Ok, so I lied.

Post #293,431 by Another Scott 9/22/07 4:45:24 PM Reply	Ok, so I lied. I'm back in this thread - I hope you don't mind. Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged. 1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want. 2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit. 3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US. 4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words. What about the 800 pound gorilla in the room? 5) Is it appropriate for [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01585:\|HR 1585] to be changed with [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02934:\|S.AMND.2934] or [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02947:\|S.AMND.2947] at all? Why should the Senate be involved at all in commenting on MoveOn's newspaper ad? Given some of your [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=289548\|earlier] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=278682\|comments] (as examples), I would think you wouldn't be all that enamored of the Congress wasting time and passing symbolic legislation. Why aren't you upset with Sen. Cornyn and his 6 co-sponsors (all Republicans, BTW) for wasting the Senate's time? Where's the indignation toward the "other" side? Your political "pessimism" seems to be highly directional. Maybe the Senate leadership or Rules Committee should have refused to let Cornyn bring his amendment to the floor, instead. I'm sure that would have gone over really well with the "conservatives", huh. Just curious. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who hopes to return to lurking on this thread.)
Post #293,439 by bepatient 9/22/07 8:00:41 PM Reply	Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back) No. You need to go to even earlier statements where it is my express belief that items need to be legislated 1 at a time and that tacking things (especially bs items like this) on to bills is not in our best interest. One only need to drive up the I78 corridor in WV to understand what pork can be attached by those in charge of appropriations. There is a reason why Bird will be elected even after he's embalmed. And just so you are aware, my comments here have been directed at candidates for POTUS, not at Congress. I don't think we have nearly enough time to get into that. It is simply, imo, imperative to the democratic candidates to not allow themselves to painted as weak on defense. While the country may not like the current situation we are in, being viewed as weak and unsupportive of the military has in the past and will continue to cost them elections. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,440 by Seamus 9/22/07 8:08:06 PM Reply	To me it is just as important a candidate support free speech and fight the bullshit partisan politics of trying to tar the democratic candidates with the moveon.org ad as it is to be strong on defense. Seamus
Post #293,441 by bepatient 9/22/07 8:50:41 PM Reply	That hasn't panned out historically but hey, things could change. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,442 by Another Scott 9/22/07 8:51:00 PM Reply	2008 is not 1988. Thanks. WV and NJ are examples of party politics that have gone too far. The present administration is another. ;-) While history sometimes seems to repeat itself, it's more often the case that Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Dukakis isn't running. The Soviet Union isn't imploding with a Republican in office. Etc. Comparing the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the turnout, it seems to me that much of the electorate is becoming less receptive to sloganeering. There are too many examples of disasters under Bush for people to take superficially appealing slogans at face value. The web is making it possible for small outfits like [link\|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus\|Rockridge Institute] to have an [link\|http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/07/at_a_loss_for_words.html\|impact] on the debate and illustrate the importance of language in framing the issues (something that Rove and the late Lee Atwater have known for a while). IOW, the Republicans no longer have a monopoly on "Morning in America". Of course it ultimately comes down to the candidates and the circumstances around the election, but I really don't think that much of anyone is going to care about who voted for the two amendments. Does anyone care that Hillary never really "apologized" for her Iraq AUMF vote, even though it was a talking-point for several weeks? By November 2008 the MoveOn ad will be ancient history. I think people realize that being "strong on defense" is more than symbolism and empty slogans, and there's more than enough [link\|http://the-filibuster.blogspot.com/2006/01/republicans-weak-on-defence.html\|ammunition on the other side] if they want to play that game. Remember that even though Kerry was attacked mercilessly on his defense policies, he nearly won. The trends is even more in the Democrat's favor this time. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!