2007 09:12 AM

Ken, the reason I persisted and still persist in that, although this may be my last entry, is, as I've said many times, this sentence:

"If you want to know why the atmosphere in Washington is so horridly uncivil these days, Barney Frank and those in the Democratic party who share his vicious ideology are to blame."

I already pointed out to you the problem with your Vince Foster mention - that implies that the GOP has been utterly blameless since then, since that's the last thing that you mention.

If, as you suggest, your bringing up Vince Foster negates this argument, then your article contradicts itself - because this sentence, here, puts all of the blame on the Democrats and none on the GOP.

You can, however, fix this issue so easily, and have an article that makes a full and logically coherent article. You could just state explicitly that the GOP shares some of the blame, now, for how the situation is currently.

Please either do that, or explain why you will not make your article logically coherent and your point about Barney Frank logically possible.

Posted by: jim at January 10, 2007 12:36 PM

As with Ken's comment, I already have answered that 100%-0% question. I think I'll let my arguments stand as previously stated.

I actually do like the "yes or no" thing, jim, even though some may object to it. It reminds me of myself not so long ago.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 10, 2007 05:12 PM

I stand by what I said.

The virulent Left is responsible for ruining debate in this country.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 10, 2007 09:07 PM