The White House has pulled the nomination of one of the Swift Boat Liar funders.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Mall Cops: Mall Of America Series Coming To TLC
- 2009 WWE Survivor Series Results
- Video: Jennifer Lopez Falls On Stage At 2009 American Music Awards
- Dashawn Vasconcellos: NYPD Shot Teen 11 Times
- Disney Adapting High School Musical For China
- Katie Price Quits I’m A Celebrity
- Patrizia D’Addario Claims Silvio Berlusconi Had Feet Massaged By Lesbians In Orgy
- Eric Wood Leg Break Video
- Bulls Run Wild On Set Of Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz Movie
- Will Smith Dead Rumor Circulates
Live News
Pwned!
Here’s your cue, righties. Tell us it’s soooo unfair that Mr. Fox’s reputation has been dragged through the mud. Tell us that this is nothing more than bare-knuckle political payback.
I’ll prepare to give you the horse laugh.
This is interesting symbolically. Harriett Myers was shelved because of anger for the right. When Democrats opposed John Bolton, Bush used a recess appointment to get him his position. This is different. Democrats opposed the nomination and the nomination was pulled, and it was pulled because the nominee is a partisan hack. Is this a sign that Bush is planning a more conciliatory tone? Doubtful, but worth watching.
I don’t think so, Z. remember that Bolten’s appointment nevertheless took place with a Republan majority. The White House doesn’t have that comfy cushion to fall back on now.
You know, if he had been voted down based upon his qualifications (or lack thereof) to be an ambassador, I wouldn’t have given this a thought one way or the other.
However, I see it as a broadside attack on free speech and I am surprised that people are cheering this.
Liberals went nuts when James Hormel didn’t get his nomination because he’s gay. However, this is ok simply because he was a Bush supporter? Can you reconcile those viewopoints?
Jay:
Yes. A guy who besmirches bona-fide war heroes during wartime cannot be trusted to represent American interests overseas. It’s about character. Surely the GOP can understand that.
Jimmmmm – Now you’ve done it. Prepare for salvos of how John Kerry was actually so not a war hero, that he probably passed secrets to the VC and was born with a yellow stripe on his spine, that he personally ate the legs of innocent babies and then blamed it on other soldiers, that he used to huff the fumes from the Swift Boat gas tank and blah blah blah.
So I take it Jay would allow, say, a nomination George “Root of All EEEEvil” Soros to come to a vote?
“Liberals went nuts when James Hormel didn’t get his nomination because he’s gay.”
Um, ya because being a partisan political hack is the same thing as being gay. Jesus, jay. The way you think …
They weren’t concerned about his character. They were concerned about him exercising his right to free speech and Democrats signaled their intent to kill this nomination because they didn’t like what he donated money to.
That doesn’t bother you?
Yup, not about character:
At the level of character, should we not make a distinction between free speech and helping to spread lies and smears?
Spider, this is the thing: I could care less who a person gives their money to. Like it or not, giving away money is a form of free speech. Basically what happened here was that some Democrats didn’t like where this guy donated his money and as such were prepared to block his nomination. That’s just wrong and it sends a terrible message.
What’s next? Do we start asking people who they’ve voted for? Do we start asking what organizations people belong to? Do we ask if they’ve ever bad-mouthed any of the politicians sitting before them? When does it end?
Um, ya because being a partisan political hack is the same thing as being gay. Jesus, jay. The way you think …
That’s not the way I was thinking. You still can’t read for content to save your life. Go away.
A guy who besmirches bona-fide war heroes during wartime cannot be trusted to represent American interests overseas.
I 100% whole-heartedly agree with Jim. Which is why I voted against the guy who claimed his fellow troops had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam“.
“Can you reconcile those viewopoints?”
Being gay should not preclude someone from any government position but contributing money to a sleazy political operations aimed at spreading lies and smears should raise concerns.
In other words, Jay, being gay is not a character issue. Being a political hack who supports sleazy smear campaigns is.
If you think they are the same things I expect you to explain yourself because there’s no other way to read your comment that they need reconciliation. They don’t because they are totally different issues.
Boo hoo. The guy is a crony like nearly every other Bush appointee. Free speech? Don’t democratic members of the Senate have the right to say “we aren’t confirming another partisan crony”?
Save,
Do yourself a favor. Watch this
doc and shut the fuck up.
“Do we start asking what organizations people belong to?”
Um, Jay, certainly you can think of some organizations that membership in would raise some serious flags about a person’s ability to be an ambassador.
“Do we start asking what organizations people belong to?”
Don’t they already do that anyway?
Wow, profanity. Gosh, how am I going to come back against such a well-reasoned, fully-factual post?
Uh …. Your Momma!!
Seriously, I just think it’s odd that speaking ill of your fellow soldiers is automatically disqualifatory when it comes to the Belgian Ambassadorship but a no-holds-barred postive when it comes to President. If you can provide more insight into this seeming hypocracy, I’d be glad to hear it.
Well, Jay? If a man practices his freedom of speech by donating money to the World Church of the Creator, would you still have no qualms about his nomination to Ambassador of, say, South Africa?
(No, I’m not equivocating the Swift Boat Veterans for Spin with white supremacists. My point is that these things do count towards whether or not it’s apropos for certain positions.)
What this guy did was donate money to a political organization. Now if everybody here wants to add their little adjectives and descriptions to make it seem much more sinister, fine. But that doesn’t change a thing.
A ’sleazy political operation aimed at spreading lies and smears’ describes People For The American Way in my view. Same goes for MoveOn.org Somebody may say see things differently but they’re not exactly pillars of truth telling when it comes to political campaigns or their campaigns against court nominees.
And since the viewpoint is subjective (at least in the mind of the Senators sitting there), then what has happened is a precedent has been set to deem somebody unworthy of some sort of government post because they’ve given money to political organizations that the party power simply does not like.
“A no-holds-barred positive”?
What does that even mean?
Were there people in 2004 crying “Vote Kerry! He testified against other soldiers!”
So whats up with the Repug banner AD?
“…fully-factual post?”
So i take it you haven’t seen the film and that you have no idea what you’re actually talking about.
What this guy did was donate money to a political organization … that spread lies and smears about a presidential candidate. I don’t think “lies and smears” is all that subjective here Jay. That’s what the Swift Boaters did.
If you can provide more insight into this seeming hypocracy, I’d be glad to hear it.
With pleasure, SaveFarris:
-In his testimony before congress, young Lieutenant Kerry conveyed what his fellow soldiers in VVAW had told him about their own experiences and had asked him to share with congress. His purpose was not to incriminate any individuals but to raise awareness of what patriot young soldiers were finding themselves doing.
-The swiftboat smear artisits were funded by partisan jerks like Fox to tell deliberate lies for the purpose of incriminating and discrediting one particular individual: John Kerry.
This has been another edition of simple answers to incredibly bone-stupid questions.
Algore donated $$ to moveon.org. Do they qualify as a ’sleazy political operation aimed at spreading lies and smears’? Are Bush/Hitler videos not lies and smears of the President?
A ’sleazy political operation aimed at spreading lies and smears’ describes People For The American Way in my view. Same goes for MoveOn.org
Perhaps you can back that up with some examples of something that matches the sleaze factor of the swift boat shits?
Didn’t think so.
Once again, Jay gives us a good example of wingnut thought on the subject of free speech: “When I criticize something you say, that’s just criticism. When you criticize something I say, omigod, you’re taking away my first amendments rights!”
And, Jay, as for your equating Hormel’s being gay with Fox’s support of a group devoted to character assassination…. breathtaking. Simply breathtaking. Please put on a dunce cap, sit in the corner and think for a while before you post again.
Dear [blank]: Moveon produced no bush/hitler video. Someone did in a commercial competition that they sponsored, and moveon quickly removed the video from their site.
You wouldn’t seriously compare that to the deliberate, orchestrated and well-funded swift-boat smear that every right wing source was trumpeting at the top of its lungs, would you?
However, this is ok simply because he was a Bush supporter?
No, Jay.
I’m sure that anyone the administration nominates will be a “Bush supporter.”
There’s opposition to this guy because he was a major funder of a disinformation campaign aimed at the American people.
And Jay?
What’s next? Do we start asking people who they’ve voted for? Do we start asking what organizations people belong to? Do we ask if they’ve ever bad-mouthed any of the politicians sitting before them?
As I promised:
Haw!
“Are Bush/Hitler videos not lies and smears of the President?”
OMG you guys are morons.
Frame, whether you think the Swift Boat Vets were liars or not is irrelevant as is whether or not what they did was spread “lies and smears” as you are not a sitting Senator.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If the GOP takes control back from the Senate and a Democrat sits in the White House this kind of thing could be reversed and seriously doubt you’d accept it with a shrug. In my view Moveon.org smeared President Bush and told falsehoods in ads about him during the 2004 campaign. Thanks to what the Democrats did with Fox, it leaves the door open for the GOP to dismiss any kind of appointment for any person who gave more than a nickel to Moveon.org or any of its affiliated organizations.
Sorry but that’s just wrong. Unless the these organizations engaged in illegal activities or engaged in behavior so egregious that it is proven to be harmful to somebody else than it is not a valid reason to disqualify a person from a government post.
“In my view Moveon.org smeared President Bush and told falsehoods in ads about him during the 2004 campaign.”
Care to cite them?
Ok, hang on a sec.. Let’s say for the moment that Fox donated the money to the Swifties in good faith, exercising his 1st amendment rights, yes? Then come to find out the money he gave them was used to smear and lie about a presidential candidate from the opposing party.
If he didn’t agree and endorse what they said about Kerry, wouldn’t he have said so, either at the time, on in front of this Senate committee? By not doing so, he is exercising his 1st amendment rights to endorse lying, smearing and douchbaggery and other unseemly behavior. Not the kind of judgment I look for in an ambassador, I don’t know about you.
I am sitting here, mouth agape, at Jay’s query as to whether it’s OK to inquire as to people’s political affiliation.
Jay, where the holy fucking fuck were you when the Lynn Westmoreland and the other Republican asshats at the Valerie Plame hearing were asking whether she and her husband were Democrats? One supposes that in Lynn’s world, facts are subject to political alignment. I seem to have missed your righteous indignation during this line of questioning, you hypocritical sack of crap.
Of course a nickel donation to MoveOn is exactly the same as a $50,000 contribution to the Swift Boat Group.
They’re both examples of free speech, right Jay?
“When I criticize something you say, that’s just criticism. When you criticize something I say, omigod, you’re taking away my first amendments rights!”
This is absurd. Nobody said anything about criticism. This is about denying somebody a government appointment because they got their panties in bunch over where a guy made some monetary donations.
And, Jay, as for your equating Hormel’s being gay with Fox’s support of a group devoted to character assassination…. breathtaking. Simply breathtaking. Please put on a dunce cap, sit in the corner and think for a while before you post again.
I didn’t ‘equate’ anything between Hormel and Fox as you and Frame imply. I merely stated a fact: They were turned away not because of anything that would prevent them from doing their job effectively, but rather because of who they were or what they did. The comparison was between what the the parties in power did at the time.
Hormel didn’t get in because he was gay. Fox didn’t get in because John Kerry didn’t like the fact that he donated $50K to a Swift Boat Vets.
I am sitting here, mouth agape, at Jay’s query as to whether it’s OK to inquire as to people’s political affiliation.
That’s not my query so your little tirade that follows is pointless.
First, attempt to read for content and understand where I am coming from and then try a little coherence instead of blathering about Valerie Plame as if it has anything to do with anything.
I mean, its obvious that nobody is going to change their minds based on what I said, but mark my words it is going to come back and bite Democrats in the ass.
Some person is going to be nominated for something and a few Senators are going to say, “Well, we’re not going to vote for you Mr or Mrs so and so because right it here it shows you donated $______ to ______ and that is an organization that just engages in the worst kind of politics.”
Sorry, but if you don’t believe that doesn’t have a chilling effect on free speech then you’re just a tad blinded by your own partisanship.
in Lynn’s world, facts are subject to political alignment.
More and more, it seems, for a great many people.
Fox didn’t get in because John Kerry didn’t like the fact that he donated $50K to a Swift Boat Vets.
Kerry wasn’t the only one.
Jay | Mar 28, 2007 5:03:16 PM
“Sorry, but if you don’t believe that doesn’t have a chilling effect on free speech then you’re just a tad blinded by your own partisanship.”
LoL!
Look who’s talking about partisanship….
Jay, Mr or Ms so and so would have the chance to refute, defend or deplore the actions of ____, wouldn’t they? If they endorse the “worst kind of ploitics” then they probably are not right for the job.
Jay, I know you don’t want to address the point, but what I said is precisely relevant. If, as you assert, it is bad and scary to deny people jobs because of their political affiliation, then how can you not condemn Lynn Westmoreland for attempting to discredit Plame’s testimony by trying to make it appear that if she is a Democrat, nothing she says with regard to her status and her husband’s findings on the motivations for Bush’s war are to be trusted?
Is the Democratic party engaged in illegal behavior? Or behavior so egregious that it is harmful to somebody else (whatever the hell that means)? If not, then why even ask what her party affiliation is, or whether she had donated money to Al Gore’s campaign?
“…engaged in behavior so egregious that it is proven to be harmful to somebody else …”
Certainly lying about someone’s war record shuld constitute some kind of egregious behavior should it not?
I didn’t ‘equate’ anything between Hormel and Fox as you and Frame imply. I merely stated a fact: They were turned away not because of anything that would prevent them from doing their job effectively, but rather because of who they were or what they did. The comparison was between what the the parties in power did at the time.
Jay, you are moral obtuseness personified.
Being gay does not reflect on one’s wisdom and diplomatic skills. Donating fifty-freakin-thousand dollars to a hack political attack group and then passing on the opportunity to express your regret for doing so does.
Fifty freaking thousand dollars!
Some person is going to be nominated for something and a few Senators are going to say, “Well, we’re not going to vote for you Mr or Mrs so and so because right it here it shows you donated $______ to ______ and that is an organization that just engages in the worst kind of politics.”
If the hypothetical candidate donates something fifty freakin thousand dollars, and does so to an organization genuinely comparable on the scale nutjobbery to the swift boat liars (that would be something like NAMBLA, CWP or the OJ Simpson defense fund), then I would tend to agree with any senator who opposed its nomination. When the situation arises you can hold me to that.
Its funny watching a Bush-sycophant complaining about the effect of partisanship on Free Speech. Comsidering that avid partisanship is the #1 job qualification for the Bush administration.
This is the same white house that tried to restrict lobbyists based on political donations.
This is the same white house that routinely gags career bureaucratic employees relegating all communications through politically appointed PR spokespeople.
And Jay is worried about the “chilling” effect on free speech the Senate is giving by refusing to confirm a man whose chief qualification for his nomination is the amount of money he donated to the Republican party and possibly his chief qualification is payback for funding a fabricated smear attack on the president’s election opponent.
Maybe the senate (as presented stated by Barack Obama) doesn’t feel the nominee was honest in his answers. Maybe that disqualifies him Jay02C
Its funny watching a Bush-sycophant
Translation: Anybody that doesn’t bow at the altar of the seal of the Democratic party is a “Bush sycophant.” Yeah. And Mort Kondracke is a conservative.
The rest of your comment is nothing but deflection as you don’t address anything. But that’s typical Midderpidge.
As I said, it will come back and bite them in the rear and and when it does I will see the same exact group here squealing like stuck pigs.
Maybe the senate (as presented stated by Barack Obama) doesn’t feel the nominee was honest in his answers.
Oh that’s a load of horseshit and you know it. Had Fox not made that donation, this guys nomination would have sailed through and we wouldn’t even be discussing it.
And quite frankly, a bunch of politicians (ANY politicians) who basically lie as easily as they breathe saying somebody isn’t qualified because they didn’t feel the nominee was honest enough is epitome of chutzpah.
“As I said, it will come back and bite them in the rear …”
Yes, and no doubt this was your position when the swift boaters were smearing the military record of a presidential candidate. I’m sure you were wringing your hands fretting over the damage that they were doing to the public discourse and the future of American politics as good men would now eschew public service for fear of being baselessly attacked by partisan hacks and liars.
What a thoroughly consistent scold you are, jay …
“As I said, it will come back and bite them in the rear …”
Actually I doubt any Democratic president would be stupid enough to nominate such a transparently partisan hack, but as long as we’re predicting the future here’s my prediction, Jay: someday a Republican congress will sink a democratic nomination because of some past political statement or association.
And when that happens you, Jay, will not raise a word in protest.
You’re not just a tool, Jay, you’re a Ronco 9-in-one Wonder Tool.
Typical Jay02C. I was referring to you specifically as a Bush-sycophant, not just anybody.
Ignoring the fact that the Bush administration’s use of party loyalty as a criteria for jobs, contracts, lobbyist access, and the ability to speak as a government employee has a far more chilling effect on free speech than not confirming some big party donor who finances smear jobs and then doesn’t know crap about it when put under oath.
I’m sure you were wringing your hands fretting over the damage that they were doing to the public discourse and the future of American politics as good men would now eschew public service for fear of being baselessly attacked by partisan hacks and liars.
I don’t give a rats ass about discourse as the world of politics is an ugly game at times. If Fox had to sit there and endure all sorts of criticism for his donations, then that is fair game. But when people are denied government posts because somebody didn’t like the speech they engaged in, then we’ve started down a slippery slope.
It’s stunning that you cannot grasp that.
Jay: someday a Republican congress will sink a democratic nomination because of some past political statement or association.
And when that happens you, Jay, will not raise a word in protest.
Wanna bet? You people can call me all the names you want but when it comes to free speech and the freedom of association, I don’t give a shit who is on the receiving end. It’s just out and out wrong. And if a GOP controlled committee in the future decides to tank a nomination because they donated money to NOW or PFAW or some other liberal organization then I will be the first to stand up and call them out on it.
“I don’t give a rats ass about discourse as the world of politics is an ugly game at times …”
Okay. So you think lies and smears are acceptable in politcal campaigns and now you think that supporting liars and smear merchants is an acceptable quality in our ambassadors (and this quality is just like being gay). Just so we’re clear.
This is the same white house that tried to restrict lobbyists based on political donations.
This is the same White House who rejected Government contracts to bidders based on political affiliation.
I found this yesterday. Some of it may be crime and corruption, some not. Pretty much all of it smacks of impropriety.
Florida
Inaction on Israel-Palestine
Ashcroft
9-11
PATRIOT Act
Tora Bora
Rushing to war with Iraq
Fallujah
The “Salvador option”
Abu Ghraib
That Gannon guy
Gonzales
Valerie Plame
Bankruptcy legislation
John Bolton
Terry Schiavo legislation
Downing Street Memos
Extraordinary Renditioning
Kelo v. City of New London
Mad Cow in Texas
MDs help with Guantanamo questioning
Roberts involved in 2000 recount
Meddling in crafting of Iraq’s new oil policy
Katrina
Roberts
Miers brief nomination
Resisting anti-torture legislation
Oil’s record profits
Alito
Paying Iraqi reporters for favorable articles
CIA prison “black sites”
Medicaid prescription plan
Air marshals shot that guy
Sago Mine explosion
Wiretapping
Not taking care of Veterans
Pentagon in on domestic spying
Military detains wives of wanted Iraqis
Medicaid cuts
Abramoff
Global warming denial
“Improved” PATRIOT Act
Medicare cuts
Not charging royalties for oil pumped from federal land
Depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq
Civil war
Undermining mine safety regulations
Increasing national debt
Development of new nuclear weapons
Civilian casualties in Iraq
Saber rattling on Iran
India nuclear deal
Watering down lobbying rule changes
Prosecution cheated on Moussaoui case
Seemingly permanent military bases being built in Iraq
We don’t need no stinking warrants
40 year high corporate profits – labor rates? not so much
White House involved in election day phone jamming scheme
Reclassification of public documents
Tony Snow
Undercutting state regulations on health insurers
NSA data mining
National Guard sent to Mexican border
Threatening reporters who reveal government activities
Flawed voting machines
Teh powerful Christian Right
Pushing the limits of the Geneva Conventions
Guantanamo suicides
Wiping their ass with the fourth amendment
Darby coal mine disaster
Presidential signing statements, unprecedented use of
Lebanon
Military tribunals legislation
Study: 655,000 dead in Iraq
Operation Shifting Rationale
Lowered standards detainee treatment worldwide
Vote suppression
Non-citizens may be held indefinitely
Violence in Iraq underreported
18,000 votes disappear in Florida e-voting machines
$billions lost yearly to corruption in Iraq
Pentagon and CIA examining financial records of Americans
Prosecutor purge
Moonenites invade Boston
Size of surge double what was sold
Exaggerating case of Iran’s involvement in Iraq violence
Nukes an option for a strike against Iran
Squalor at Walter Reed
Reasons for administration breaking the law are state secrets
All of which really only touches on our insane budget priorities and other domestic issues like tax cuts, no child left behind, “clear skies” legislation, a bogus tobacco settlement, the Real ID Act, gerrymandered congressional districts…
So you think lies and smears are acceptable in politcal campaigns
Where did I say that? However, lies and smears are part and parcel of political campaigns and if you actually believe that it only exists on one side of the spectrum then there’s no point in even discussing it any further because you’d be a hopeless case. See the ‘Texans For Truth’ smear ads funded by MoveOn.org against President Bush. Reasonable people accept that the “Bush was awol” story was bullshit, but that didn’t stop them from running those ads anyway.
Now, according to your standards, anybody that every donated money to MoveOn.org is prohibited from holding any government position because after all, why should somebody that supports liars and smear merchants represent our government?
and now you think that supporting liars and smear merchants is an acceptable quality in our ambassadors
There you go again with the bogus conclusions that you continually pull out of your ass. Don’t twist my statements to fit your preconceived agenda. Once again, what is ‘lies and smears’ is a subjective viewpoint based upon who controls the Senate. Senator A may think Swift Boat veterans were 100% truthful while Senator B may believe they were full of crap. On the other end of the spectrum a different nominee could come before the Senate and this time, Senator A thinks MoveOn.org is an organization that peddles lies and smears and that this nominee should not go forward because he donated to that group and Senator B will see it differently.
I know that you have an amazing inability to comprehend these matters, so instead you knock it down to childish conclusions. But the fact remains that the door has been opened to prevent people from serving in government positions based upon monetary donations they made to political organizations.
Again, the fact that you find such a chilling effect on free speech is astounding.
Again, the fact that you find such a chilling effect on free speech is astounding.
That should read:
Again, the fact that you find such a chilling effect on free speech so perfectly acceptable is astounding.
“Once again, what is ‘lies and smears’ is a subjective viewpoint based upon who controls the Senate.”
That’s an astonishing point of view.
The bottom line is that Fox paid the price not for his opinion, but for his willingness to back liars and smears merchants. You’re suggesting that the Senate rejected Fox because he was opposed to Kerry. That’s bullshit and you should know it. I highly doubt you will see them reject the next candidate because he or she supported Bush.
That’s an astonishing point of view.
Why?
The bottom line is that Fox paid the price not for his opinion, but for his willingness to back liars and smears merchants.
No, the bottom line is, he paid the price because he specifically donated to the Swift Boat Veterans.
You’re suggesting that the Senate rejected Fox because he was opposed to Kerry.
No, I’m suggesting the Democrats rejected him as part of payback for Kerry. And if you don’t believe that is the case, then you’re just a rube.
I highly doubt you will see them reject the next candidate because he or she supported Bush.
Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. The bottom line is, that door has now been opened.
When does it stop? When do some Senators determine that a membership in the NRA or the ACLU is unworthy of an ambassadorship?
And let’s not pretend that ambassadorships are handed out based on merit alone. Fat contributions and being a friend of the President helps.
“…he paid the price because he specifically donated to the Swift Boat Veterans …” who are liars and smears merchants.
And you’re getting your panties in a bunch over nothing, jay. For a guy who accepts that lies and smears are part of politics as usual — and who doesn’t “give a rat’s ass” that it is — you’ve certainly got yourself all tied up in knots about a little political payback. As if it too isn’t a part of every aspect of politics.
I don’t have a problem with anyone suggesting that FOx’s behavior is unebcoming an ambassador, no matter how much money he gave to the republicans.
But here’s something I wasn’t aware of, some of Kerry’s fellow veterans wrote a letter :
I would think that conservative leaders such as Tom Delay who have argued that some democrats and liberals should charged with treason for their political views going on four years now could get behind this sentiment. Will John Murtha ever be tried for treason? Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. The bottom line is, that door has now been opened …
For a guy who accepts that lies and smears are part of politics as usual — and who doesn’t “give a rat’s ass” that it is
Once again you’re using my quotes out of context. I accept that it is standard in politics because it just is. Always has been, and always will be. That’s just a simple fact.
I said I didn’t give a “rat’s ass” about ‘discourse’ as it related to this issue. Bare knuckle politics is also routine. What I do care about is free speech being squelched for political payback.
you’ve certainly got yourself all tied up in knots about a little political payback. As if it too isn’t a part of every aspect of politics.
This isn’t just ‘political payback.’ See above.
“In our judgment, those who finance smears and lies of combat veterans don’t deserve to represent America on the world stage,” said the letter signed by 11 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans who served with Kerry.
Wonderful. I’ll guess you’d accept that anybody who has every donated money to MoveOn.org is now disqualified to represent America on the world stage.
“What I do care about is free speech being squelched for political payback.”
Bullshit. The Swift Boat Vets were political payback for Kerry’s activities in the 1970s and you couldn’t “give a rat’s ass.” Lying about a presidential candidates military record and funding those lies is a-okay in your book (because you don’t care about it) but actually holding someone accountable for doing so a threat to our very way of life.
Again, if the Senate were suggesting that Fox’s opposition to Kerry was the reason he didn’t get the gig that would be one thing. But clearly here Fox was unfit for the position because of the way he chose to exercise his opinion.
Your MoveOn example is just bullshit. Where was the lie? Bush was AWOL.
But clearly here Fox was unfit for the position because of the way he chose to exercise his opinion.
And there you have it. You may not realize it, but you just basically admitted that exercising his opinion cost him a government post. Congratulations.
Your MoveOn example is just bullshit. Where was the lie? Bush was AWOL.
I knew it. Like I said, reasonable people understand the charge that “Bush was AWOL” was a lie. And since Bush was never charged with being AWOL, since he was never reprimanded for being AWOL and nobody other than partisan hacks accused him of being AWOL, he wasn’t AWOL and to say so is a lie. Apparently, you don’t fit into the category of reasonable, but you do fit into the category of hack. As such, since you’re going to behave like a hack, the conversation is over.
frame
Saw part of Winter Soldiers on IFC last night (it was really late). Powerful, moving. Despicable.
So you would support David Duke for ambassador to, say, Niger? Regardless of his opinions about black people?
It would probably take him the better part of a year just to pronounce the name of the country correctly. But, hey, he’s just exercising his right to free speech, right?
Jay02C, your arguments might actually have some merit if Fox’s sole qualification for the position of Ambassador wasn’t the amount of money he donated to Bush and the Republican party.
How’s that for free speech? Express the right kind of partisan political speech in the right $$$ way and you’ll be rewarded with prestige appointments.
So save your false indignation.
Besides which many of the members of the committee felt Fox was misleading or dishonest in some of his answers. Couple that with his willingness to fund a vicious lie-based smear attack on one of the committee members, and you can kiss that nomination goodbye.
“So you would support David Duke for ambassador to, say, Niger?”\
Exactly my point. There are some opinions and organizations that would make someone unfit for service as an ambassador. Here, however, Fox’s opinion, that Kerry should not be president, isn’t even the question. Jay wants it to be so he can play his favorite role as the scold. But Fox put money into an organization that spread lies and distortions about Kerry. Not a good sign of the man’s character.
But Fox put money into an organization that spread lies and distortions about Kerry.
More than that, frame, did you see how blatantly he was sucking up to Kerry during JK’s questioning?
Talk about character.
But Fox put money into an organization that spread lies and distortions about Kerry. Not a good sign of the man’s character.
And Kerry had people working in his campaign who worked for MoveOn.org, and organization that spread lies and distortions about President Bush.
I guess Senator Kerry should resign.
What lies and distortions did moveon.org promote? I haven’t seen the list. I don’t pay much attention to Moveon.org, what I usually hear is some complete bullshit by right wingers about Hitler ads, that I know were completely bogus.
Also, Jay, proving Bush wasn’t AWOL (I personally don’t think the TANG cared what Bush did given his political connections) should be very simple all you have to do is use his service record to disprove any claim. I mean a timeline of service dates and stations should be readily available. Except its not.
Hey, Jay, how does the sentence of David Hicks promote free speech? As part of his sentence he can’t talk to reporters for a year and to forever waive any profit from telling his story, to renounce any claims of mistreatment or unlawful detention. Oh yeah, all that and 9 months of jail.
The most prominent part of the sentence seems to be about silencing the prisoner and not about punishing his crimes.