I am in favor of
- the death penalty
- using military force
- tax cuts for the middle class
- aggresive testing and performance requirements for school
- parental notification for abortion
Yet, I am often considered by conservatives to be a member of the far left, locking arms with Dennis Kucinich and the peace crowd in our plan to eventually install socialism across America. It’s the same caricature that is made of Howard Dean, completely ignoring the fact that Dean was approved by the NRA, and was a pro-growth balance-the-budget governor that fought with more Democrats than Republicans when he was governor of Vermont. The problem is that nowadays the media, and their partners in crime, the right, have confused being a strong partisan with being on the extreme of the political spectrum. One only has to compare the Democratic Party of 1988 to the party of today and witness that if there’s been any sort of shift, it’s been to towards the right.
Democrats overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and in the past supported military action in the Balkans and in Iraq – it is solely on the issue of the current war in Iraq that Democrats have been against that specific intervention, certainly not the entire concept of killing bad people who want to kill us (as I like to remind folks, it was a Democrat who went to war against the Nazis, and a Democrat who decided to drop the atomic bomb. Hell, it was a Democrat who first went into Vietnam.)
I’ve often bitched about Joe Lieberman, and people assume that I dislike Senator Lieberman’s conservative streak, but while I do have problems with his boneheaded adoption of the administration’s ill-fated foreign policies, that isn’t it. I dislike Lieberman for the same reason I like Howard Dean – one of them is actually proud to be a Democrat. Lieberman enjoys trashing Democrats in print and broadcast so he can be cast as a maverick, while Dean has done the most in some long time to get people to be in the Democratic camp – not because of where he stands on any given issue or slate of issues, but because he makes a compelling case for being a Dem and against being a Republican.
That’s why I deride and ignore folks in the Democratic party or on the outside who want to be heretics, calling out people for not being progressive enough. While certain issues just shouldn’t be supported by Democrats (like the bankruptcy bill) the battlelines within the party are still about knowing that we’ve got each others backs. As a moderate-left Democrat, I can deal with conservative Dems from the south and liberal Dems from the west and northeast as long as they don’t make it their lot in life to trash Democrats. John Kerry was the left of me, the next candidate might be to my right – I really don’t care about pushing the party any direction besides forward. I’m a partisan who’s voted for a Republican exactly once in the 10 years I’ve been voting, and that ain’t changing any time soon.
Rock on Oliver.
I don’t hold with some of the positions you support as listed above, but I’m proud you’re part of our party.
Got yer back.
Cheers,
Jason
One of the key strengths of the Democratic Party is it’s ability to embrace the full spectrum of different ideas, so long as they acheive the best result for all. It can be interpreted as unfocused, even choatic. Voters don’t like chaos. This perception has been exploited rather handily by the opposition.
Democrats can maintain their free-form tapestry of ideas, if they elucidate game plans for at least a ten- year period. State the goal (i.e.; energy independence) and simply outline the ultimate goal in terms of time and methods. We reached the moon years ahead of schedule largely because JFK clearly and unequivocally, set the goal.. It will work for Democrats who clearly define how they can do a better job in the 21st century as well.
Yet, somehow Republicans are always corrupt and racist, right?
Yup, JWG. Pretty much says it all.
A question. Do you believe racism is wrong? And if, as I suspect, you do–do you consider racism something you may not personally endorse but are willing to overlook-or-do you consider racism a litmus test?
To my mind, some Repugs may not be overt racists but they seem awfully willing to overlook racism so long as other agenda items are satisfied.
JadeGold, how do you persist in being such a putz?
JWG was, although sarcastically, making a very good point. You were not only nonresponsive to that point, but you attempted to devalue it.
You use a stupid, juvenile term like “Repugs” in each of your posts. Why?
Do you mean “Repugnant – licans”? That’s kind of awkward.
Or, do you mean “pugs” as in “boxers”?
What exactly do you mean?
You have immediately changed the subject to racism for no reason whatever. And don’t be so stupid as to say JWG brought it up.
JWG was referring to the “Democratic Party’s [self - described] ability to embrace the full spectrum of different ideas.” Yet, somehow, you, Oliver, and many liberal posters on these threads, immediately stereotype Republicans as white, rich, racist and corrupt — which basically describes rich Democrats, and doesn’t accurately describe the full Republican demographic.
There aren’t enough rich Republicans to elect a governor, let alone a President.
When are you going to try and get with the program around here, grow up, and attempt a debate instead of a flamefest.
You can start by referring to people by their nicks, which are, after all, the names they have chosen [I think you what I'm referring to].
Who knows? Maybe someday soon, you’ll start calling Republicans “Republicans” or “Reps”. That would be real pogress.
Oliver, I’m… surprised you don’t have a (stated) opinion on this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/07/house-block-vote/
Gilchrist out to be ashamed…
I suspect we have a different definition as to what constitutes the full spectrum of racism. I’m sure we agree that members of the KKK are racist. I doubt we agree on how to define racism when it comes to government policies and programs.
Yes.
Unfortunately for this country, racism is still one of several issues that are difficult to discuss without resorting to emotional outbursts and generalizations.
I suspect we have a different definition as to what constitutes the full spectrum of racism.
I doubt it.
So when GOP political organizations purchase David Duke’s mailing list–what’s that say to you?
Neither party is immune to or inherently rife with racism… I know racists of every religious, political and social stripe. Is one party more likely to create/promote racist policies… depends I suppose, since at one time or another they’ve both done it.
just my $0.02
immediately stereotype Republicans as white, rich, racist and corrupt
These wouldn’t be stereotypes if your party’s leaders didn’t keep these beliefs alive. Ken Mehlman just recently “apologized” for the southern strategy, yet Republicans claim such a thing never existed.
We’ve got two parties in this country, yet only one opens its arms to non-whites and women and folks of all sexual orientations.
JadeGold: I guess the answer to my first question was “Yes”. You have given lie to the liberal myth that no one is incorrigible.
Frankie: Family problems, again?
Rainlion: Have both parties created/promoted racist policies? Sure. If you go back far enough, you’ll see the Dems were the worst offenders. The difference is, of course, the Dems opted to change; those that wouldn’t found a home with the Repugs.
Well said Oliver. I’m tired of hearing liberals believe this or the left wants that. I consider myself a somewhat liberal Democrat but I don’t fit into a box. Sometimes I think I am more conservative on some issues than the self proclaimed defenders of our freedom. In some areas I want less government. I don’t want politicians involved in medical or family situations. I believe people should take responsibility for their own lives. And I just can’t understand anyone who calls themselves conservative can support a law like the Patriot Act. Never in our history has the government had the power to detain an American citizen without due process. One of my favorite political figures of all time was Barry Goldwater, I remember a speech he gave on the Senate floor in the early 70’s listing the problems of the time then lamented that all we talk about around here is abortion and busing.
Oliver Willis wants more teenage girls beaten to within an inch of their lives
Dadahead Yeah, that’s probably an unfair and inflammatory title, but it was the conclusion I was forced to draw when I read this post by Willis, which is highly indicative of almost everything that is wrong with the “liberal” blogosphere…
Unfortunately for this country, racism is still one of several issues that are difficult to discuss without resorting to emotional outbursts and generalizations
JWG;
Unfortunately, it is difficult to discuss because so many americans have not shaken the preponderance of racsim that exists in general attitudes, What the Republican party is recognizing(ala Ken Mehlman) is that it is wrong to pander to the ignorance, which perpetuates insidious racism churning below the surface of awareness. It is easy to recognize the racism that leads to beatings and lynchings. What is not easy to shake is the myth that black people just want a welfare ‘freebie’ rather than work.
There is a lot of fence repair that needs to be done before dialogue that is not charged with violent emotion, can be started.
Well done! American politics in the modern era has no frame with which to understand the concept of partisanship, unless it’s some radical ideological agenda. The only fighters we know are the fringe of left and right. Centrists don’t fight– or at least, they never used to. Now we do, and it’s confusing to a lot of people. It’s just a new thing to most people who don’t have a deep knowledge of American history.
I’m glad you used Governor Dean as an example. He’s a moderate, vaguely libertarian centrist Democrat, but he is a tenacious fighter. We’ve never seen that kind of scrappiness in a moderate before (much less in a DEMOCRAT!), so people just assume he must be on some kind of ideological agenda. No fucking way. Dean just wants to win, he wants sanity and stability and competence in government, and is willing to fight hard for it. Bless his heart. Yaaarggh!!
The new, angry, engaged, netroots/blog Democrats are basically a “radical middle”, who can trace lineage most clearly back to… H. Ross Perot. Perot was the first of his kind in the modern era– and like most pioneers was comparatively weird and quirky–, but I think we’ll come to look at him as being the first in a huge wave of mainstream “radical moderates”. Dean took this much farther mainstream, having actually had experience in politics which Perot didn’t have a clue about. I think the next crop of DFA/blog-style Democratic candidates (Hackett? Feingold? Schwietzer?) are going to push this even more mainstream.
That was a “straw man” argument if ever I saw one, Oliver. “I’m not as loony as Cucinich.”
How about this:
Roll back the most recent tax cuts, in their entirety y/n
Pull out of Irag by 6/06 y/n
Impeach, and censure Bush (remove him and Cheney from office) y/n
Tom DeLay is guilty of serious crimes y/n
Karl Rove is a traitor (Plame affair) y/n
Drill for oil in the ANWR y/n
Now, where do you stand?
I forgot my two favorite litmus tests:
Al Gore lost in 2000 y/n
John Kerry lost in 2004 y/n
So you’re in favor of parental notification for abortion?
Oftentimes an anti-choicer has sold someone like you on one of the subtle memes they like to use when they’re trying the “run around Roe” backdoor TRAP to eliminate a woman’s right to choose.
I often call this the “tattoo” argument. It usually goes something like this:
Nice and simple isn’t it? It’s so easy to buy into. Here’s the cite for the blockquote above but I want to warn all of your readers, the link leads to freerepublic: Parental Consent Needed For Tattoos, Not Abortions
By the way, the argument is nothing more than an anti-choice shell and pea game. While you follow the shell you think the pea is under, the pea is somewhere else. The goal of these laws really isn’t parental notification, nor even the more abusive required parental consent laws. The target is the health care professional who performs abortions. The goal is to put the professional out of business.
Here’s the pea.
What is TRAP?
Do you really feel our elected representatives, the ones running our country today, George W Bush, Tom Delay and Bill Frist, by way of example, are better able to judge the individual circumstances of a pregnant underage female better than she and her doctor are?
Now, here’s a different perspective everyone should consider:
Legal Child Abuse: The Harm of Parental Involvement Laws
80% of the underage women who choose abortion already inform their parents. Under the age of 14 almost all of them do. In case after case within the 20% minority that doesn’t inform, forcing them to do so, which is what you are advocating, might be the worst choice that can be made.
1. I would roll them back for the top 1% to pay for Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan and the security of the American people. I’d also want a tax cut and tax breaks for the middle class because theyll spend the money and get the economy really moving again.
2. Probably too soon, but we need a withdrawl strategy instead of “trust me”
3. To date there is no proof of an impeachable offense by Bush/Cheney. Their crimes are crimes of morality, not legality.
4. Define “serious”. Campaign finance violations? Quite likely. In case you haven’t heard, he’s been indicted. The man is a revolting human being, though.
5. No. I think we need a long term plan for alternative power in America so that we are no longer beholden to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab street. The country that went to the moon and built the personal computer can do it, I am certain of that.
6. No
7. Yes
And for those of you playing at home, I’m answering questions from a guy who runs a fan site for the national security advisor turned secretary of state who claimed America was at “battle stations” in Summer ‘01 and advised her president to go clear brush in Crawford as a response.
Just so you know where the questions are coming from.
RE this comment: I feel that any sort of medical procedure, abortion or not, is not something that you can simply allow a child to go through without the parents knowing. I support a woman’s right to choose, but I believe when it comes to those considered minors, we must have limits.
Bayprarie;
TRAP would appear to be similar to the anti-money-laundering provisions of the Patriot Act.
Many retailers earn considerable income cashing checks for customers. Banks, due to the increased cost involved in meeting Federal regulations have been closing accounts. Even when banks have tried to accomodate long-time customers, they are being pressured by the Feds to close them down anyway.
It is SOP when government gets too much power, that they wield it in a heavy-handed manner. The issue of parent notification could be a trojan horse for the anti-choice crowd, but it is an issue that would require some compromise so the damage is limited.
Excellent thread OW – thanks – I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Well done.
I support a woman s right to choose, but I believe when it comes to those considered minors, we must have limits.
OW hasn’t thought this through. As Bayprarie nicely points out–parental notification is merely a trap; like the so-called ‘partial birth abortion’ myth.
Basically, those advocating mandatory parental notification are not pro-choice.
I like to remind folks, it was …a Democrat who decided to drop the atomic bomb. Hell, it was a Democrat who first went into Vietnam.
I just love the things you’re proud of, Oliver.
Re: this comment
Unfortunately the reality of the parental notification and parental consent laws that have been, and are in the process of being, passed do not allow for parental notification while maintaining a healthy pro-choice legal environment. Legislatively speaking if you support the passage of a bill that legally requires parental notification or parental consent today, in 2005, you also just passed a bill that empowers and enables anti-choice and TRAP provisions.
In a way, the concept of parental notification is almost quaint if viewed from a historical perspective. Most of the notification laws are already passed. What’s in vogue now, in 2005, with the anti-choice right-to-fetal-life crowd is replacing parental notification with the much more severe mandated parental consent laws. They’re also working on the nationwide imposition of mandatory “Woman’s Right to Know” laws complete with misinformed consent and waiting periods, and also a massive nationwide promotion of, and federal funding for, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, almost all of which are run by organizations with strong pro-fetal-life agendas.
Also, look at the example I’ve used (in my post above) to illustrate the reality of the laws being passed in 2005. HR 748 doesn’t support family values, it criminalizes them! HR 748 targets any family member who would help an adolescent get to a clinic in another state, other than a parent, for criminal prosecution.
In committee markups, anti-abortion members rejected attempts to amend the legislation to exempt grandparents, aunts, uncles, and siblings, along with members of the clergy and emergency medical personnel, saying such amendments would weaken the bill.
Nobody disputes that teenage girls should talk to their parents when making pregnancy and abortion decisions (and most do). That’s not the issue here as I see it. The issue here is the use of seemingly innocuous or well meaning “under the radar” legal technicalities that are used to advance an anti-choice agenda. “Parental Notification” is a right wing frame. Legally requiring parental notification simply punishes the most vulnerable young women, those who come from dysfunctional families. A law is no substitute for lifetime of caring, nurturing parenting.
What some Democrats fight as the first step down a slippery slope mainstream America sees as a shrill unyeilding inability to consider even common-sense restrictions on abortion. The reason the “Tatoo” argument has such force is that no middle-class daddy wants to find out some scum-bag knocked up his 15-yr-old and she got an abortion with no competent adult saying a word to him.
All this is past now though. The “undue burden” standard is a creation and creature of Justice O”Conner. The new court will not simply cut off Roe v. Wade’s head. Instead it will slowly kill the decision with a thousand tiny cuts. But it will still be dead.
Eli, yes, I know I’m a warmonger. Color me crazy for wanting to kill the people who want to destroy us first.
Re: notification. I don’t have a view on any particular bill or law, but rather the idea that I believe that abortion is not excluded from the numerous other invasive medical procedures that at the very bare minimum require a parent to be notified. Everybody’s dysfunctional – you don’t allow a 14 year old to go in for heart surgery without her parents knowing, I can’t see how you could morally allow her to have an abortion without the same sort of guidelines in place.
With regard to a minor’s consent for any pregnancy-related surgical procedure except abortion, all 50 states and the District of Columbia disagree with you. In all those jurisdictions, a minor can sign her own informed consent even for a Cesarean section–a major abdominal surgery that threatens her future fertility and places her at increased risk during every pregnancy for the rest of her life.
But just for the sake of discussion, which of these minors should be subjected to “limits” beyond those that would be imposed upon her if she chose the much greater health risks connected with continuing her pregnancy?
First off, you’re confusing consent with notification. I believe notification is necessary.
Second, if someone is a rapist or an abuser I believe they forfeit their parental rights (and yes, if they just up and disappear the situation ought to be treated the same way), and the right to any kind of notification.
I’m not citing case law here or anything, I simply reject the idea that a child – a child – can have an invasive medical procedure without their parent or guardian even knowing. If what you said about the cesearean is true, I think that’s horrible as well. Kids are too immature emotionally for so many things, let alone an invasive medical procedure like abortion.
Bayprarie;
What would you have us do? Congress continues to run riot as though their autonomy trumps the legislative process. They will continue to push their agenda until they are removed from office. Use your considerable voice in the overall campaign. There may be some casualties in women’s rights until that is accomplished.
As a longtime administrator of a licensed abortion facility in the extremely repressive state of Texas, I can assure you that I am confusing nothing. But if you suppose that it makes any difference to a terrified teenager whether the law requires notification or consent, it is you who are confusing pie in the sky with reality on the ground. You may reject that reality, or any other that you find personally inconvenient, but all the same, “e vero, se muove.”
How do you suppose the average 30 year-old woman would react to learning that she would have to find an attorney, go to court, and then share her most intimate secrets with a likely disapproving judge before the state would allow her to exercise the right to an abortion that the Supreme Court says is guaranteed to her by the constitution? I’ve seen grown women collapse when faced with much lesser obstacles to abortion care.
Nevertheless, I see 15, 16 and 17 year-olds confront this legal labyrinth every week, sometimes even appealing a case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. They have more courage and determination than most people could imagine, altohough no one could truly believe that any teenager goes through all that just because she’s afraid her dad will take away the keys to the Mustang. But not every at-risk minor has a way to access judicial bypass, and many girls–every bit as determined, but with fewer options–attempt to self-abort, sometimes with the same disastrous outcomes suffered by women pre-1973.
By now, you might have gathered that I deem anyone who is willing to place the lives of these desperate young women at even further risk in the name of political advantage to be cynical in the extreme. It is my sincere hope that your own opposition springs, instead, from a lack of true understanding of the issues involved.
God knows that I wish I didn’t have to understand as much about those issues as I do.
Quote of the Day
Bloggers seem to be scoring this more often than not, lately. Here’s Oliver’s entry (with my emphasis)…
Wonderful! On the topic of parental notification and abortion, I’m just floored once again that it’s a bunch of men trying to decide what is right for women and girls. Until men get their own uteruses, I wish they would just keep their noses out of our doctor offices – Democrat or Republican.
Great argument there : I suppose that people should refrain from discussing military matters unless they have been in the military themselves. I suppose that people should refrain from talking about any cultural issues outside of their own race and class ?
Differnet: The only people talking about abortion are those who have not been aborted.
Is that fair?
I think not.
[...] lism and parental notification
Liberal blogger Oliver Willis recently admitted his support of a few typically conservative ideas, including ̶ [...]
OW,
Day late and dollar short, but I second Zappa’s remark. Good thread.
Dugger
Wonderful! On the topic of parental notification and abortion, I m just floored once again that it s a bunch of men trying to decide what is right for women and girls. Until men get their own uteruses, I wish they would just keep their noses out of our doctor offices – Democrat or Republican.
Exactly – and you just know that the _second_ a miracle breakthrough came down which allowed males to become pregnant, abortion would be a non-issue in a second.
I had always thought that the Republican party believed in letting people make their own decisions about their lives anyways.
Frank;
Disingenuous a bit. Republicans and/or conservatives (especially libertarians)
preach small government, less intrusion, less regulation of people and business. Therefore; ‘letting people make their own decisions about their own lives”, is truer than it is false.
Oliver: Since it’s important (apparently, only to you) to know where the questions come from, you should say so.
http://www.condipundit.com
The “‘blog arm” of http://www.americansforrice.com. an official 527 for the next President of the United States
Condoleezza Rice
Frank;
I m sorry but I can t resist.
What form of integrity does Dick Morris represent in the real world ?
Frank;
Don’t let Crystal do all the heavy lifting
You thought wrong. I guess you ve never heard of law enforcement or do think the Law and Order party is opposed to that, too?
And what law would this be?
Abortion isn’t illegal, yet Republicans still manage to find a way to inject themselves in to our personal affairs to tell us who can and cannot have one.
And, I find it ironic being lectured about law and order from someone who seems to have no problem invading, occupying, bombing, and torturing other nations at will.
Oliver: I have voted for far more Republicans in my time voting (15 years) than you have. Far more than any sane black man should. Some of them have been real duds. Others have been slightly less than benign. Most have been atrocious. These people have reaffirmed the latent socialist within me by confirming the essentially inimical institutionalized racism and rank class stratification in this society. I am no adherent to the DLC corporate whoring that masquerades as a coherent philosophy in the minds of most of our leading politicians. A philosophy I find you to cozy with for comfort, but I understand it is the price of admission to the leadership class you aspire to enter. We need a broader progressive populist program in this country that respects its racial and ethnic diversity and nurtures all of the world s people. We need a program that lifts the living standards of all. The corrupt plutocracies impersonating democracies in the world need to change before guerrilla terrorism is commonplace on every continent in every so-called western democracy.
Fran;
That’s not me chasing you around the blogosphere. It’s your tail.
You make all the noise about the fact you ‘never compromise’ your principles.
I just want you to confirm your belief in the integrity of Dick Morris and laud
his participation in Condi’s draft as vociferously as Crystal.
Republicans do not preach less regulation of people
Frank; What populates and makes decisions in a oorporation? Chimpanzees?
Leo: Republicans do not “preach less ‘regulation of people’”; they are actually strong advocates of tougher behavior codes in schools, tougher enforcement of laws, stiffers sentences for crimes, and, of course, opposition to pornography, obcenity and abortion.
Even Todd B., in his confusion between domestic policy and (his own misinterpretaion of) foreign policy, admits that “Republicans still manage to find a way to inject themselves in to our personal affairs to tell us who can and cannot have one (an abortion, that is).”
And, I was far from lecturing you; nearly as far as I am from agreeing with your characterization of me.
Suddenly, the heads of corporations are people?
Now, who’s being disingenous?
Yes Frank. Corporations, governments, Kiwanis Clubs are populated by people. Some good, some not so good.
Some political organiations compromise their principles to get what they want.
I am not making a judgement about any particular group of people, just a general statement about, not just what, but how they accomplish their goals.
If you are comfortable having a mutually beneficially arrangement with Dick Morris, fine. I just want you to know I understand. Sometimes people’s need to justify their position, compels them to accept compromises they would rather not. It is not a perfect world; as you well know.
I have no arrangement — what in the world makes you think I do?
And why do you persist in being so argumentative, as to post from one blog to another, just to get an answer?
Why are you so argumentative with me in the first place?
Is it personal? Did I step on your foot in the movies? Run over your dog?
What is it with you? You question every thing I say… I say “white”, you say “black.”
I know you are prepared to answer me with “You started it”, or “You asked for it”, but, hold up, just one minute.
Take a breath.
Now, think: Why do I, Semanticleo, feel it so durn necessary to behave like this towards Frank_D?
Before I blame him, do I treat anyone else on these threads like this?
If not, why not?
When you were posting over at BlameBush, was there someone over there who did this to you?
Who was it, and why?
Did they start it? Or ask for it?
Oh, I see. You have permission to attempt your version of ‘reading minds’, but no one else can smoke out your true motivations.
You say;” It’s none of your business what my motivations are!” To that I say bullshit.
You offer your opinions in a public forum, Are you delusional enough to think that everyone is gonna fall for the narrow views of Frank__D?
I am here to learn something. Pick up some new ideas.
Frank you are here to dispense your propaganda. I just call you on it. That’s all. Too bad if you don’t like it. You’re a big boy. Old enough to accept responsibility for his own morality and politics, I assume.
Get a megaphone if you want to your speak mind about any subject. But offer something besides your choice for 08′
Do you really think you are gaining converts here?
You suggested a while back that I was losing my target audience. I don’t have any target audience but YOU!, Frank. You said so yourself. If you want to know why I keep pestering you, it’s because I want to know what kind of man you are. If Condi supporters are people who are inflexible, rigidly pure(legends in mind only) and completely closed-ended thinkers, do I want to help get her elected?
See if you can add something to the growth of people besides another 40 basis points in your candidates numbers. Then start preaching.
I
Furthering my point:
Check out your comments here
ttp://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/10/07/terror-alerts-as-political-weapon/#comments
to everyone else, but me
Then look at your comment to me.
Do you really see no difference?
Who are you fooling?
Certainly not me…
That should be
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/10/07/terror-alerts-as-political-weapon/#comments
if you want to look at it, and take a close look at yourself.
Your non – answer tells me all I need to know.
You want to know what kind of man I am? Why?
Because you might vote for Rice? Hah.
You wouldn’t vote for her at gunpoint.
You certainly would pretend that it’s up to me to present her case, but, if you read CondiPundit with any discernment, you’d know I very rarely do that over there — why should I do it here? And, specifically, for you?
As I asked you quite seriously, who the hell do you think you are?
If I win you over, will that win Rice the State of Kentucky or something?
You’re just another Oliver sycophant to me. I have tried on a number of occasions to have dialogues with , and it always degenerates into insults, and name calling, provoked by you. You’re about a step and a half above JadeGold in that department.
What do I have to gain by persuading you of anything. I ask you pertinent questions — you respond with accusations of “mind reading”.
You say, ” I am here to learn something. Pick up some new ideas.” From whom? Certainly not from me… All you want to is contradict and gainsay me… Attempt to dump on me with silly metaphors that make little or no sense. Half the time, you’re not even respectful. No, you’re not trying to “pick up some new ideas.” [Q. "Why would I know or care if there is any love between Bartlett and Bush?" A. It helps to know the source of information before one accepts it with absolutely no grains of salt. Apparently, that was "pro - Rice propaganda", too, eh?]
You say things like, ” Frank you are here to dispense your propaganda. I just call you on it.” But that’s not true. Not only do you rarely refute what I say, but you hardly ever even call it propaganda, let alone “call me on it.”
I’m not looking to convert anybody to Condi’s Cause here. On these threads? Are you kidding? Who? zappa? Quaker? Neoconsrloopy? JadeGold? Get serious.
These people wouldn’t vote for Condoleezza Rice, if she ran against the dead FDR.
But there’s another reason I wouldn’t seriously (underscore seriously) attempt to “push” Secretary Rice here.
Let me give you a hint: Who are the people who say “America (read Republicans) aren’t ready for a black woman President?”
Liberals, that’s who…
Why? Because they wouldn’t vote for her!
Neither would you.
I repeat and I close with this: Your non – answer tells me all I need to know.
Amplitude is not frequency. Rinse and repeat.
Ahem, you are way past Nunya…
Nunya business, that is.
Frank;
Frank;
So, Semanticleo doesn’t rally WANT to learn because doesn’t pay attention to Frank__D’s teaching.
My third grad teacher had some advice which you may, or may not choose to benefit from. (I am somewhat hampered by the simple-declarative sentences I must dumb-down to, but, just for you) She said we have two ears yet only one mouth, so listening should be double our speaking capacity.
I told you why I was here; to learn. Just because I choose not to swallow one narrow and stingy philosophy as though it were of any value, aside from it’s counterpoint to civilization, is no indication to the contrary.
You, as occasionally observed, do not answer questions, and I don’t expect you to answer WHY ARE YOU HERE?. Your position is just too imperious to have anything demanded of them. You are Condipundit!
You seem to be better at defensiveness than introspection.
My example referred, not to a philosophy, but one small point: “It helps to know the source of information before one accepts it with absolutely no grains of salt.” This is hardly a “narrow and stingy philosophy as though it were of any value, aside from it s counterpoint to civilization” [not to mention the fact that conservatism relies on principles that go back 8 millennia to the dawn of civilization, while modern liberalism is already wheezing and dying, having arisen on the streets of Paris in 1789; but that would require a debate -- something you seem to be either unwilling or unable -- or both -- to engage in with me].
To clear up two points you seem to have trouble letting go of: I am not here campaigning for Condoleezza Rice. I was posting here before I became involved with the “draft Condi” movement, or CondiPundit.
Secondly, I am not CondiPundit. I willingly joined up with Mick Wright, whose blog it is. He covers more electoral issues than I do, as does Crystal Dueker, who came to us from Americansforrice.com. They do far more “campaigning” for Rice than I do, even on that blog, let alone this one. My job, as I see it, is to more or less chronicle the Secretary’s comings and goings in a positive light, sort of “creating a record” for her to run on should she so choose.
Does that make it a fan fic, as Oliver so witheringly calls it? I don’t think so.
Is it a campaign site? Maybe, but that’s not what I do.
Anywhoo, I digress.
You have chosen a rather long way of saying to me, “It’s your fault.”
There’s a saying in 12 – Step groups, “You have to sweep yor own side of the street.” Apparently, you don’t have a broom.
Now, there’s a metaphor we both can understand!
And I was correct: You seem to be better at defensiveness than introspection.
I stand corrected . You are NOT Condipundit.
Frank
Didn’t know you were soliciting external approval. Be confident in the infallibility of your well-worn platitudes. You are always right. ‘Nuff said.