« Two-candidate dynamics in the GOP race | Main | The search for Giuliani defeat narratives »

January 29, 2008

Comments

Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe that liberal dishonest tactics are something new, something they were driven to by George Bush?

Let's just hop into the Wayback Machine and revisit 1987. Quiet now, Teddy Kennedy, the liberal lion, is speaking: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

No, I don't think such tactics are new. I think the embrace of them as a regular approach to politics has increased. Read the book for more...

You seem like a nice young man, so let me help you a bit here. Embracing liberal memes such as this...

...that the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were all (in)accurate...

...as gospel without personal research and knowledge is hazardous to your own credibility.

The Swiftvets did present documented facts as well as allegations...many of which were, self-admittedly, their "opinions" supported by plausible and credible evidence and argumentation.

Until you (and yours) can come to terms with this (perhaps not possible until Kerry leaves the political theater), your musings are less than reality based.

Argus -

How do you "come to terms" with innuendo ?

What are these "facts" that aren't even stated and are only based on "opinions" but are backed by "plausible and credible evidence and argumentation."?

What "personal research and knowledge" do you have or have you done ?

Why are you speaking in memes ?

Those comments from old Teddy do include some shocking sounding rhetoric. That rhetoric was extreme. It clearly should have been less hysterical.

I will add that Bork had, and still has, extreme opinions. That’s just the facts. You can look at each of those points and review the basis in fact for each comment.

He is still anti-abortion, anti separation of church and state, adamantly pro censorship and against extending many rights of due-process (even as they currently exist) to criminal defendants. He also believes homosexuality (or consensual homosexual acts between adults) should be outlawed. But I think he’s moderated a bit on civil rights.

In any case, we've already seen Johah Goldberg (and others before him) pull out that single sentence – 20 years old now - to prove how ugly and uncivil politicians (or liberals) can be (or have been).

This tit-for-tat style of argument is old and tired. I often see it used to make a point (or to deflect away from the subject at hand) on blogs. It goes like this - Libby lied but so did Clinton; Rove may be vicious but James Carville was vicious; etc.

Sam Fox (our current Ambassador to Belgium) told the Senate it was OK to fund a nationally televised smear campaign in a Presidential election because "the other side was doing the same thing". That’s how he justified it.

That doesn't work for me. First, I don't believe Ambassador Fox was right - the other side wasn't doing it. Second, even if they were, how does that make it right?

You can always go back 20 years to find something to help justify your own contemporary vile, if you want to. Maybe Fox was reading Goldberg.

Oh, Fox also said, "you should be proud of your military service, Senator. No one can take that away from you."

The comments to this entry are closed.