Fucking Republicans

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Fucking Republicans

Postby lukpac » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:59 pm

Matt, are you proud of stuff like this?

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=3/20/2006&id=3830

MONDAY, March 20, 2006, 5:11 p.m.
By Craig Gilbert
RNC to launch ads against Feingold

Washington - The Republican National Committee says it will begin airing an ad on talk radio shows in Milwaukee and Madison this week criticizing Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold for his proposal to censure President Bush.

The ad describes Feingold as the "leader" of a group of Democrats "working against" the president's efforts to "secure our country" by monitoring terrorist communications and disrupting terrorist plots.

"Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he's more interested in censuring the president than protecting our freedom," says the ad, according to a transcript and audio provided by the RNC.

In a statement released late Monday, Feingold said: "The President has broken the law, and the censure resolution I introduced is intended to hold him accountable. Nobody says that we shouldn't be monitoring suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. We have yet to hear a reasonable argument from the president or anyone else why it was necessary to break the law. Congress must fulfill its obligation to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and censuring the president is an appropriate place to start."

A Republican Party official would not say how much is being spent on the ad, or whether the party plans to run ads in other states on the subject. The spot will air on talk radio stations in the two Wisconsin markets, the official said.

Feingold last week introduced a resolution to censure the president over the National Security Agency wiretapping program begun after the 9-11 attacks. The surveillance program targets electronic communications that occur between parties in the U.S. and abroad and involve people suspected of ties to al-Qaida, administration officials say.

Feingold contends the program violates a 1978 law that requires judicial warrants for eavesdropping on Americans. His resolution also accuses Bush of misleading the public about the government's surveillance policies.

While there is much debate among scholars and lawmakers about the program's legality, Feingold's censure resolution has attracted few supporters in Congress. Two other Democratic senators have signed on as co-sponsors, but others have called it premature or politically unwise.

RNC spokesman Danny Diaz couched the ad as a statement about the two parties' approach to the war on terrorism going into the 2006 congressional elections. "Voters this fall face a choice between those that protect America at any cost versus those that play politics with our national security," Diaz said.

While Democratic lawmakers have shied away from censure, many Democratic voters support it, according to the first batch of polls on the issue.

In a nationwide Newsweek Poll of registered voters conducted last Thursday and Friday, 42% supported censure, and 50% opposed. Among Democrats, 60% supported censure and 30% opposed.


I also stumbled across this. The post itself seems like a pretty lame show of "bias", but then again, Media Matters often isn't much better. Some of the comments, though:

American Infidel Says:
March 20, 2006 - 18:10
At first I thought Bill Schneider had come to his senses. I thought the article was going to be about Schneider asking for an impeachment of Feingold for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. But then I find it's the same old far left wing kook fringe call for the Presidents impeachment.

bigtimer Says:
March 20, 2006 - 18:20

"Democrats have not forgotten what the Republican Congress did to President Clinton. Newflash Schneiderkins...Clinton did it all by himself. LIED all by his lonesome! Get a grip and quit trying to rewrite history as you looney leftists always do.

Btw...I heard the B.S. plus I tune him out if possible... he talks as if he is talking to a bunch of pre-school kids...oops he is basically talking to the CNN base for their audience...guess he has to in that case...heheheehaaaahahahaaabwahhhhahahaa

Hunter12 Says:
March 20, 2006 - 18:38

This war would not have been as long or as bloody and costly without the MSM and idiots like Trudeau inciting and thereby recruiting for the enemy. They also seem to forget that everything the current administration has done has been vetted through the Congress and their beloved Clinton used the same talking points on Iraq to divert attention from his lies and indiscretions. I wonder if Trudeau would look upon an intern hookup so light-heartedly , if it was about ten years in the future and the intern looked like a young Jane Pauley and was named Rachel. Gary, they're all somebody's daughter. I guess your hero can do no wrong.

semby Says:
March 20, 2006 - 18:44

Schneider - another senile liberal idiot duh!

can't stand the guy - when he talks he sounds like a freaking fool!


And does anybody understand the Jane Pauley/Rachel/daughter comment? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I found some more idocy, but it will have to wait.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Ess Ay Cee Dee
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Fucking Republicans

Postby Ess Ay Cee Dee » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:25 pm

lukpac wrote:Newflash Schneiderkins...Clinton did it all by himself. LIED all by his lonesome! Get a grip and quit trying to rewrite history as you looney leftists always do.


So, let me get this straight. Clinton's a bad, bad man because he lied "all by his lonesome." I take it, then, that Bush is OK because he's lied in the company of several other liars. Strength in numbers, I guess.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:34 pm

Oh, I was so waiting for this -- conservative assholes all but conceding that the war is a lost cause, but blaming that on *liberals*
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:54 pm

Yeah, nothing like blaming the people who told you exactly what was going to happen.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

czeskleba
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:02 am

Postby czeskleba » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:07 pm

lukpac wrote:And does anybody understand the Jane Pauley/Rachel/daughter comment? Doesn't make any sense to me.


Garry Trudeau and Jane Pauley have a daughter named Rachel. So he's using the "you Clinton-lovers would feel differently if Clinton slept with your daughter" argument. The irony being that Garry Trudeau hardly went easy on Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal... he got tons of mileage out of it. Obviously the person criticizing Trudeau does not actually read Doonesbury.

One can hardly fault the Republicans for attacking Feingold in this matter. They can't run on their successes, so attacking is their only option. And "The Democrats are traitorous wussies" approach has worked well for them in the past.

Feingold's censure resolution was foolish, IMO. It typifies the modern Democratic approach, which seems to be all about winning symbolic victories but losing the war (example: grandstanding hostile questioning of Alito by the judiciary committee Dems, but no guts to do something meaningful like filibuster, or demand he answer questions about abortion or something). Their "opposition" seems to be more about putting on a show than trying to develop and advance a meaningful agenda.

What's the point of censure? Introducing a measure that has no hope of passing is just putting on a show for liberal constituents. And really, even if they could come up with the votes to censure Bush, what would the point be? There are no consequences in a censure.

It's like all the talk about impeachment... do we really want to impeach him? Then what, Cheney takes over? Oh, we have to impeach him too, I guess. Then what, Hastert takes over? I wish the Democrats would devote some energy to coming up with meaningful ideas to run on... talk about censure just makes them look like the liberal whackos the GOP wants to portray them as.

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:41 am

I think the censure resolution was useful, if only as a reminder that Bush is facing no consequences whatsoever for breaking the law.

I'd rather Congress go on record as giving him a free pass, rather than doing it implicitly.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:53 am

czeskleba wrote:Garry Trudeau and Jane Pauley have a daughter named Rachel. So he's using the "you Clinton-lovers would feel differently if Clinton slept with your daughter" argument. The irony being that Garry Trudeau hardly went easy on Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal... he got tons of mileage out of it. Obviously the person criticizing Trudeau does not actually read Doonesbury.


Ahh...so now the issue isn't Clinton lied, it's that he (almost) slept with somebody's daughter? Give me a break.

Feingold's censure resolution was foolish, IMO. It typifies the modern Democratic approach, which seems to be all about winning symbolic victories but losing the war (example: grandstanding hostile questioning of Alito by the judiciary committee Dems, but no guts to do something meaningful like filibuster, or demand he answer questions about abortion or something). Their "opposition" seems to be more about putting on a show than trying to develop and advance a meaningful agenda.


If it was coming from someone like Hillary, I'd tend to agree with you. But I'm not convinced Feingold is doing this as a PR stunt or something - I think he actually believes what he says. He's certainly not someone that does things just because they are popular with the left, like allowing Ashcroft in.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:20 pm

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/content/376

Text of RNC Attack Ads

September eleventh changed our country.

And it changed how America responds to terrorists.

President Bush is working to keep American families safe.

Passing the Patriot Act which has disrupted over one hundred and fifty terrorist threats and cells and making sure the US is monitoring terrorist communications.

But some Democrats are working against these efforts to secure our country, opposing the Patriot Act and terrorist surveillance program.

Their leader is Russ Feingold.

Now Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda.

Some Democrats are even calling for President Bush’s impeachment.

Is this how Democrats plan to win the War on Terror?

Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he’s more interested in censuring the President than protecting our freedom.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:56 pm

Matt, are you proud of stuff like this?


Not proud, mostly apathetic. I really don't think much will come of it.
-Matt

czeskleba
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:02 am

Postby czeskleba » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:43 pm

lukpac wrote:Ahh...so now the issue isn't Clinton lied, it's that he (almost) slept with somebody's daughter? Give me a break.


I would bet that if you did a survey, you'd find that the majority of Americans believe Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges because he'd had an affair, not because he'd lied under oath.

lukpac wrote:But I'm not convinced Feingold is doing this as a PR stunt or something - I think he actually believes what he says.


Perhaps, but I still see it as a pointless gesture, regardless of the motivation. I guess I see it this way... the majority of Americans now feel the war in Iraq was a mistake. The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is governing. However, I don't believe the majority of Americans are going to be convinced that Bush's illegal wiretapping is that big a deal. The Democrats need to reach out to the swing voters who disapprove of Bush and his policies. I think things like censure and impeachment talk are perceived as extremist and turn off the swing voters. So beyond being kind of a toothless gesture, I can see it doing more harm than good. Certainly the Republicans are banking on it, with the commercial that started this thread.

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he’s more interested in censuring the President than protecting our freedom.


I like how the only two possible options are granting Bush total dictatorial powers and turning the country over to bin Laden.

NPR was doing idiot-on-the-street interviews this morning on the censure/wiretapping issues, and all the morons out in Moronland were muttering, "I don't have anything to hide. He can tap my phone anytime. Just PLEASE SAVE ME FROM THE BAD BROWN MEN!"

So Bush's narrative ("I'm protecting you") is beating Feingold's narrative ("The President broke the law") while the Democrats run and hide. Lovely. Why bother having an opposition party at all, if Bush can ignore the law with impunity?

It took three years for a significant chunk of the country to realize that Iraq was a colossal fuck-up. Do we have to wait that long for them to realize a police state is a bad idea?

Yeah, I know. They'll *never* figure that one out. Most of them *want* to live under fascism.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:26 pm

Rspaight wrote:I like how the only two possible options are granting Bush total dictatorial powers and turning the country over to bin Laden.

Are you saying that's a false dichotomy?
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:30 pm

You're either with us or you're against us.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:03 pm

It's either a false dichotomy or it's not. Why are you avoiding the question?
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4592
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:09 pm

Helen, please. Don't interrupt.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD