There Will Be Blood

[Curtis Metcalf]

How nice for you. I've already explained all I intend to. Feel free to reread my posts.

[michaelintp]

Of course Curtis. No problem. Because ... I am nice.  

Anyway, in light of your "explanation" ... I understand.  


                           Democrat                             Republican

[Wise Son]

What difference? Essentially identical strong sentiments were expressed by the Democratic leadership during the Bush Administration, in terms of striving to elect a Democratic President and getting rid of George W. Bush.

Michael, here's the thing -if you want to prove your point, find those 'identically strong sentiments' and quote them. That's all you have to do. I genuinely don't think those statements are out there. I'm not pretending that the Right-wing press didn't claim that Democrats were doing the same thing, but here's the thing - they were lying, and what we have here are actual quotes from high-ranking Republicans.

That is the difference. Unless of course, there are quotes out there that show this interpretation not to be accurate.

Also, I want to be clear. I am not accusing you of being a liar, merely of falling for the lies told by others.

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, it has been suggested that it is outside the norm or somehow unethical for leaders of a political party that is out of power to take the position that it is imperative that the opposition party's President not be re-elected and that their own future Presidential candidate take that person's place. When Republican leaders take this position, it is "placing partisan gain above all" ... but when Democratic leaders do so, it is ...? McConnell's statement proves nothing other than that he believes it to be critically important that a Republican be elected President in the next national election. This is most likely because he believes this would be in the best interest of the country.

I don't "have" to act as the research assistant for everyone else on the Forum. And certainly not on this matter. Truthfully, such "research" is not even necessary for anyone who lived in the United States for the eight years of the Bush Administration, who is willing to be honest (as opposed to simply engaging in partisan rhetoric today). And, beyond that, it is always the case that the research, the facts, that I spend significant time compiling are wholly disregarded anyway, on every topic. I've grown tired of it. Nobody's views will be affected in the least.

One could just as easily say that the burden is on those now condemning the Republicans to first research what was said by Democrats during the Bush Administration before making such a bizarre suggestion that there is any difference between Democrats and Republicans in this regard. Just to make sure that their perspective is not colored by their liking of the (Democratic) incumbent and their dislike of his (Republican) predecessor.

So really, Wise Son, don't ask me to do any research for you or anyone else. I know the tenor of comments made by Democrats about Bush during his eight years in office (with some elected officials even calling for his impeachment, far more aggressive than simply urging that he not be re-elected). I also recall comments made about John McCain when he was running for office and that it was imperative that his Democratic rival be elected. I heard those comments about Bush and McCain myself and read the quotes myself. I did not create a file on my computer saving a collection for future discussions on the Hudlin Entertainment Forum, nor am I at this time inclined to waste my time doing so. Because, really, why should I? Other than you, we were are all in States at the time.

And really, we all know, this "discussion" was pointless from the outset. None of this is about truth; it is all about partisan politics.

How can anyone really take this whole thing seriously? It is the kind of thing the Rush Limbaughs of the Left say when they are engaged in their partisan attacks against Republicans.

All that said, I do remain amused by the double standard.  

[Wise Son]

Wise Son, it has been suggested that it is outside the norm for leaders of a political party that is out of power to take the position that it is imperative that the opposition party's President not be re-elected and that their own future Presidential candidate take that person's place.

If by 'imperative' you mean 'the absolute top priority', I would actually argue that it is out of the norm. All politicians play these political games to some degree or another, but maybe I'm just naive in thinking that most politicians, if faced with a stark binary choice between what's best for their party in the short term and what's best for the country, would choose their country.

As quoted by Curtis:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
~Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, (R-Ky.), October 2010

This is a party saying that the top of their priorities is their own partisan interests, and they have shown that it is not just rhetoric, being willing to block any legislation that would look like a 'win' for Obama, no matter which areas of their country are put at risk for it.

When Republicans do it, it is "placing partisan gain above all" ... but when Democrats do it, it is ...?

Exactly the same. Except they haven't, not to this degree. Unless I'm wrong of course.

How can anyone really take this whole thing seriously?

Exactly what I was thinking.

One could just as easily say that the burden is on those now condemning the Republicans to first research what was said by Democrats during the Bush Administration before making such a bizarre suggestion that there is any difference between Democrats and Republicans in this regard.

Actually, considering they already have evidence of the Republican's fundamentalist position, the burden is actually on those who believe the Democrats were just as bad during the Bush years. Basically, Curtis found a suitable, clear and unequivocal quote from a high-ranking party official, and I don't think there is an equivalent from a Democrat that would prove your point.

I don't "have" to act as the research assistant for everyone else on the Forum.

No, but you do have to provide evidence for your assertions. As does everyone else. Mike, you know that your views run contrary to those of the majority on the board, so you must surely accept that your contrary opinions need to be backed up with evidence to carry weight. I've argued on a few far-right sites in the past, and they've demanded the same of me.

If you feel that someone has not laid out clear evidence for the point they are trying to make, you are, quite rightly, not shy about asking them to prove it (like that whole thread about the job interview research).

Truthfully, such "research" is not even necessary for anyone who lived in the United States for the eight years of the Bush Administration, who is willing to be honest (as opposed to simply engaging in partisan rhetoric today).

So, what you're saying is, there is no need to research it if you have already formed an opinion.  Sometimes we are all proved wrong by our research. The media and our own prejudices conspire to make the world appear very different to how it is. That is why, if someone has evidence that shows that my perception of reality may be flawed, I am always interested in hearing it.

And, beyond that, it is always the case that the research, the facts, that I spend significant time compiling are wholly disregarded anyway, on every topic.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly try never to disregard anything,  and even if I find it unconvincing, I try to give clear explanations of why.

So really, Wise Son, don't ask me to do any research for you or anyone else.

Oh, but I want to!

I know the tenor of comments made by Democrats about Bush during his eight years in office (with some elected officials even calling for his impeachment, far more aggressive than simply urging that he not be re-elected).

But did they say impeachment was their party's biggest single priority? Did they make it their biggest priority? Mike, I would actually question whether you do know the tenor of those comments, or whether you know the tenor of the comments made about those comments by the media?

I also recall comments made about John McCain when he was running for office and that it was imperative that his Democratic rival be elected.

But was it imperative for the good of the country or for the good of the Democrats? I don't know if you realise how sincerely people feared for the future of America (and in my country indeed, for the future of the Western world) if a Republican was allowed to continue the utterly catastrophic record of the Bush years, especially a Republican with Palin of all people ready to take over the moment his already dicky ticker gave out.
A lot of the world had no interest in the partisan victory of the Democrats, but was scared witless of a Republican one. America is still one of the world leaders after all.

 I heard those comments about Bush and McCain myself and read the quotes myself. I did not create a file on my computer saving a collection for future discussions on the Hudlin Entertainment Forum, nor am I at this time inclined to waste my time doing so.

Google is your friend. Apart from one very touching quote by former Manchester United boss Sir Matt Busby, which continues to elude me, I have always managed to find a specific quote I was looking for within about 10 minutes, or, as may be the case here, found out that I had mis-remembered the quote, and found what actually was said. Of course, you don't have to do that, I'm just saying it's there as an option.

And really, we all know, this "discussion" was pointless from the outset. None of this is about truth; it is all about partisan politics.

In your opinion. I genuinely think that, while Curtis, Reggie and I have all been up front about our beliefs, all of us are interested in the truth behind them. I for one, certainly believe that you hold the truth higher than partisan politics, and I had assumed that that respect was mutual.

All that said, I do remain amused by the double standard.  

Exactly.

[michaelintp]

Holding truth higher than partisan politics?  Not on this point, Wise Son.

The statements made regarding Bush, and urging his ouster, were vitriolic. The impeachment effort is just one example. I'm sorry, Wise Son. YOU probably are sincere here (given that you are living in the UK and were not living in the States during the Bush years). But for anyone who lived in the United States who followed politics to claim that elected Democrats did not make statements very strongly opposed to Bush, demanding his ouster, insisting that it was a top priority to elect a Democratic President, etc ... is just being dishonest.

What is REALLY going on here is that persons who are highly sympathetic to President Obama and his agenda believe that anything that would undermine his chances for re-election or undermine his agenda is NOT in the best interest of the country. Such persons therefore erroneously conclude that anyone who would seek such dastardly things must be motivated by nothing but their selfish partisan political advantage and not the best interests of the country. Which is EXACTLY what the Right-Wing commentators said about the Democrats during the Bush Years.

All I am asking is for people to exercise the capacity to STEP OUT OF THEMSELVES for just a moment, and see that the same thing is going on, on both sides, with each side making the same accusations against the other, only differing by who is in power at the moment.

It is all a silly game. All I ask is that, for a brief moment, we all recognize it as such.

Usually I bend over backwards on this forum to research REAL issues. Lately, however, in light of some vile things that have been posted without disapproval (in part in response to research I did bother to do), I have increasingly been feeling that I have been bending not backwards, but forwards. I'm sure you understand my meaning.    

So here, on this silly issue, I'm drawing the line. If you wish to find real evidence that the Republican leaders place partisan gain above all, and are not motivated by what they believe to be in the best interest of the country, then feel free. I think what you will find is that there is serious disagreement as to what is in the best interest of the country. If you wish to establish that in terms of sincerity the Republican's priority to elect a Republican President is somehow different from the priority of the Democrats to oust Bush during his two terms in office, feel free. If you are interested in the kinds of things that were said about Bush when he was President, by elected Democrats, and if you are interested in the urgency expressed that a Democrat be elected President during those years, please do you own research. I already know the truth, as I lived through it. If you are interested in educating yourself, if you are sincerely interested in the truth, spend your own time to look further into it. I'm sure some folks might be interested in what you come up with, though there will not be any surprises.

[Battle]

...and if any HEF members believe that the comment above is merely a desperate, off-topic  plea to complain thinly veiled as a sincere comment, then by all means, do so!  B)

[michaelintp]

"Just the facts, mam.  Just the facts."

[Wise Son]

The statements made regarding Bush, and urging his ouster, were vitriolic. The impeachment effort is just one example. I'm sorry, Wise Son. YOU probably are sincere here (given that you are living in the UK and were not living in the States during the Bush years). But for anyone who lived in the United States who followed politics to claim that elected Democrats did not make statements very strongly opposed to Bush, demanding his ouster, insisting that it was a top priority to elect a Democratic President, etc ... is just being dishonest.

No one is claiming that Mike.

What is REALLY going on here is that persons who are highly sympathetic to President Obama and his agenda believe that anything that would undermine his chances for re-election or undermine his agenda is NOT in the best interest of the country.

If they believe that the policies he is pursuing are the ones that are in the best interest of the country, or at least better than any which are being suggested by those likely to replace him (which I would reckon to be the case), is that such a bad thing?

Hey, anyone arguing nothing more than, "Obama good, bad Republicans hurt Obama, me make them go smash," would get short shrift from most of the pro-Obama posters on this board.

Such persons therefore erroneously conclude that anyone who would seek such dastardly things must be motivated by nothing but their selfish partisan political advantage and not the best interests of the country. Which is EXACTLY what the Right-Wing commentators said about the Democrats during the Bush Years.

OK, but this isn't Left-Wing commentators speaking. It's one of the most senior members of the GOP saying that their priorities are to put good governance, offering constructive criticism, even allowing government to function second to toppling Obama. This is not what the Democrats stated or pursued in relation to Bush.

All I am asking is for people to exercise the capacity to STEP OUT OF THEMSELVES for just a moment, and see that the same thing is going on, on both sides, with each side making the same accusations against the other, only differing by who is in power at the moment.

But that's just it. There are many similarities between both sides, but one side is going to more extremes.

So here, on this silly issue, I'm drawing the line. If you wish to find real evidence that the Republican leaders place partisan gain above all, and are not motivated by what they believe to be in the best interest of the country, then feel free.

Well, I do think that they think that getting themselves back into power is the single most important thing for America. I'm not really questioning their patriotism so much as their incredible estimation of their own worth, and hubris.

Hey Mike, I don't doubt your sincerity, but it does seem that you're insisting on seeing this discussion in more confrontational terms than people are actually using. Well, I do grant that some people are reacting aggressively to you, but not all. Seriously, I'm just trying to bring an open mind to this.

[Curtis Metcalf]

All I am asking is for people to exercise the capacity to STEP OUT OF THEMSELVES for just a moment, and see that the same thing is going on, on both sides, with each side making the same accusations against the other, only differing by who is in power at the moment.

It is all a silly game. All I ask is that, for a brief moment, we all recognize it as such.

Well, you can speak for yourself.
I see a substantive difference. That is why I quoted Mitch McConnell, not Rush Limbaugh.
IAWWS.

[michaelintp]

Actually, Wise Son, we have frequently seen different standards being applied to Democrats vs. Republicans on this forum.

Of course it is not a bad thing if Democratic leaders think Obama's policies are best for the country, for them to support him and his re-election. Similarly, if Republican leaders believe that it is in the best interest of the country for a Republican President to be elected (who would support, not veto, the legislation of a hopefully Republican Congress), it is noble for them pursue that goal as a top priority.

Hubris? I don't think so. Strong disagreement with regard to several critical policy matters? You betcha.

You see, Wise Son, even here, when "it" comes from Conservatives you call it "hubris" whereas when "it" comes from the Left you call it "not such a bad thing."

The double standard, now coming from the Left, is really NOT that hard to see here. All that is required is the removal of ideological blinders. That is the only point I'm making here. I'm not talking about who is "right" and who is "wrong" in terms of policy issues. Just pointing out the double standard, where similar behavior and/or public statements (regarding removal of the incumbent) are judged very differently depending on whether the actors are Republicans or Democrats. 

The opposition to Bush was extreme (in the eyes of Bush supporters) and the opposition to Obama is extreme (in the eyes of Obama supporters). Similarly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think that the quote Curtis provided says anything about the sincerity of the Republican leadership's concern for the welfare of the country. All the quote reveals is that they believe that the election of a Republican President who will take a more Conservative course is critically important to the welfare of the country, for this and future generations. Of course the Republican leadership feels this way. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Republicans, they would re-register as Democrats, for goodness sake!   

P.S. Curtis, I wrote this before you made your comment above. Of course Democratic leaders (not just Pacifica Radio or Air America radio hosts) demanded the ouster of Bush and/or advocated the priority of electing a Democratic President in his place. Both you and Wise Son seem to misunderstand my reference to radio hosts. During the Bush Administration, the right-wing talk radio hosts were blasting the Democratic leadership for not being concerned about the welfare of the country, but only concerned about ousting Bush and electing a Democrat. They referenced quotes from Democratic leaders and obstructionism. Now left-leaning commentators whom you agree with are doing the exact same thing, except of course they are pointing the finger at the Republican leadership. Yep, your commentators are just the Rush Limbaughs of the Left, doing exactly the same thing as he. As are you. 

Put another way, on this issue:

         

              EQUALS





(Hahahahahahahaha! This has gotta be a first on the HEF!  )

[Reginald Hudlin]

You are not listing examples. It shouldn't be that hard, because when a senior member of government says something that partisan it makes news. 

I know it's impossible for you to accept the reality that Republicans did something bad that the Democrats haven't done, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[michaelintp]

Reginald, the reason I'm not going to spend yet more time pulling comments by Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi or those involved in the Bush impeachment effort or others regarding George W. Bush is that I know, in advance, that it will just devolve into an asinine round of "that person isn't a Democratic leader" (even if an elected official) or "that person was just raising legitimate objections to Bush" or "that person didn't use the word 'priority' in his sentence," etc etc etc ... more endless rounds of silliness that I have no patience for anymore. We both know the attitude conveyed regarding George W. Bush by partisan Democrats.

So, moving on. Reginald, you pronounce: "I know it's impossible for you to accept the reality that Republicans did something bad that the Democrats haven't done, but wishing doesn't make it so." You KNOW this? Or are you just projecting your own attitudes. The reason I ask is that, over the years on this forum I have condemned right-wing spokesmen, or well known Republicans, when (in my view) they have said something that is wrong or bigoted or whatever.  As much as you may not believe this, my focus is on truth, and the holding of everyone to the same standards. So yes, if I felt McConnell had done or said something wrong, I would not hesitate to say so. Now, Reginald, when was the last time you strongly condemned a left-leaning Democrat on your forum? When has Curtis done so? You guys may have, but if you did, I missed it.

Furthermore, going to the substance:  What was done that was bad? That a Republican leader stated that he wants to elect a Republican President?  

In terms of actual deeds, the reality is that a compromise was recently reached between the Republican Leadership and the President with regard to tax legislation. Consistent with the totality of what Senator McConnell really said (read on).  

Reginald, it is Curtis who alleges that Republican leaders "place partisan gain above all."  He bears the burden of proof, not me.

We have heard symphonic whining from the Left-leaning press and blogs over Mitch McConnell’s statement of intent to make Barack Obama a one-term President. Notwithstanding that elected Democrats surely wanted to make George W. Bush a one-term President and, after they failed in that, urged an end to Republican occupancy of the White House after Bush’s second term (succeeding in the latter effort with the election of Barack Obama). This is of course the normative view of any party that is out of power. It in no way suggests that McConnell does not have the best interests of the country at heart. It just shows that the guy is honest.

I can't believe that anyone will take any of this condemnation of McConnell seriously (other than those on the Left who just long to lap up any smears against their "opponents" no matter how silly). The complaining is so absurd. Are both of you really so stuck in yourselves that you cannot raise your heads above ground and see that this is all much to do about nothing?  

Regarding the statement by the Senator that has caused the Left’s tizzy, McConnell explains:

“Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office,” Mr. McConnell says. “But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it.”

It comes as no surprise to me, and it should come as no surprise to you, that Politico.com says that President’s characterization of McConnell’s statement is only “HALF TRUE” (or, put another way, it is really a partial lie). The Left’s whining condemnation is just more partisan bullsh*t-as-usual. The orchestration of outrage, once again, in an attempt to score political points. Just more silly game playing. Nothing more.

No wonder I so quickly lose patience with this nonsense. Hell, I'm going to go walk my dog; a much more productive use of my time. Now that I've started here, I may as well go and clean up some more dog sh*t outside.  


            
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/30/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-claims-mitch-mcconnell-says/

Here is the relevant text from the Politico.com article:

… Sen. Mitch McConnelll made [a comment] in an interview with the National Journal's Major Garrett on Oct. 29, 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

So McConnelll said it. But we think some further context is in order.

McConnell said he had been studying the history of presidents who suffered big defeats in midterm elections in Congress, but then won re-election in two years anyway. McConnelll said he doesn't want Republicans to repeat the same mistakes that allowed that to happen.

"After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered," McConnell said. "We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives."

McConnell said Republicans need to treat the midterm elections as "the first step in retaking the government."

It was in that context that McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Garrett asked if that meant "endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?"

Said McConnell, "If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

In other words, in the very same interview, McConnell said that he'd be willing to work with Obama if Obama is "willing to meet us halfway." That's called compromise. And that sounds very much in the spirit of Obama's call to "seek out common ground."

… As for McConnell's comment "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," that sounds an awful lot like Obama's summation that "his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one." But while McConnell said it, Obama left out an important detail -- that McConnell also said in the same interview that he is willing to meet the president halfway. That leads us to a ruling of Half True.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Given that the party consistently rejected their own proposals once Obama agreed to them, we know the "meet us halfway" thing is bull.  They have been proudly obstructionist, the party of no for the past two years. 

[michaelintp]

Given that the party consistently rejected their own proposals once Obama agreed to them, we know the "meet us halfway" thing is bull.

In fact, despite resistance from some Democrats as well as some Republicans, the Republican Leadership and the President did reach a compromise.  That is why it is referred to as the Obama-Republician Tax Compromise Bill.

House Democrats Reject Obama Tax Plan
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-democrats-reject-obama-tax-plan/story?id=12354878

Obama-Republican Tax Compromise Bill Clears Senate Hurdle with Ease
http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20101214/NEWS01/12140303/Obama-Republican-tax-compromise-bill-clears-Senate-hurdle-with-ease

Obama signs massive tax bill, hails deal with GOP
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40697296/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

They have been proudly obstructionist, the party of no for the past two years. 

Reginald, must we always return to more partisan B.S., silly cliches, name-calling, and rigidity?  For goodness sake, look at yourself and the adjectives you choose. When Left-wing Democrats oppose legislation or a presidential decision (or did so during the Bush years), you no doubt consider that they are "sticking to their guns" or "not willing to abandon their principles" or "standing up for what is right" (etc etc etc). When Republicans oppose legislation or a presidential decision, they are "proudly obstructionist" and "the party of no."  And when the Republican Leadership reaches a compromise with the President, you pretend it didn't happen, and just fall back to the same tired old smears. Why in the world do you so proudly embrace such an unfair double standard?   

By your comment, you've once again proven my point regarding the double standard that is so frequently promoted on your forum. (Though, to your credit, you do permit opposing points of view to be expressed).