Ammo For Sale

« « It’s Wednesday | Home | Ohio Supreme Court Ruling » »

Maybe just poor timing

Kevin discusses some negative political ads (by Republicans) that claim someone (a Democrat) is unpatriotic. He also says that the Democrats engage in no such thing (in his comments).

I wonder if Kevin has read Dean’s latest, which compares the Republican administration to tyrants. I’m sure somehow this will be excused even though it a case of glass houses and stones.

Dirty pool all the way around or politics as usual? Well, the left calls the right facists; and the right calls the left communists.

Yup, as usual.

15 Responses to “Maybe just poor timing”

  1. tgirsch Says:

    (From the Yahoo story)

    “The Boston Tea Party was also a revolt against higher taxes, which is exactly what we can expect from a Howard Dean presidency,” said Christine Iverson, an RNC spokeswoman.

    Actually, if memory serves, the Boston Tea Party was held in favor of HIGHER taxes on imported British tea. Essentially, it was about protectionism, which Republicans generally consider to be a dirty word. Ms. Iverson needs to double-check her history.

  2. tgirsch Says:

    Just curious: Which of Dean’s statements, reported in the Yahoo story, do you disagree with or find fault with? Yes, they’re harsh, but they’re also mostly true. As opposed to calling a triple-amputee and Vietnam Vet a “coward,” which is demonstrably untrue…

  3. SayUncle Says:

    “They had a king named George who had forgotten his people and only listened to special interest,”

    Uhm, king george? Should i draw a picture?

  4. tgirsch Says:

    Yeah, that’s rhetoric, but I hope you don’t believe that rhetoric is akin to calling a decorated war vet a coward… It’s not like Dean called him a “major league asshole.”

  5. SayUncle Says:

    There’s usually truth to calling somone a major league asshole.

    But i’d think i’d rather be called unpatriotic than a tyrant.

  6. kevin Says:

    So, let me get this straight. Deliberately questioning someone patriotism is the equivalent of accusing a man of caring more about special interests than other people. Your desperation to find fault with whatever a Democrat or a leftist does is blinding you to matters of degree. Is it over the top? A little yeah. Should he have used a better metaphor? Yep. Its never good to throw around stupid comparisons like that. ( But, on the other hand, Bush is the man arguing for the absolute right to hold anyone detained on his word forever without trial or access to lawyers.) But you really, really want to have to see it as horrible to equate it to Bush saying that Democratic senators were not interested in America’s safety, or Ashcroft saying that people who questioned the Patriot Act were giving aid and comfort to terrorists. That’s treason, by the way.

    And what I said in the comments was not that Dems don’t play dirty. What I said was that the Republican party as a whole has taken it to a new level. The exact quote is this:

    “When the Dem nominee publicly questions Bush patriotism, and when they run ads comparing him to Saddam Hussein, and when they accuse him of murdering people and smuggling dope, and when a Dem congressman shoots pumpkins to prove that Bush murdered someone, then, maybe, things will be going both ways.”

    And I stand by it.

  7. kevin Says:

    Ass for his comment on Ashcroft

    Ashcroft directly attacked the actions of his opponents in terms questioning their patriotism. It is appropriate for Dean, or McCain, or anyone, to apply Ashcroft’s own standard to Ashcroft’s conduct.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    My point was that both sides play dirty pool. Apparently, you’re more offended by one term than another.

    You should stand by it as it is a fair statement. But to minimize dean’s speech because bush is not an amputee vet doesn’t in anyway change the fact dean’s comments were akin to dirty politics that you said republicans took to a new level.

  9. tgirsch Says:

    But to minimize dean’s speech because bush is not an amputee vet doesn’t in anyway change the fact dean’s comments were akin to dirty politics that you said republicans took to a new level.

    If you can see a difference of degrees here, then you’re blind, perhaps willfully. I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to put it.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    Not blind at all. I’d personally be more offended at being called a tyrant but that is beside the point. Calling someone unpatriotic or a tyrant is dirty political pool no matter how you cut it.

  11. tgirsch Says:

    In essence, then, you’re putting words in Kevin’s mouth that were never there. He never said that Democrats don’t play dirty. He only said that the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level.

    Where, exactly, is your quarrel with that?

  12. SayUncle Says:

    No, he said when dems start doing a list of things that they’d be guilty of the same thing. And calling someone a tyrant i think goes both ways.

  13. tgirsch Says:

    Then I’ll disagree with you and say that you ARE blind. Because Kevin’s examples were all examples of the degree to which the Republican party has taken things. They weren’t just attacks, but particularly egregious attacks, and you haven’t posted any comparable democratic examples.

    I’m sorry, but comparing George W. Bush to King George is not even in the same friggin ballpark as saying that people who criticize the PATRIOT act are giving aid and comfort to terrorists. Not even remotely close.

    Are both attacks? Yes. Is one considerably more egregious than the other? YES!

  14. SayUncle Says:

    you haven’t posted any comparable democratic examples.

    Yes i did. That’s why this post exists. I suppose we disagree on where the line is drawn.

  15. tgirsch Says:

    Hmm. I must have missed your example of a democrat challenging a republican triple-amputee war veteran’s courage…