Tom DeLay confesses...

[jAZ]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGIQL80.html

This "... is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County. We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."

I can't be certain that Tom DeLay actually intended to confess that he and his cronies have attempted to turn conservative politics into criminal activity, but that's sure what it sounds like to me.

I'm betting he'd like a chance to rephrase that one. ;)

[patteeu]

I think it's safe to say that there won't be many who are misled as easily on this point as you. No wonder you guys keep blaming the Bush administration for fooling you about the war.

[Area 51]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGIQL80.html

This "... is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County. We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."

I can't be certain that Tom DeLay actually intended to confess that he and his cronies have attempted to turn conservative politics into criminal activity, but that's sure what it sounds like to me.

I'm betting he'd like a chance to rephrase that one.

I'm betting that it doesn't matter what he said, you would twist it for your convenience regardless.

[Mr. Kotter]

I think it's safe to say that there won't be many who are misled as easily on this point as you.....

Heh, you are underestimating "them." jAZ is one of their brighter voices too. ;)

[htismaqe]

Heh, you are underestimating "them." jAZ is one of their brighter voices too. ;)

LOUDER ≠ "brighter"

[SBK]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGIQL80.html

This "... is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County. We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."

I can't be certain that Tom DeLay actually intended to confess that he and his cronies have attempted to turn conservative politics into criminal activity, but that's sure what it sounds like to me.

I'm betting he'd like a chance to rephrase that one. ;)

Let me translate.

Democrats can't beat us at the ballot box, so they're trying to criminalize our policies and put us in jail.

[jAZ]

It's funny you guys (other than patteeu) have nothing to say around here, but when I bring a little amusement to the floor, you all come back out of the woodwork with uber-serious guns blazing.

ROFL

[htismaqe]

It's funny you guys (other than patteeu) have nothing to say around here, but when I bring a little amusement to the floor, you all come back out of the woodwork with uber-serious guns blazing.

ROFL

I come over here about every 48 hours and post on whatever sounds like fun to me...

It's got nothing to do with you or your stupid ideas, as much as you wish it did.

[Area 51]

I come over here about every 48 hours and post on whatever sounds like fun to me...

It's got nothing to do with you or your stupid ideas, as much as you wish it did.

Don't insult jaz, he might get mad and go away! On second thought, go for the gold!

[SBK]

It's funny you guys (other than patteeu) have nothing to say around here, but when I bring a little amusement to the floor, you all come back out of the woodwork with uber-serious guns blazing.

ROFL

You must hate it when we come around and interrupt you and Denises game of soggy biscuit.

[Taco John]

It's awesome that Delay is using that tired old talking point. When his crooked ass goes down, so will that tired old line.

The day of the fake conservative is dying. Democracy is airing itself out.

[Pittsie]

Obviously Tom DeLay was born without an irony detector. Rebuplicans pretty much invented the politics of personal destruction. Clinton obviously, but Jim Wright before him.

Tom DeLay, 1998. "Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/text100998.htm

[Mr. Kotter]

Obviously Tom DeLay was born without an irony detector. Rebuplicans pretty much invented the politics of personal destruction. Clinton obviously, but Jim Wright before him.

Tom DeLay, 1998. "Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/text100998.htm

You were apparently not around for the 70s and 80s: the politics of personal destruction is not a partisan issue at all.....it's been used a long, long time by both sides of the isle. Neither side can claim otherwise.

[Pittsie]

I really hope you're not alluding to Nixon by mentioning the 70s.

[patteeu]

Obviously Tom DeLay was born without an irony detector. Rebuplicans pretty much invented the politics of personal destruction. Clinton obviously, but Jim Wright before him.

Tom DeLay, 1998. "Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/text100998.htm

Politics didn't start at the edge of your memory. The politics of personal destruction were well established before the Republican party existed. But the important point to understand now is that the democrats have NOTHING BUT the politics of personal destruction left in their quivers. Eventually that will change and new blood will reinvigorate the party with some fresh ideas, but it's stuck being the anti-Bush party right now.

[Mr. Kotter]

Politics didn't start at the edge of your memory. The politics of personal destruction were well established before the Republican party existed. But the important point to understand now is that the democrats have NOTHING BUT the politics of personal destruction left in their quivers. Eventually that will change and new blood will reinvigorate the party with some fresh ideas, but it's stuck being the anti-Bush party right now.

It really began in earnest in the 20s.....


the 1820s for those not versed in the history of partisan politics, heh.

A quaint example: Grover Cleveland's campaign....heh.
"Ma, ma.....where's Pa?"
"Goin' to the White House. Har, har, har!"

The climate really took a nasty turn during the early part of the 20th century... but they didn't have a cable-driven-24/7 news cycle to give us an outlet for us to lament the turn of events.

FTR, I'm not saying I approve; merely, it's been like this for a long, long time. Whoever is the current target always whines "it's gotten worse."

[penchief]

It really began in earnest in the 20s.....


the 1820s for those not versed in the history of partisan politics, heh.

A quaint example: Grover Cleveland's campaign....heh.
"Ma, ma.....where's Pa?"
"Goin' to the White House. Har, har, har!"

The climate really took a nasty turn during the early part of the 20th century... but they didn't have a cable-driven-24/7 news cycle to give us an outlet for us to lament the turn of events.

FTR, I'm not saying I approve; merely, it's been like this for a long, long time. Whoever is the current target always whines "it's gotten worse."

Seems to me the battle has always been one that has pitted social progressives against those bought and paid for by the power quo.

[Mr. Kotter]

Seems to me the battle has always been one that has pitted social progressives against those bought and paid for by the power quo.

Perhaps. Regardless, there has always been plenty of mudslinging and "politics of personal destruction" from both sides....and going both directions. Neither side can claim the high groud with any degree of credibility.

[Pittsie]

It really began in earnest in the 20s.....

the 1820s for those not versed in the history of partisan politics, heh.

A quaint example: Grover Cleveland's campaign....heh.
"Ma, ma.....where's Pa?"
"Goin' to the White House. Har, har, har!"

I'm sure it's just an oversight, but Cleveland was president from 1884-1892 (except the middle 4 years).

FTR, I'm not saying I approve; merely, it's been like this for a long, long time. Whoever is the current target always whines "it's gotten worse."

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't think 75% of the newspaper ads back in, say 1880, were negative. 75% of Bush's TV ads (at least at one point in last year's campaign) were negative. Personal attacks specifically, and negative campaigns generally, are a large reason why the American electorate has tuned out of politics. That, and cynicism engendered by massive pork barrel spending and a whole host of other activities that both sides of the aisle engage in.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm sure it's just an oversight, but Cleveland was president from 1884-1892 (except the middle 4 years).
.....
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't think 75% of the newspaper ads back in, say 1880, were negative. 75% of Bush's TV ads (at least at one point in last year's campaign) were negative. Personal attacks specifically, and negative campaigns generally, are a large reason why the American electorate has tuned out of politics. That, and cynicism engendered by massive pork barrel spending and a whole host of other activities that both sides of the aisle engage in.

The 1820s was when it started; I pulled an example from the 1880s, yes. My point is it's been going on, with a vengeance, SINCE the 1820s and Jackson's campaign against John Q--now, that was nasty. Cleveland's example is simply memorable and indicative of the type from that day.

If you think Bush started the 75% mix of "negative" ads, once again you are mistaken. Of course, it wasn't on television....but newpaper ads, flyers, pamphlets, three-hour political rallies turned "character" lynchings, gossip, and political party based periodicals "back-in-the-day" did the job quite nicely. There was life before 1990, and it wasn't much different (sadly) than it is today.

What was a "bit" different, was from 1930-1965 or so, Americans became much more trusting and less cynical of government than they had been historically--due to the popularity of FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and others. Since 1965, we've gone BACK to the way things use to always be....except now we have the 24/7 cable-news cycle and the internet to put such divisiveness out there for all to see.

You are right about cynicism and disenchantment: both parties have contributed quite well to it.

[go bowe]

I think it's safe to say that there won't be many who are misled as easily on this point as you. No wonder you guys keep blaming the Bush administration for fooling you about the war.too-shay!!

too-muthaf*ckin'-shay!! :toast:

ouch... :mad:

ooooooooh... :eek: :eek: :eek:

burn, baby, burn... :D :D :D

[whoman69]

Politics didn't start at the edge of your memory. The politics of personal destruction were well established before the Republican party existed. But the important point to understand now is that the democrats have NOTHING BUT the politics of personal destruction left in their quivers. Eventually that will change and new blood will reinvigorate the party with some fresh ideas, but it's stuck being the anti-Bush party right now.
Democrats are simply responding in kind to what has brought them down. Typical Republican strategy is to smear the opponent. DeLay is doing nothing to change that. The entire party is taking their cues from Karl Rove. Goes clear back to the days of Reagan where the word "liberal" seemed to spit off his lips with disdain.

[Mr. Kotter]

Democrats are simply responding in kind to what has brought them down. Typical Republican strategy is to smear the opponent. DeLay is doing nothing to change that. The entire party is taking their cues from Karl Rove. Goes clear back to the days of Reagan where the word "liberal" seemed to spit off his lips with disdain.

Responding in kind? Yup. But when did it all begin? You say the 1980s? I remember it well before then....and coming from BOTH sides, not just one.

[Baby Lee]

Seems to me the battle has always been one that has pitted social progressives against those bought and paid for by the power quo.
Seems to me the battle has always been one that has pitted [characterize those with whom I agree in amicable terms] against [characterize those with whom I disagree in derogatory terms].

;)

[penchief]

Seems to me the battle has always been one that has pitted [characterize those with whom I agree in amicable terms] against [characterize those with whom I disagree in derogatory terms].

;)

True, but true.

[Baby Lee]

True, but true.
Funny you use that phrase to reinforce a tautology.
Basically you say that the battle has always been between those who want something to change and those who don't.
What other battle is there going to be?

[penchief]

Funny you use that phrase to reinforce a tautology.
Basically you say that the battle has always been between those who want something to change and those who don't.
What other battle is there going to be?

Now you're beginning to understand. Those efforts to change things for the better are usually resisted by those who have the force of the power quo behind them.

Which side do you think Cheneyburton falls? The side of fair wages or the side of driving down wages? The side of justice or the side of the pharmaceutical and health care industries? The side of environmental conservation or the side of corporate greed? The side of the consumer or the side of the oil industry?

It hasn't changed much from the early 20th century when the battle was over labor laws, child labor, civil rights, or universal suffrage. It's good versus evil. Even Christians supposedly claim that money is the root of all evil.

Do you fall on the side of justice or exploitation?

[Mr. Kotter]

Now you're beginning to understand. Those efforts to change things for the better are usually resisted by those who have the force of the power quo behind them.

....



Underlying your presumption is the untstated premise that change is good, which is sometimes true. The problem is, sometimes change is not good. Of course, evaluation of change is a subjective thing, and reasonable and educated people may disagree.

Change for the good ought to be embraced; change that yields uncertain results ought to, rightly, be met with skepticism. And, despite the inability of some to understand the notion, change sometimes can be bad--even very bad. Change for the bad should be fought with every fiber of our being.

The problem is many embrace all change, not making any distinction between whether it is good or bad. Change for the sake of change is no virtue, of itself.

[penchief]

Underlying your presumption is the untstated premise that all change is good, which is sometimes true. The problem is, sometimes change is not good. Of course, evaluation of change is a subjective thing, and reasonable and educated people may disagree.

Change for the good ought to be embraced; change that yields uncertain results, ought, rightly, to be met with skepticism. And, despite the inability of some to understand the notion, change sometimes can be bad--even very bad. Change for the bad should be fought with every fiber of our being.

The problem is many embrace all change, not making any distinction between whether it is good or bad. Change for the sake of change is no virtue, of itself.

I could not agree with you more. That is why I believe that both progressives and conservatives serve a purpose. Pogressives are the gas pedal and conservatives are the brake. I have no problem with that setup.

The thing I object to is when legitimate progress is undermined by those serving a power qou which is resentful that progress has stripped them of their ability to manipulate the social-economic environment to their benefit.

And the way that I see it, that is exactly what is happening in America today. Bush/Cheney has been hired by the power quo to turn back the clock on fundamental progresses. Most maddening is the fact that they simplisticly and dishonestly appeal to the average American's senses of decency and patriotism in order to accomplish goals that serve the forces of power and wealth at the expense of the overall good of America and humanity.