The Left's Legacy

[Josh Bunton]

My full article can be viewed at:

conservativeissues.com/joshc/113003.html

[vito]

Same old conservative lies. Stale, stale, stale as last week's ruffles.

Same old unexamined assumptions, same old baseless charges.

Someone on this board recently challenged me to produce an example of a Bush supporter calling someone who criticized Bush soft on national defense. Thanks for providing one:

However, in recent times, it seems modern-day democrats don't understand the importance of defending Americas freedoms. For example, during a Mid-October vote in the U.S. Congress, Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards voted "NO" for a funding request on Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You all need to get it through your skulls: Criticism of this president and his policies does not equate to a lack of patriotism. Quite the opposite. There are serious questions about the necessity of this war, this government's conduct of it, and the way it was sold like snake oil to the American people. Until the Bush administration and their supporters quit trying to finesse those questions with insulting and divisive rhetoric such as this, their poll numbers will continue their slow bleed.

[Walter]

First, here's vito's criticism:

Same old conservative lies. Stale, stale, stale as last week's ruffles.

Same old unexamined assumptions, same old baseless charges.

Now here's the full article:

"2003: The Left's Legacy"

By: Joshua Bunton

November 30, 2003

America has heard Democrats say things such as "No blood for oil" or "George Bush is a miserable failure". While Democrats are entitled to their opinions, the Democratic party needs to realize they are writing their "legacy". Exactly what does that mean?

Regardless of past successes, the modern day democrat has changed. Since September 11, 2001 (Americas most tragic day) democrats have focused more on "slamming' President Bush, rather than turning to more important issues, such as National Security.

What happened? Democrats have faced dangers head on in our nation's past. I have outlined a few below:

- In 1912, Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president of the 20th Century. Wilson led the country through World War I, eestablished the Federal Reserve Board, and passed the first labor and child welfare laws.

- In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy challenged an optimistic nation to build on its great history. President Kennedy also worked to help end segregation in many southern states.

However, in recent times, it seems modern-day democrats don't understand the importance of defending Americas freedoms. For example, during a Mid-October vote in the U.S. Congress, Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards voted "NO" for a funding request on Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most recently, President George W. Bush paid a visit to our troops serving in Iraq. However, when questioned about the presidents trip Bush's rivals could not say "Good job", without taking a cheap shot at his policies:

- "It's nice that he made it over there today, but this visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place." - Jay Carson (Spokesman for Howard Dean)

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

- David Axelrod, senior advisor to Senator John Edwards, described the trip as "a daring move and great politics." Then added, "I think these kids need more. I'm sure they were buyoed by his coming, but they need more."

- "We're not going to throw stones at the guy for trying to do a nice thing for the troops. When the president goes and spends time with the troops, that's a good thing." - Matt Bennett (Communications director for Wesley Clark).

- Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for Senator Joseph L. lieberman of Connecticut said "In Fairness, visiting with the troops is exactly what a commander in chief should do." Cabrera adds, "We hope that he's also reassuring them that the administration will eventually have a plan to win the peace and bring our troops home soon."


There are conservative democrats, many of which, understand why the war in Iraq was necessary. On the other hand, there are democrats who oppose any war, regardless of the cause.

With that being said, the Democratic National Committee's website states, under democratic values, democrats are committed to "Winning the war on terrorism and making our country more secure." From the naked eye, it seems democrats are truly committed to the Global War on Terror.

However, it is only words. As you can see from the democratic presidential candidates statements and actions above, when faced with danger, many have done nothing to aid the President.

History will show 2003 as a historic year for Conservatives, ranging from the President's visit to Iraq, or his willingness to risk his entire presidency, to eliminate world danger, by liberating the great people of Iraq. The opposite will be true for the Democratic party. Americans will remember the remarks made by Democrats during presidential debates, and the anti-war demonstrations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange, vito, but I read it twice and still find direct quotations. Where are the lies? The baseless assumptions?

More to the point, where are your facts? Where are your counterpoint arguments? Just ad hominem negativism.

[vito]

Walter said:

First, here's vito's criticism:

Wrong, what you posted was part of Vito's criticism. You have omitted the substantive part of what I said.

Strange, vito, but I read it twice and still find direct quotations. Where are the lies? The baseless assumptions?

I could go through the article point-by-point, but that would be a waste of time. There's nothing new here. The lies and baseless assumptions are illustrated by the sentence from the article I quoted. Perhaps I was being too subtle; let me spell it out.

The article said

However, in recent times, it seems modern-day democrats don't understand the importance of defending Americas freedoms. For example, during a Mid-October vote in the U.S. Congress, Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards voted "NO" for a funding request on Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The only way that the example offered can stand as evidence for the declarative statment made in the first sentences is if one assumes that anyone who "understand the importance of defending America's freedoms" would have voted in favor of the president's funding request. That, I submit, is an baseless assumption.

It is a baseless assumption that goes hand in hand with a number of similar baseless assumptions that have been expressed by right wingers from the president himself on down ever since 9/11. All these baseless assumptions can be boiled down to one overarching baseless assumption, namely that the only possible way to defend America's freedoms and fight terrorism is the president's way. That any opposition to the president's agenda, not only in terms of Iraq policy but in terms of things like his tax cuts, means that his opponents "don't understand the importance of defending America's freedoms." "don't care about National Security" (as the president said of Democrats in the Senate when they were in a dispute with him over the terms by which Homeland Security personnel would be employed), "are pro-terror" are "pro-Saddam" are "Osama bin Laden's best friends", etc.

Not only is this attitude baseless it is, in my estimation, contrary to the very American freedoms that the president supposedly wants to protect. If I, or you, or Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards have qualms about the path the president is pursuing it is not only our right but our patriotic duty to voice those objections.

Characterizing us as unpatriotic, uninformed, lacking in understanding, soft on terror, because we oppose the particulars of the president's policy is not only baseless it is also needlessly divisive, and signals the fact that you can't make the case for his policies on the merits and must instead try to demonize the opposition.

Now people like myself have been making objections like this for some time, yet the same baseless, divisive accusations keep being spewed from the right. When someone points out potential flaws in your argument and you continue to repeat that argument without addressing the criticism, it becomes more than baseless it becomes a lie. I.e. a deliberate attempt to deceive.

More to the point, where are your facts? Where are your counterpoint arguments? Just ad hominem negativism.

You need to look up the meaning of ad hominem. To call a baseless statement baseless is not ad hominem. To call a lie a lie is not ad hominem.

Now I see I've written a lot. I must admit that seeing the same lies repeated and repeated gets me hot under the collar, and I apologize for that, but I don't want my verbosity to give you an easy excuse to avoid the issue. Walter, Josh, all of you Bush-worshippers, just answer me one thing: Are you really willing to say that any opposition to Bush's policies means that a person "doesn't understand the importance of defending America's freedoms?" That, I believe, is the crux of the issue.

[Walter]

My reply is short. Loyal opposition is not only desirable, but necessary.

Pot-shots serve no useful purpose.

The distinction, you ask?

Loyal opposition put forth their opposition together with alternatives and new ideas.

Pot-shot takers gripe about the strategies and policies but offer up absolutely no alternatives and new ideas.

[Walter]

In case there is a shred of doubt remaining about how supportive the Left is of any effort to demonstrate a willingness to work with George Bush, this is the deal maker.


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 30, 2003 20:42:05 ET XXXXX

HOLLYWOOD DEMS GATHER FOR 'HATE BUSH' MEETING AT HILTON

**Exclusive**

Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

Laurie David [wife of SEINFELD creator Larry David] has sent out invites to the planned Tuesday evening meeting at the Hilton with the bold heading: 'Hate Bush 12/2 - Event'

The message reads:

"This is the most important meeting you can attend to prevent the advancement of the current extremist right wing agenda. Do not miss this meeting. This will be a high-level briefing to discuss the strategies... to affect what happens next November."

Political heavies Harold Ickes, Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff and Campaign Manager for the ¹96 Clinton/Gore re-elect, and Ellen Malcolm, Founder of Emily¹s List, a political action committee that elects pro-choice, Democratic women, will chair the gathering.

Names included on the "HATE BUSH" invite, obtained by DRUDGE, include:


Julie Bergman: producer ("G.I. Jane," "The Fabulous Baker Boys," "Washington Square"), daughter of lyricists Alan and Marilyn Bergman. Came up with the anti-Iraq war "silent protest" idea for Oscars where celebrities wore blue-and-green quarter-sized peace sign pins.


Scott Burns: "Got Milk?" campaign creator and producer of Arianna Huffington ad campaign which linked SUVs with terrorism.


Steve Byrnes & Jamie Mandelbaum: Jamie is an entertainment attroney at Armstrong, Hirsch -- represents Hillary Duff, Tori Spelling, among others.


Ariel "Ari" Emanuel: Emanuel is a founding partner of Endeavor Talent agency. Brother of White House Rahm and agent to West Wing Sorkin.


Naomi Foner: Screenwriter of RUNNING ON EMPTY, LOSING ISAIAH; executive producer of HOMEGROWN a comedy thriller set in northern California about inept but lovable pot farmers.


Cami Gordon: Children's book author lives in Pacific Palisades, Calif. Member of Mothers for Natural Law. Husband Howard, producer ("X-Files", "Strange World").


Robert Greenwald: Executive producer of the 2002 documentary, UNPRECEDENTED: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, about the "stealing" of the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Also produced CROOKED E: THE UNSHREDDED TRUTH ABOUT ENRON. He and Mike Farrell started "Artists United," a group of actors and other stars opposed to war in Iraq.


Sally Hardwicke: [no data].


Ruth Hunter: [no data].


Lyn Lear: Wife of Norman Lear.


Michelle Kydd Lee: Executive Director, Creative Artists Agency (CAA) Foundation.


Julia Louis-Dreyfus: 'FRIDAYS', 'Seinfeld' alum. Married to fellow SNL alum and sitcom producer Brad Hall.


Darcy Pollack: [no data].


Nancy Stephens: Actress (RUSSKIES), environmentalist.


Laure & Daniel Stern: Daniel is actor (CITY SLICKERS, HOME ALONE).


Anne & Jay Sures: Jay Sures is an agent at United Talent Agency. Hosted fund-raiser for Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark at his Brentwood home.


Marge Tabankin & Earl Katz: Tabankin is Barbra Streisand's philanthropic and political guru. Ran the Hollywood Women's Political Committee.


Katz is the executive producer of UNPRECEDENTED: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.


Heather Thomas: Actress ("The Fall Guy"), 80s pin-up model. Married to Skip Brittenham, top Hollywood lawyer.


Elizabeth Wiatt: Wife of William Morris heavyweight Jim Wiatt.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine the baying from the Donkey Party if the GOP held a "HATE GORE" or "HATE CLINTON" party like this?

Yikes!

[Ogilvy]

While I disagree that voting no for a funding request on Operation Iraqi Freedom implies a "[lack of understanding of] the importance of defending America's freedoms," I must say that the "Hate Bush" meeting is quite idiotic and immature. Democrats who say that Bush is the worst president ever are just idiots who manually brainwash themselves into believing anything to be a good little liberal.

Myself, I believe that the war should not have been started, but now that it has, I think it would be stupid not to finish the job. I say give Iraq whatever funding it needs, as long as that money is used to get the job done. If Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Edwards voted no on the funding just because they hate Bush, then that in my opinion is rather idiotic.


I don't agree with a lot of Bush's policies, but he's hardly the worst president ever. What about that fellow who attended his inauguration drunk? I bet he was pretty bad, although admittedly if there had been television in those times it would've been very interesting to watch that event.

The article that you quoted, Walter, said that "when questioned about the presidents trip Bush's rivals could not say "Good job", without taking a cheap shot at his policies."

This does not appear to be entirely true after reading the following quotes. The last two quotes by Matt Bennett and Jano Cabrera don't seem to be negative at all.

I agree with you that pot-shots are worthless. It seems that politics is degenerating into a mudslinging match where both sides hate each other's guts. It's sad that there is such hypocrisy and indecency on both sides in politics. It would be nice if Republicans and Democrats could state their opinions without being so condescending.

While the article quoted by Walter criticizes democrats, I do not understand why Vito is so angry about it. It seems to be a well-composed article, though I would argue some of his points. He does not begin with a hateful harangue. In fact he commends democrats on some of their past achievements. His issue is with modern-day democrats, and he raises some valid points about the "pot shots" that democrats often make.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing people say they hate Bush and getting the idea that they're just trying to be hip and trendy. A friend of mine enjoys reading those Al Franken books, which I detest as much as Ann Coulter's conservative variety political books. I tire of hearing people rant on and on about how much they hate the president and not really saying anything intelligent. If they hate the guy, fine. I'm not a rabid fan, either. But please, for the love of God, say why you dislike him intelligently instead of just blabbering like an idiot, as people tend to do in politics nowadays.

I used to be a brainless liberal who supported the democrats blindly, but lately I've been adopting some conservative ideals and shifting myself more toward a moderate perspective. I guess that the extremism and rabid liberals just got to me. I have a feeling that I never belonged in the liberal group anyways, that I was always meant to be a moderate kind of guy.