Comments on: It’s Called Local Politics

By: Dugger

Dugger — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:08:38 +0000

Pionar,

Your renditon reads a h*lluva lot better.

Dugger

By: pionar

pionar — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:08:25 +0000

Dugger: I expect I exaggerated a little but nevertheless the timing of the ad and having it lead off with a quote from G Bush followed up by Hacket saying he agrees, does suggest Hacket would not have been unhappy if the Hamilton County voters assumed that he was not running against the Pres s policies or his Iraq effort.

Watch it with the dodecatuple negative! why can’t you say, “Hackett would have been fine if the Hamilton County voters assumed he wasn’t running against the Pres’s policies or his Iraq effort?”

Sorry. Grammar nazi here.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:08:48 +0000

Quaker,

I expect I exaggerated a little but nevertheless the timing of the ad and having it lead off with a quote from G Bush followed up by Hacket saying he agrees, does suggest Hacket would not have been unhappy if the Hamilton County voters assumed that he was not running against the Pres ’s policies or his Iraq effort.

“I believe Dugger s belief that Hackett s ad was gross stems from his inability to comprehend that someone can be a soldier and also be a Democrat.”

Not so. Many heroic Democrat soldiers , even left wing ones like McGovern. That service though does not inocluate them from criticism about even service related policies. Two invididuals could not be further apart than Ollie North and McGovern, yet they both served heroically. Both can’t be right. Either, thereby, is open to criticism.

Dugger

By: johnnyprogressive

johnnyprogressive — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:08:28 +0000

I believe Dugger’s belief that Hackett’s ad was “gross” stems from his inability to comprehend that someone can be a soldier and also be a Democrat.

By: jnfr

jnfr — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:08:52 +0000

Hackett was clear on being pro-choice. Nothing conservative about that.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:08:10 +0000

The ad opens with video of Bush saying: “There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.”

Hackett voices over: “I agreed with that. That’s why I volunteered.”

Where’s the grossness? The deception? The “old buds”?

By: dude

dude — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:08:13 +0000

funny how these guys switch tunes so damn often. After* the election, they say the guy was a conservative. *Before* the election, they tried to lambaste the guy, calling him a “liberal democrat”. Just goes to show you that these guys will do anything to win, often without respect to the truth or integrity.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:08:22 +0000

No, they just used the corpses of 9/11 victims in their ads.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:08:13 +0000

Well, now that you ask and I have to go look it up, I find that my doddering old memory is playing tricks on me again.

I was thinking of Tom Daschle’s ads which showed him giving W a hug after a SOTU speech. Apparently my memory of the event was colored by all the hollering about it from my side of the aisle.

So a Democrat isn’t allowed to agree with a Republican president anymore?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:08:48 +0000

“Wasn t that a clever adaptation of what the R s did during the last presidential election?”

What ad was that? Was it as gross as Hackett’s: Actually using the Pres.’s words as if he and Hackett were old buds?

Dugger

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:08:17 +0000

shamelessly used a quote from him in his commercial to make it look like he and Bush were ideological buddies,

Wasn’t that a clever adaptation of what the R’s did during the last presidential election? As I recall, the R’s ran a similar ad to make it look like a certain someone agreed with the president.

Goose, Gander, say hello to Sauce.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:08:33 +0000

Jade,

Who’s ‘AWOL George’? I’m aware that Hackett called our ex fighter pilot president a chickenhawk and then shamelessly used a quote from him in his commercial to make it look like he and Bush were ideological buddies, but since the presdient was never AWOL, it can’t be him you are referring to.

Dugger

By: Jadegold

Jadegold — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:08:58 +0000

I guess calling AWOL George a “chickenhawk”–as Hackett did on a number of occasions– is now the conservative thng to do.

And I suppose since Hackett is pro-choice and opposes AWOL George’s plan to dismantle SS— guess these, too, are the new conservative positions.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:08:56 +0000

Seems like your saying the Repubs take on this is correct: Hackett had to pretend to be a conservative to have a chance. Throughout this whole discussion, you talk as if Democrats and liberal Rs (I guess) have no core beliefs – they said things because thats what you need to say to get elected. We don’t want narrow ideologues but surely we want representatives with core beliefs and standards. Don’t we???

Dugger