[Winstonm]

Quote

"And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the XXXX Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that XXXX XXXX would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. XXXX XXXX would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences."

[hrothgar]

Sounds like Kristol talking about Michael Steele...

Hard to know who to root for

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 4 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

Sounds like Kristol talking about Michael Steele...

Hard to know who to root for

Remarkably, this quote is in response to the comments of (hidden)

Spoiler

Michael Steele

and the quote is from (hidden)

Spoiler

the DNC, if you can.

believe it.

[kenberg]

The main thing that I have trouble believing is that Michael Steele is still, or for that matter ever was, chair of the RNC.

Some Republican bigwig, I forget which one, tried explaining this by listing other possible idiotic things that Steele might have said but didn't. It reminds me of the Spiro Agnew (Agnew was MD Gov before he became VP, Steele was the Lt Gov before he became the party chair) defense that the amount of money he took was less than most Maryland politicians take.

[Winstonm]

This is what you have to love/hate about modern politics - the same actions that were villified by the Democrats when done by Bush/Cheney are unilaterally applauded and justified by those same Democrats when done by Obama/Biden.

[mike777]

roughly .....2/3 of dems have said pull out ..pullout now..stop.....

not enough......votes....

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2010, 03:19 AM, said:

This is what you have to love/hate about modern politics - the same actions that were villified by the Democrats when done by Bush/Cheney are unilaterally applauded and justified by those same Democrats when done by Obama/Biden.

not sure that "unilateral" is the word that you're looking for

1. There have been a fair number of folks on the right who agreed with the DNC statement

2. There have been a fair number of people on the left who criticized it

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

This is what you have to love/hate about modern politics - the same actions that were villified by the Democrats when done by Bush/Cheney are unilaterally applauded and justified by those same Democrats when done by Obama/Biden.

What's your question?



Didn't we learn that back in the day when the hot button topic was sexual harassment allegations against prominent political figures? How could anyone have an opinion without knowing whether we're talking about Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton?

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jul 5 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

This is what you have to love/hate about modern politics - the same actions that were villified by the Democrats when done by Bush/Cheney are unilaterally applauded and justified by those same Democrats when done by Obama/Biden.

What's your question?



Didn't we learn that back in the day when the hot button topic was sexual harassment allegations against prominent political figures? How could anyone have an opinion without knowing whether we're talking about Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton?

I have to know who said it in order know whether to claim bipartisanship cooperation or to deny partisanship. Sound bytes matter.

[Free]

Don't know anything about US politics, but found it in 5 seconds on google: DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Jul 5 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

Didn't we learn that back in the day when the hot button topic was sexual harassment allegations against prominent political figures? How could anyone have an opinion without knowing whether we're talking about Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton?

It's interesting that sex news seems to hurt some politicians more than others. Of course politicians run for shorter terms than do supreme court justices, so that might play into the views about Thomas.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jul 6 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

Of course politicians run for shorter terms than do supreme court justices, so that might play into the views about Thomas.

yeah, that was probably it

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jul 6 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

yeah, that was probably it

I guess so then. How do things look for David Vitter down your way?

[kenberg]

Thomas got confirmed, Clinton got impeached. That's my recollection anyway.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jul 6 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 6 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

yeah, that was probably it

I guess so then. How do things look for David Vitter down your way?

he'll probably be okay... from what i've seen, most mealy-mouthed politicians land on their feet so i doubt he'll be any exception

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Thomas got confirmed, Clinton got impeached. That's my recollection anyway.

I was actually referring to the Paula Jones matter, not Lewinsky (i.e. fairly parallel sexual harassment charges). Liberals generally supported Anita Hill and denounced Paula Jones, while conservatives did the opposite. Nothing new under the sun.

With respect to Lewinsky, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not sexual conduct.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Liberals generally supported Anita Hill and denounced Paula Jones, while conservatives did the opposite.  Nothing new under the sun.

yeah, imagine that... just goes to show, the hypocrites are evenly divided

[jdonn]

[quote name='luke warm' date='Jul 7 2010, 04:56 PM'] [quote name='Lobowolf' date='Jul 7 2010, 01:40 PM'] [quote name='kenberg' date='Jul 6 2010, 09:03 PM'] Liberals generally supported Anita Hill and denounced Paula Jones, while conservatives did the opposite. Nothing new under the sun. [/QUOTE]
yeah, imagine that... just goes to show, the hypocrites are evenly divided [/quote]
I couldn't agree more.

[Winstonm]

I think "hide the weenie" partisanship concerning support for individuals involved is an improper comparison with the "criticizing war is always evil" patisanship tossed about that marginalizes real honest criticism of the war as un-American.