Seriously, is there any civility left in...

[The Ressurrected One]

...the Democratic party?


Reid calls president 'loser'Reid calls president "loser" (
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-06-Fri-2005/news/reid.html)

It's getting routine. Say something inflammatory to the public or media and then quietly admit you crossed the line and apologize to the White House.

[IcemanCometh]

go fuck yourself

[ChumpDumper]

go fuck yourselfWhich party was that Senator in?

[Bandit2981]

Originally posted by The Ressurrected One: Seriously, is there any civility left in...the Democratic party?


In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com/images/owned-dogs.jpg

[Nbadan]

After the statement was released, Reid phoned the Review-Journal to acknowledge he thought he crossed the line.

"You know the president is in Europe, probably sleeping," Reid said in an interview this afternoon. "But I called (Karl) Rove and apologized for what I said."

Fucken Senate Minority leader apologizing to Rove. What a Joke.

Just in case you haven't figured out who is really in charge at 1600 Pen Ave.

:hat

[The Ressurrected One]

Which party was that Senator in?
public statement vs. private conversation.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I'm waiting for Dubya's apology to the American people.

[CommanderMcBragg]

http://www.bowco.com/images/notecards/archives/first-yawn.jpg

[Bandit2981]

public statement vs. private conversation.
or, talking to some high schoolers vs. on the senate floor

[The Ressurrected One]

or, talking to some high schoolers vs. on the senate floor
Leahy did need to go fuck himself.

[Bandit2981]

Bush is a loser

[dcole50]

"go fuck yourself"

yep, it's just the democrats who are less civil. only on one side. you're right, again.

[Extra Stout]

Blah, blah, blah. Let Reid feed the yipping libs red meat.

Behind closed doors, he's a Dem who will actually get things done with the Republicans.

I just can't manufacture any outrage about this.

[The Ressurrected One]

I just can't manufacture any outrage about this.
I'm not outraged...I just wanted to point out, once again, who the true partisans are.

And, Reid's no better than the other 'rats.

[Spurminator]

I just wanted to point out, once again, who the true partisans are.

Those damned kettles.

[The Ressurrected One]

Those damned kettles.
Really?

Name an instance where the President of the United States or his spokespeople have stood in front of an audience and told them a ranking member of the Democratic Party was a "loser" or any other such denigrating remark?

I mean, jeeze, this stuff has been coming from the Democrats for the past 5 years...From Al Gore to John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi to Terry McAuliffe to Howard Dean and, now, the "civil one" among the - this Reid guy. It's non-stop.

It seems no one is immune from incivility in the Democratic Party.

The President has been called a liar, a loser, a dullard, etc...from just about every ranking member of the Democratic Party with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman.

Don't tell me problem is as pervasive in the Republican camp because, it isn't. Yeah, I'm sure there have been instances where a Republican has said something nasty about a Democrat, but, really, if you look over the past several years...it's pretty much been restricted to Democrats...

And, Vice President Cheney telling Patrick Leahy to "go fuck himself," face-to-face in a conversation the Vice President neither meant to be overheard or rebroadcast is a bit different than this Reid guy standing in front of an audience of young people and calling the President, who is out of the country representing us all at the moment, a "loser."

[violentkitten]

"im not an asshole. you are."



all of you shut the fuck up already. no one gives a fuck about this shit except for inbred rabbit fuckers such as yourselves.

[scott]

Are you going to cry about it?

[violentkitten]

no.

are you going to masturbate yourself to sleep again tonight?

yes.

[JoeChalupa]

There's some pretty good BS coming from the republicans too.

Both can sling it pretty good.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's funny because Bush insists that terror is a priority.

People are so used to seeing "terror alert: yellow, elevated" on cnn that they forget there was once a day when terror wasnt a priority.

Do you really believe that seeing the word terror and hearing the word terror from the major spokesperson of our country does not have a subconscious effect on the receiver? Not to mention the feeble-minded republicans who are republicans just for the sake of keeping their wealthy parents from paying more taxes.

It does things to people. Bush is a flat out loser. The anti-bush people may seem to contradict themselves but i believe it all stems from their sheer hatred of his stupid loser ass, and of those who blindly support him. They just get baffled that someone really does think bush belongs on Mt. Rushmore that it totally turns their mind upside down.

[The Ressurrected One]

There's some pretty good BS coming from the republicans too.

Both can sling it pretty good.
Let's have an example of a Republican slamming a Democrat publicly.

[JoeChalupa]

Let's have an example of a Republican slamming a Democrat publicly.

You must not have been watching or listening during the last presidential campaign. :rolleyes

[Ocotillo]

How about when Dan Burton (R) Ind., referred to President Clinton as a "scumbag"?

[Extra Stout]

Let's have an example of a Republican slamming a Democrat publicly.

Who cares? He slams President Bush publicly, but then privately does a little horse trading and voila! one of Bush's judicial nominees gets approved. The lefties get so jolly touching themselves over his inconsequential rhetoric that they don't notice he's actually working with the President.

Reid is about 100 quadrillion times better than Daschle. I can't imagine a better scenario than having somebody as socially conservative as Reid leading the Dems in the Senate. The guy might be willing to help rip the heart out of Roe v. Wade if given the right concessions in return.

[The Ressurrected One]

You must not have been watching or listening during the last presidential campaign. :rolleyes
Well, if you were, give me an example...

[The Ressurrected One]

How about when Dan Burton (R) Ind., referred to President Clinton as a "scumbag"?
[Juanita Brodderick]Clinton was worse, he was a rapist...[/Juanita Brodderick]

[The Ressurrected One]

Who cares? He slams President Bush publicly, but then privately does a little horse trading and voila! one of Bush's judicial nominees gets approved. The lefties get so jolly touching themselves over his inconsequential rhetoric that they don't notice he's actually working with the President.

Reid is about 100 quadrillion times better than Daschle. I can't imagine a better scenario than having somebody as socially conservative as Reid leading the Dems in the Senate. The guy might be willing to help rip the heart out of Roe v. Wade if given the right concessions in return.
Yeah, We'll see if he stands up to his Liberal cohorts when the time comes.

And, I just disagree over the impact of rhetoric. When Democratic leaders say things such as this to liberal audiences or young impressionable children, they take them at their word and it becomes and article of faith that then distracts from issues and drowns out reason.

Now, all we'll hear for the next three years is their twisted, tortured justifications for why Bush is a "loser." We (Yeah, I know Dan - not all of us) just got over the Bush "lied" and the Bush is "stupid" mantras of the left.

This does nothing to bring the polarized parties back together...

They keep harping about how Bush is dividing the country while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to be politically divisive themselves. It kind of reminds me of Yassar Arafat when he would speak English and praise the West and Israel and talk about peace and then, literally in the next breath, talk about obliterating the evil Zionist scum in his native tongue. It was truly amazing.

It's as if the Democrats believe their followers don't pay attention to what's really happenin...oh yeah, I guess they don't. And, it doesn't help that the MSM is complicit in this deceipt.

How many MSM outlets beat the drums of scandal when a couple of DeLay staffers took lobbyist money for trips? Okay, how many MSM outlets beat the drums of scandal when it was revealed that the same lobbyist had paid for the travel of TWO Democratic Senators...not their staffers...but the Senators themselves?

How many MSM outlets are beating the drums of scandal over Hillary Clinton's latest campaign scam? I've yet to see any significant coverage in the MSM.

They've got a nice gig. A media willing to report only bad news related to conservatives and only good news related to liberals...what a deal. It's how Nbadan stays in the dark.

[Extra Stout]

And, I just disagree over the impact of rhetoric. When Democratic leaders say things such as this to liberal audiences or young impressionable children, they take them at their word and it becomes and article of faith that then distracts from issues and drowns out reason.Ronald Reagan always used to call Democrats names in public. They'd get their panties in a wad and be all defensive, but then when they got behind closed doors with them, he was polite, accomodating, and ready to deal. That tactic disarmed them and worked for years.

Reagan and Tip O'Neill had a system that was much like the sheepdog and the wolf in the old Warner Bros. cartoons. From morning until quitting time, they'd rail at each other, calling each other names and holding the partisan line. Once the whistle blew, they'd head over to the local pub, throw back a few pints of Guinness together, and start cutting deals.

Reid is from the same old school. The parties have used inflammatory rhetoric in the media since time immemorial. The change of late has been the younger ideologues in high places that have started taking the rhetoric seriously.


Now, all we'll hear for the next three years is their twisted, tortured justifications for why Bush is a "loser." We (Yeah, I know Dan - not all of us) just got over the Bush "lied" and the Bush is "stupid" mantras of the left.So what's the problem? Whern it comes time to convince voters, only the "true believers" listen to that stuff, and they have no convincing arguments as to why Bush is a loser, and they sound like disgruntled children.


This does nothing to bring the polarized parties back together...Actually it does -- the commie lefties and the theocrats get their red meat and thrash about, marginalizing themselves, while the mainstream politicians get down to the business of horse trading and getting work done.

Reid has been working very hard behind the scenes to restore some of the old collegiality in the Senate. The Republicans and rightie media will villify him because after all, that's the nature of the game, but behind the scenes, he's a godsend.


They keep harping about how Bush is dividing the country while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to be politically divisive themselves.Well, the Democrats are in a pickle because they have no clear, overriding ideology. Their only discernable objective is getting back in power. So they have nothing to do except oppose whatever the Republicans want to do. There is nothing to disguise their naked political posturing. The Republicans do naked political posturing, too, but at least they have a theme behind it, even though they aren't true to it.

[The Ressurrected One]

Fine, I concede most of your points...however, I would argue that Ronald Reagan's chiding of the Democrats was in more of a jovial and constructive (or objective) vein. What we have is pure vitriol from the Left today. There is no message attached to the attacks...no justification...no explanation.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, would go on to explain a policy objective after deriding the Democrats for their attempts to obstruct. He was the master of the Bully Pulpit, there was a purpose to everything he said publicly (as is the case with the current President, as well). There doesn't seem to be a purpose to the Left's rhetoric.

[scott]

no.

are you going to masturbate yourself to sleep again tonight?

yes.

Wasn't talking to you, egomaniac.

[Extra Stout]

There doesn't seem to be a purpose to the Left's rhetoric.Agreed; I concede that. Reid can't do what you described Reagan doing. He's an old-fashioned populist, but if he laid that out as the Democratic ideology, there would be shrieks of dismay from a lot of the cultural liberals.

And then there are the Nbadans who ramble on all day about populist Southerners blah blah blah... you know they don't believe in anything a Mike Easley believes, but they'll say or do anything to get back in power and push their real agenda...

And the fact that the American people understand this about the lefties is what undercuts the viability of the populists.

[The Ressurrected One]

And then there are the Nbadans who ramble on all day about populist Southerners blah blah blah... you know they don't believe in anything a Mike Easley believes, but they'll say or do anything to get back in power and push their real agenda...
Which is the real danger. They prey on the ideological bind of liberals and, at the same time, ratchet up the totally insane rhetoric to levels never seen. They believe, and in the case of Nbadan they're right, they have enough credibility to make their hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric seem plausible.

And, when you have a complicit media, it's compounded.

I think someone needs to start calling them on their asinine lies and characterizations.


And the fact that the American people understand this about the lefties is what undercuts the viability of the populists.
But, I think the Americans who do understand this are growing older...there's a whole generation of impressionable youth and young adults who are being indoctrinated into politics by this partisan nonsense.

And, there isn't a precedence for this level of hate and incivility unless you go back to Post-Revolution elections or some that took place around the Civil War.

[Extra Stout]

But, I think the Americans who do understand this are growing older...there's a whole generation of impressionable youth and young adults who are being indoctrinated into politics by this partisan nonsense.The younger generations now are becoming more conservative than those who came for. The pendulum swings back and forth. The Boomers and Gen-Xers have been so permissive and irresponsible that conservatism is now a form of rebellion. :lol


And, there isn't a precedence for this level of hate and incivility unless you go back to Post-Revolution elections or some that took place around the Civil War.Oh, I dunno. The 1960's were pretty bad.

[The Ressurrected One]

The younger generations now are becoming more conservative than those who came for. The pendulum swings back and forth. The Boomers and Gen-Xers have been so permissive and irresponsible that conservatism is now a form of rebellion. :lol
That's true.

Oh, I dunno. The 1960's were pretty bad.
I was thinking politics...not, counter-culture, drug-induced, anti-everthingism. JFK (or the Democratic machine at the time) pretty much stole the 1960 election and Richard Nixon, for the sake of the nation, took it on the chin and moved on.

[The Ressurrected One]

...the liberal cause.

I believe this is a prime example of how reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.

This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901126_pf.html) is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, and I strongly encourage that, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:


“The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.”
Got that? This "crisis" isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who "initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term."

President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President "initiated" this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.

Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:


“At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, [i]Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for ‘an unconscionable act of judicial activism’ in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.”
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, and Manny, if you follow along with me here, you’ll realize how vacuous is the claim. Because, not a word of that of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not "seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion," but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. [Ring a bell Manny?] And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of "judicial activism."

I know long, complex, non-jingoist explanations of things are hard for all Democrats to follow, except for John Kerry of course but, please follow along [particularly you, Manny – because if you disagree you lose your Shiavo argument] and you’ll understand how ludicrous a characterization this is of the events referred to and just how tortured the logic of the left has become in order to justify their stupidity.

Gonzales' comment was in a concurring opinion in a case called In re Jane Doe, decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 2000 and the suggestion, by the Left, that Owen "restrict[ed] a minor's access to abortion" is wrong. The case arose under Texas' Parental Notification Act, which, in general, requires that minors notify their parents before getting abortions, but sets out limited exceptions to that rule, where the notification requirement can be bypassed based on a showing made to a trial court. What happened was that the Texas Supreme Court overturned decisions of both the trial court and the Texas Court of Appeals, and allowed the minor in question to have an abortion without telling her parents, holding that the "bypass" provisions of the statute had been satisfied. The case had a majority opinion, two concurring opinions, one of which was written by Justice Gonzales, and three dissenting opinions, one of which was written by Justice Owen. In Gonzales' concurring opinion, he wrote:


“The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction....Thus, [b]to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.
Later in his concurring opinion, Gonzales specifically refers to, and criticizes, the dissenting opinion by Justice Hecht. He never mentions Justice Owen's dissent.

Justice Hecht's dissent bitterly criticizes the majority's decision, and takes a shot at Gonzales specifically. Hecht argues, based on the Texas statute's legislative history, that bypass exceptions were intended to be "rare." Gonzales' comments were obviously intended to apply to Hecht.

Justice Abbott's dissent also was based on his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of Texas' Parental Notification Act. He, too, wrote that the intent of the Legislature was to make bypasses "rare." He also addressed at length the standard of proof that, under the statute, should be applied to the necessarily ex parte testimony of a minor seeking to bypass parental notification. So his dissent, too, falls within the scope of Gonzales' criticism.

Justice Owen's dissent was quite different. What she objected to was the majority's failure to follow the elementary rules of appellate practice. Appellate courts do not conduct de novo fact finding. They accept the facts as found by the trial court, assuming that there is evidence in the record to support them. Owen's complaint was that the majority disregarded the trial court's express and implied findings of fact, even though those findings were supported in the record. She wrote:


“The question in this case is not whether the Court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard. The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this latter question is yes. Longstanding principles of appellate review and our Texas Constitution do not permit this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or to ignore the evidence, as it has done.”
Justice Owen's dissent also criticized what she considered the undue and unnecessary haste with which the Supreme Court acted. However, unlike Justices Hecht and Abbott, Owen did not address issues of statutory interpretation, and said nothing about bypasses being "rare" or about the burden of proof to which they are subject. Thus, on its face, Gonzales' criticism of "judicial activism" did not apply to Owen's dissent. I’m betting even Manny understands what I’m saying here.

More importantly, no one trained in the law would argue that the principles relied on by Justice Owen constitute "judicial activism." On the contrary, showing appropriate deference to the fact findings done by the trial court is fundamental to the appellate process and is a basic component of judicial restraint, not judicial activism. It is deeply ironic that the one case relied on by Justice Owen's critics for the proposition that she is an "activist" is a case in which she voted to affirm the trial court and the Texas Court of Appeals, and deferred to the fact findings made by the trial court.

The Jane Doe case is an interesting one. Feelings were obviously running high on the court, and all of the opinions, on both sides of the issue, are sharply worded. Reading between the lines, the case shows, I think, how difficult it is for an appellate process to play out and for proper deliberation to be given, when only a matter of days are available in which to make a decision. And the dissents, including Justice Owen's, do seem to have the better of the argument.

But I do not believe that any fair-minded lawyer, of any political persuasion, could read the opinions in the Jane Doe case, and find anything that would raise the slightest doubt about Justice Owen's fitness as an appellate judge. On the contrary, she appears to have discharged her duty in that case commendably, and to have been a model of judicial restraint.

Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: "I've never accused her of being an activist judge." The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did "wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'" an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.

This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments.

My two cents worth.

[Extra Stout]

A thought... as the baby boomers start to die off in a few years, the "liberal bias" and all their other garbage will slowly fade away...

[Spurminator]

I'm not sure there will even be a base for discussions of bias, because the very idea of objective journalism will be a thing of the past... Because of the growing number of options for seeking news, people can now (and will even moreso in the future) pick and choose which sources to turn to based on those which make them most comfortable.

[NeoConIV]

A thought... as the baby boomers start to die off in a few years, the "liberal bias" and all their other garbage will slowly fade away...
ABC and NBC have read the writing on the walls, they know they've been outed. CBS is still in HEAVY denial.

AP and Reuters are still heavily towing the democratic party line.

We've got a ways to go, but we'll get there.