December 19, 2003

More Scum from the Republican Party

The Decembrist looks at a Republican fund raising letter that should make every decent human ashamed to belong to the Republican Party:

The Decembrist: Fundraising Letters that Work: I happened to see a Bush '04 fundraising e-mail today, from Ken Mehlman, with the heading "Foreign liberal cash used to defeat President Bush!".... there is also one priceless line in the e-mail: "Wesley Clark, who was in Europe when Saddam Hussein was captured, criticized the President this week..."

Wow, what was Mr. Clark doing in Europe, when he's supposed to be an American? Probably judging a Gruyere-tasting contest, or studying up on Swedish land-use planning...

You wouldn't really know that he was helping bring another evil dictator to justice, would you?

Posted by DeLong at December 19, 2003 05:18 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I really think that nothing is too low for the Republican party. The big question for me is, which way will the libertarians, Greens, so-called "moderate Republicans", so-called "rational conservatives" and hip, apolitical cynics jump?

It seems to me that there's already enough evidence out there to convince all those groups that Bush cannot be allowed a second term. But I don't see any groundswell at all. A lot of people are criticizing Bush here and there and shifting restlessly in their seats, but I only know of two or three low-ranking individuals in the blogosphere who has actually changed sides and said "I just can't vote for Bush" or "I'm going to have to vote for the Democrat, whoever he is".

Part of it is saving face, I suppose. If you present yourself as a conservative or a libertarian, it's sort of a defeat to say that the best candidate out there is a Democrat.

And some just can't stand the idea of
the Democratic cooties. Their hatred of Democrats outweighs all rational policy considerations whatsoever.

NOTE: I am assuming that the Democratic nominee will NOT be Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, or Sharpton. Of the remaining candidates, all are far superior to Bush by any but hard right or crony-capitalist criteria.

And if they're not busy elsewhere, I now expect about eight of the resident trolls to jump up now and explain that the Democrats are just as bad, Krugman is a liar, Clinton was a liar, there's nothing wrong with deficits, and that we've won the war in Iraq and will soon find there WMD's and ties to al Qaeda.

Posted by: Zizka on December 19, 2003 07:31 PM

____

I basically agree with what zizka is saying here.

But to return to brad's point, the sheer effrontery of the email (which doesn't stop with accusing clark of being in europe when saddam was captured but also accuses him of fundraising for left-wing bush-hatred) is yet another indicator of exactly what they're going to do, writ large, with the $200M. Every now and then, an honest conservative or an old-fashioned moderate republican notices an absence of clothes for a moment, but along with zizka, i too wonder if they will ever actually acknowledge nakedness as the operative condition?

Posted by: howard on December 19, 2003 08:42 PM

____

Concerning Republican scum, consider the governor of Convicticut, John Rowland. Note his attempt to hide behind Iraq war veterans at the press conference denouncing his accusers.

Posted by: BobNJ on December 20, 2003 09:30 AM

____

speaking of governors, the Democratic governor of NJ (McCreery?) got off a great line in his endorsement of Dean. It went something like "when did fiscal irresponsibility replace social intolerance as the governing principle of the Republican Party?"

Posted by: David on December 20, 2003 09:42 AM

____

What Zizka said.

What the Republican party stands for now is winning. Their most active element pretty much has taken to heart the maxim that as long as you win, anything can be forgiven.

It looks more like joining the Borg than living in Orewell's 1984.

Posted by: Alan on December 20, 2003 11:36 AM

____

Oh come on Brad, this is terribly thin.

Howard Dean can speculate out loud about Bush being complicit in mass murder on 9/11 and that gets a pass, but when some randon Republican nonentity drops an innocuous line about Clark being in Europe it is a scandal?

Posted by: frog on December 20, 2003 01:25 PM

____

Dean got a pass? I don't think so.

Posted by: Buck on December 20, 2003 01:54 PM

____

Dean got a pass? I don't think so.

Posted by: Buck on December 20, 2003 01:55 PM

____

Buck, it got a pass from j-bradford-delong.net and its ilk. My point is that the hypocrisy is striking.

Posted by: frog on December 20, 2003 02:47 PM

____

Frog, if that had actually been what Howard Dean said, you might have a point. Since he didn't, you don't.

Posted by: PaulB on December 20, 2003 04:48 PM

____

Zizka -

You and I and others here have access to real news. We know what is going on. But most of America doesn't have access or just doesn't care and gets their news by word-of-mouth, mostly Limbaugh's mouth. The Republicans know this and use it to full advantage, spreading lies and distortions. Remember, MOST people believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And what are we going to do with THAT?

It's a HUGE problem, growing worse (Murdoch approved to buy DirectTV yesterday, for example.) If you drive around the country, you'll find that there is NO real source of news anywhere./ We know about AM radio. PBS is not on the air in many places. The newspapers are hard-right in much of the country. The netowrks and local stations are corporate...

As for that comment "Howard Dean can speculate out loud about Bush being complicit in mass murder on 9/11 and that gets a pass" -- this is an EXAMPLE of what DeLong is talking about here. Dean never said any such thing. The Republican LIE machine said he said it, and that gets repeated around the country.

Posted by: Dave Johnson on December 20, 2003 10:11 PM

____

Dave~ If you think that PBS/NPR is real news, you have been misled for a long time. They slant and leave out just as much as the Limbaughs, and OReilly does; Ive talked twice to his screener who wanted me to talk to Bill, but Bill didnt want to take the time. I even had the chance to forward a message to his chauffer in Portland and Bill laughed it off. I was disillusioned!

But, I do agree with the limiting of news nowadays with all the stations being owned by limited entities. It was going on even before in Portland,OR where one news station was supplying the news for two others who didnt have a news operation.

Posted by: PHANTOM PHAN on December 21, 2003 04:55 AM

____

Dave~ If you think that PBS/NPR is real news, you have been misled for a long time. They slant and leave out just as much as the Limbaughs, and OReilly does; Ive talked twice to his screener who wanted me to talk to Bill, but Bill didnt want to take the time. I even had the chance to forward a message to his chauffer in Portland and Bill laughed it off. I was disillusioned!

But, I do agree with the limiting of news nowadays with all the stations being owned by limited entities. It was going on even before in Portland,OR where one news station was supplying the news for two others who didnt have a news operation.

Posted by: PHANTOM PHAN on December 21, 2003 04:56 AM

____

Dave~ If you think that PBS/NPR is real news, you have been misled for a long time. They slant and leave out just as much as the Limbaughs, and OReilly does; Ive talked twice to his screener who wanted me to talk to Bill, but Bill didnt want to take the time. I even had the chance to forward a message to via chauffer in Portland and Bill laughed it off. I was disillusioned!

But, I do agree with the limiting of news nowadays with all the stations being owned by limited entities. It was going on even before in Portland,OR where one news station was supplying the news for two others who didnt have a news operation.

Posted by: PHANTOM PHAN on December 21, 2003 04:57 AM

____

Dave~ If you think that PBS/NPR is real news, you have been misled for a long time. They slant and leave out just as much as the Limbaughs, and OReilly does; Ive talked twice to his screener who wanted me to talk to Bill, but Bill didnt want to take the time. I even had the chance to forward a message to via his chauffer in Portland and Bill laughed it off. I was disillusioned!

But, I do agree with the limiting of news nowadays with all the stations being owned by limited entities. It was going on even before in Portland,OR where one news station was supplying the news for two others who didnt have a news operation.

Posted by: PHANTOM PHAN on December 21, 2003 04:58 AM

____

Nice to have samples here of the thoughtless ignorance we are talking about. Phantom Phan's comments about NPR/PBS are completely irrelevant to Dave Johnson's letter to which he is supposedly replying. Dave did not mention PBS/NPR and I can assure you that he does not depend on these outlets for his news.

Frog is changing the subject and relaying deliberate disinformation about what Dean actually said. And the "random Republican nonentity" was an anonymous operative of the efficient, well-oiled, highly-professional, and heavily financed Republican campaign team.

FYI, frog, this was not a one-time offense. It was part of a pattern of RNC misconduct, and Brad's response was based on more than that single statement. But you, of course, were born yesterday and are innocent as a newborn babe, so you found his statement problematic.

Obviously neither of these posters listened to what Brad or the posters on the thread said. They have their schtick and they came with their points to make. These are the ones who really kill your spirit, because (unless they are pure right-wing trolls) they're the people we need to convince, but based on what they've said here, they're never going to be willing to listen.

Posted by: Zizka on December 21, 2003 09:14 AM

____

Difference between Dean remark and Clark shot frog?

Dean's statement didn't rely on the deliberate omission of pertinent details. That's right, whether one believes the theory Dean floated or not the fact is we don't know (and at this point, I don't think one can believe or not believe it). The facts aren't out there.

Incendiary politics in both cases, unmoved by fact and evidence in only one. And that's a big difference.

Posted by: tegwar on December 22, 2003 08:37 AM

____

To Frog - here is what Dean actually said:

Caller: ...And the second question is, once we get you in the white house, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not --Dean: Yes --

Caller: -- stonewall it.

Dean: There is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

Diane Rehm: Why do you think he's suppressing that report?

Dean: I don't know. There are many, there are many theories about it, the most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory - I can't think - it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the President is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.


You can listen to it here:
http://www.wamu.org/ram/2003/r1031201.ram

I don't fault you. There is a huge media empire devoted to reinforcing the Republican bullshit. It is hard to know what is real and what is not. This is why I never read the papers for news anymore. I always find the source - and get the informaiton from the horse's mouth.

The way the "librul" media distorted Gore's statements forced me to get my news from many unfiltered sources - so that I know what heppened while reading the drivel from the mainstream press.

Posted by: Scott Fanetti on December 22, 2003 11:53 AM

____

Black Box voting:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

Posted by: Kosh on December 22, 2003 01:35 PM

____

Post a comment
















__