Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Sunday 19th May 2024 07:07:46 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 

Home/Government/Politics

Forum Ask A Question   Question Board   FAQs Search
Return to Question Board

Question Details Asked By Asked On
Are the Democrats experiencing a Meltdown? ETWolverine 11/01/06
    This is a question that was asked of the Republicans back in 2004 due to internal party disagreements, but I have yet to hear it asked of the Democrats. Yet there seems to be much more public evidence of a Dem meltdown than a Republican one.

    For instance: Kerry's insult of the troops in Iraq:

      "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."


    Then Kerry tried to defend his remarks by saying:

      "If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy."


    Oh really?

    Let's see, is there any veteran who has ever criticized and insulted heroes in uniform as they were fighting a war?

      "[American soldiers] raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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 countryside of South Vietnam."


    Oh.. yeah... that was John Kerry too, in his testimony to the Senate back in 1971. And it turned out to be false. So are we to believe that he didn't mean to insult the troops that time either?

    Then there's Kerry's attacks at Bush (who isn't a candidate, I will remind you), claiming that Bush, not Kerry, should apologize to the troops. For what? For calling them the greatest military in the world and publicly stating that they can do any job they are given? And Kerry's attacks at Bush over Katerina (an issue that has nothing to do with Kerry's insults of the soldiers in Iraq).

    --------------

    Then there's the other, less-reported insult from the Dems: Charlie Rangle calling Dick Cheney a "son of a bitch" in an interview.

    On Monday, Dick Cheney, in an interview on CNBC news, questioned Charlie Rangle's tax policies... an issue that is open for debate because Charlie is planning on becoming the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He said that Rangle would not continue a single one of President Bush's tax cuts, and that he believes that would be bad for the economy. "I don't think the stock market would like it." He also said that "CHarlie Rangle doesn't understand how the economy works." Every one of these statements are legitimate political issues. You can agree or disagree with them, but they are completely above board.

    Rangle's response?

    "He's such a real son of a bitch, he just enjoys confrontation," Rangle told the NY Post. Rangle then described himself as "warm and personable", while suggesting that Cheney may need "rehab" for "whatever deficit he may have suffered". And as if such personal attacks weren't enough, he insulted Cheney over the hunting-accident that took place earlier this year. When asked if he thought Cheney was mentally ill, Rangle replied "I don't think he's shot anyone in the face lately, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

    So rather than answer the questuions of tax policy that Cheney brought up, Rangle resorted to insults. I still haven't seen a response to the actual tax issues from Rangle's camp.

    ---------

    Then there's Wolf Blitzer's attempt to have a "gotcha" moment against Lynne Cheney on Friday... Cheney was there to be interviewed with regard to a new children's book she has written. Instead, Blitzer tried to make it a political interview. It backfired on him BADLY, when Lynne Cheney gave him a verbal emasculation. Here's the transcript of the segment in question:

      L. CHENEY: I watched your program last night and I was troubled.

      BLITZER: All right. Well, that was probably the purpose, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues because a lot of conservatives and ...

      L. CHENEY: Well, all right, Wolf. I'm here to talk about my book, but if you want to talk about distortion ...

      BLITZER: We'll talk about your book.

      L. CHENEY: Well, right, but what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter ask you a very good question and you didn't answer it. Do you want us to win?

      BLITZER: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There's no doubt about that. Do you think we want terrorists to win?

      L. CHENEY: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

      BLITZER: With all due respect -- with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

      L. CHENEY: Oh, Wolf.

      BLITZER: This is reporting the news which is what we do. We're not partisan.

      L. CHENEY: Where did you get the film?

      BLITZER: We got the film -- look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed. This is an issue that we have reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that, and I think -- and I think -- that if you're ...

      L. CHENEY: Well, I think it's shocking.

      BLITZER: ...a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn't so good but ...

      L. CHENEY: But, Wolf, there's a difference between the news and terrorist propaganda. Why do you give the terrorists the floor?

      BLITZER: And if you put it in context, that's what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn't distort where we got it. We didn't distort anything about it. We gave it the context.

      Let's talk about another issue in the news
      , then we'll get to the book. This -- the Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race, George Allen using novels -- novels -- that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written in which there are sexual references, and they're making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.

      L. CHENEY: Now, do you promise, Wolf, that we're going to talk about my book?

      BLITZER: I do promise.

      L. CHENEY: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.


    ----------

    Then there's Rosie O'Donnell's ad-hominem comments regarding Condi Rice on The View:

      Joy Behar: “A black female Republican can win, is my opinion, in this country.”

      Babara Walters: “Then you’re talking about Condoleeza.”

      Behar: “Condoleeza could possibly run.”

      Rosie O’Donnell: “I don’t think she could win, because I think she’s like that person on Scooby Doo who unzips themself and then it’s Dick Cheney’s evil twin brother is inside of her. That’s what I think.”

      Behar: “I’m not sure about that, because I think she has her own opinions. And I don’t know if that’s a hundred percent that she’s not following orders right now, but if she was in the position, she would change.”

      O’Donnell: “Ooh, Scooby, I think that scary man with the ring is actually the ghost!”


    -----------

    So... what we see here is a growing pattern of Dems and Libs not having any responses to the comments of Republicans, and instead insulting or attacking their opponents... with little effect other than to make themselves look bad. It seems to be a party-wide meltdown... resorting to insults when logic fails them, which is fairly often. And I haven't even mentioned any older comments by Dems that liken our soldier to the Soviet Gulag or Pol Pot (Dick Durbin), that praise the "charitable work" of terrorist leader OBL without mentioning the humanitarian actions of our own troops all over the world (Patty Murray), etc.

    So, is the Democratic Party suffering from a meltdown? Or do meltdowns only apply to Republicans?

    Elliot

      Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/01/06 4:33 pm:

      Hello again, labdude:

      The Republicans are going down because they failed in everything they attempted to do. People aren’t going to forget that just because Kerry is a dufus.

      excon

      PS> In all your responses to me, you accuse me of doing so, because I hate Bush and love the Democrats. That’s of course, the knee jerk response you hear from your friends Limprod or Hannity. Pretty simplistic, and that's cool if all you want to do is throw around platitudes. You don’t have to delve deeper, or pay attention to whom you are having a conversation with.

      You don’t really know that I'm not a Democrat - or you aren’t interested in REAL dialogue. I don't care which. But you bore me. I love to argue. I hate to call names. But with you, it's names.....

      excon

      Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/01/06 5:18 pm:
      Y'know excon, you keep telling us how Bush failed. I'm still waiting for you to tell us HOW he failed.

      Because when I look at the economy, I see it chugging along quite nicely, with a 4% inflation rate, a 4.6% unemployment rate, average salaries that are higher than before he took office, and national tax income that is the highest in history, despite being lower on a per-capita basis. The budget deficit has been nearly halved, three years ahead of shcedule. Oh... and the stock market hit a new high yesterday. So he hasn't failed on the economy. This despite all the cries of "national debt", "tax cuts for the rich" and "taxcut rollbacks" from the left.

      In terms of national security, I see that we haven't been attacked on our own soil in 1877 days. I see that we've made arrests and busted up several "sleeper cells" of terrorists throughout the country. I see that the government has stopped several attacks from taking place. I also see that it is the left-wing that is trying to stop Bush from continuing to do those things... trying to stop his interrogation of terrorist POWs, trying to stop the NSA wiretapping program, trying to stop the SWIFT financial tracking program, and leaking top-secret information that makes it easier for the enemy to avoid being caught. So on national security, Bush has been 100% successful at stopping attacks against the USA, despite those who have been trying to hinder him... like you.

      On foreign policy, I see two countries who's terrist-supporting regimes have been toppled, and 25 million people who now have the chance to create their own futures. I see a third country that has voluntarily stopped its attempts to obtain WMDs (Libya). I see 30,000 dead and/or captured terrorists, many of whom have provided information to find other terrorists. I see documentation from Saddam Hussein's own records that prove that he DID have WMDs, did hide them from the UN inspection teams, and that he DID have ongoing contact with OBL and al Qaeda prior to 9-11. I see that Bush's policies have been dead on target in every case... its the lack of support from the libs in Congress that have hindered the war in Iraq, by accusing soldiers of war crimes when no such ocured, by questioning their treatment of POWs and by forcing them to use kid gloves against an enemy that doesn't understand the use of kid gloves.

      So in fact, Bush has been right on every major issue (with one lone exception of border security), whereas the libs have been wrong on every issue, and have hindered the President, who has successfully managed to muddle along without their support.

      So, for all your talk of Bush "failing at everything they attempted to do", the facts don't seem to bear out your claim, and you have yet to show me anything that does bear it out.

      Elliot

      Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/01/06 5:42 pm:

      Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/01/06 7:14 pm:
      Oh my, that may be the funniest picture I've ever seen, LOL.

      Ahem, let me regain my composure here...Kerry 'apologized' on Imus this morning. Tom, you'll appreciate this (especially since I borrowed it from you):

      Kerry Then : "at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

      Kerry now: "it’s just a disgraceful thing when people try to assert that somebody like me, who has spent 35 years of my life fighting for veterans, standing up for veterans, fighting for their combat pay, fighting for Agent Orange recognition, fighting for their armor, fighting for their up-armored Humvees, fighting for them to have a strategy that wins, fighting to honor them that the notion that this comment was directed at them is an insult by these guys, and they know it."

      His apology?

        IMUS: "Well, why not apologize for the misunderstanding?"

        KERRY: "Well, I did. I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I’m sorry about a botched joke. You think I love botched jokes? I mean, it’s pretty stupid."


      His 'apology' also demanded an apology from the Bush administration - 5 times.

        "This was directed at the people who didn’t do their homework, didn’t listen to history, didn’t listen to their own advice, and they owe the American people an apology."

        "Now, I’m coming back to Washington today so that I’m not a distraction, because I don’t want to be a distraction to these campaigns. And the point is simply: They owe America an apology for this disaster in Iraq. And I hope they’re going to provide it."

        "And these guys owe America an apology. That’s what ought to be the issue."

        "These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn’t send enough troops, who didn’t listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book."

        "But I’m telling you, I’m not going to let these guys lie and smear. And they’ve put their whole machine out to do it. And they ought to apologize to the American people."


      Notice he also said Rumsfeld "didn’t send enough troops," that sending more troops is going to "attract more terrorists and more jihadists," and "Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem."

      Huh?
 
Summary of Answers Received Answered On Answered By Average Rating
1. Haven't seen the View but what I hear is that everyone on...
11/01/06 tomder55Excellent or Above Average Answer
2. Hello El: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're goin down..... Ch...
11/01/06 exconPoor or Incomplete Answer
3. ''I was talking about the president'' Kerry amo...
11/01/06 labmanExcellent or Above Average Answer
4. You want meltdown? I finally came across Kerry's Statemen...
11/01/06 ItsdbExcellent or Above Average Answer
5. Pursuing a political agenda of lawlessness and anger makes i...
11/02/06 drgadeExcellent or Above Average Answer
Your Options
    Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.