That's some of it, Dean. More of it, though, is the rage of the criminal that's been caught. They tried very hard to steal the last election with rampant voter fraud and the Florida shennanigans. They got busted.
I spent my working life in a county cruiser. There is nobody as angry and hate-filled as a criminal that's been caught. It's exactly the rage I see from the Dems.

While I'm no fan of Bush, everytime I hear a talking head say he "stole" the election, there is much gnashing of teeth.

The facts simply do not support the "stolen election" myth.

And when people cannot acknowledge simple facts--that it is not a matter of opinion, that Bush quite simply won fair and square according to the rules--it indicates that they are either irrational or dishonorable.

Which again speaks to why I find the hate-mongering the Democratic Party is busy embracing these days so very disturbing.

Here's the thing.

I have yet to meet a liberal leftist who is interested at all in learning anything about conservative thought.

"You don't care about the poor!"

Of course I care about the poor. I just question whether government is the best tool to take care of them.

"You think they should just take care of themselves! That's mighty convenient!"

Well, I believe many of them could if required to. But I also believe that private and religious charitable organizations could do a better job.

"You think Donald Trump or Bill Gates should be trusted to take care of the poor!"

OK, look, I'm tired of you throwing this stuff in my face. When you're ready to acknowledge that intelligent and good people can view things differently than you, we'll talk.

"What a cop-out!"

(End of typical discussion.)

Versions of this discussion, regarding race, abortion, religion, gun control, anything you can name, takes place daily with my liberal left friends, and the thought process is taking over the minds of just about all the Democrats of my acquaintance. It's a pity. I simply refuse to be drawn into these discussions any more. If I point out a fallacy, I'm accused of engaging in "spittle-flecked rants." Eff it, they'll have to figure this stuff out on their own. I know I did.

Here's the thing.

I have yet to meet a liberal leftist who is interested at all in learning anything about conservative thought.

"You don't care about the poor!"

Of course I care about the poor. I just question whether government is the best tool to take care of them.

"You think they should just take care of themselves! That's mighty convenient!"

Well, I believe many of them could if required to. But I also believe that private and religious charitable organizations could do a better job.

"You think Donald Trump or Bill Gates should be trusted to take care of the poor!"

OK, look, I'm tired of you throwing this stuff in my face. When you're ready to acknowledge that intelligent and good people can view things differently than you, we'll talk.

"What a cop-out!"

(End of typical discussion.)

Versions of this discussion, regarding race, abortion, religion, gun control, anything you can name, takes place daily with my liberal left friends, and the thought process is taking over the minds of just about all the Democrats of my acquaintance. It's a pity. I simply refuse to be drawn into these discussions any more. If I point out a fallacy, I'm accused of engaging in "spittle-flecked rants." Eff it, they'll have to figure this stuff out on their own. I know I did.

Makes sense -- they're fighting with the rabid ferocity of a cornered rat... just as thoughtfully, too.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
-Barry M. Goldwater*
(*in his acceptance speech at the Republican national convention in San Francisco, 1964)

I "squarely" agree. In my heart, I know he was right.

The Democrats will never say such a thing because:
1) They're too wimpy and gutless.
2) They don't believe in liberty. They believe in equality, which is the opposite of liberty, and in "peace", i.e., appeasement, i.e., the surrender of liberty. Both parties today believe in more and ever more government controls and socialism.

As for "the poor", I agree with Ayn Rand: "The best way to help the poor is not to be one of them."
Or: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

Except that, then, the radicals would be screaming that the fish are being oppressed and exploited!

Oh, and as for the lie that "Bush stole the election": I support the United States Supreme Court, and I admire Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor (both appointed by President Reagan).

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of the universe, of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life."
-Justice Anthony Kennedy

>>I have yet to meet a liberal leftist who is interested at all in learning anything about conservative thought.

Try harder. That's an overwrought statement if ever I heard one. It's hyperbolic statements like this that cause an equal and opposite reaction. Think?

And Dean, yes I do agree with your idea that if the Democrats lose, it will signal the end of many freedoms in this country. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant :)

no no- its: "Give a man a fish, he knows where to come for fish; teach a man to fish, and you lose your market base."

June 26, 2003:

Thank you, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, for standing up for your freedom and thus for mine.

And: Thank you, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice David Souter, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for honoring freedom and justice.

Um.

I have only met one liberal leftist who is interested at all in learning about conservative thought, and he is Andrew at BYTE BACK.

Good on yer, mate.

As for me, I know all there is to know about liberal leftist thought because I *was* one and because I'm steeped in it daily courtesy of the liberal media ;)

Best, B

You’re entitled to your opinion, Dean but liberal Democrats can be excused for thinking that Republican POLICIES under George Bush are an absolute train-wreck. Something about turning balanced federal budgets as far as the eye can see into gigantic budget deficits as far as the eye can see, inflaming anti-American opinion around the world, embarking on a costly unnecessary war that risks world conflagration, crafting the least transparent and most authoritarian government in modern history, intentionally aggravating political partisanship in the American body politic to win, etc., etc.

When you insist that Democrats might want Bush out of office, “not because of anything this administration has done”, but because “the Democratic Party will have to reconstruct itself from the top down”, you’re engaging in 1) wishful thinking, 2) Deanial, or 3) dishonest partisanship (or some combination of the three).

BTW, I think I understand conservative thinking vis-à-vis the poor (I read the talking points ;-). It’s somewhere between, “cut taxes for the rich and deregulate business and private philanthropy and the free market will take care of the rest,” and “they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (it’s a personal responsibility thing)". Deep. Really deep.

Loyal Democrats can be forgiven for thinking their guy will be better. The problem being, whenever I ask them to tell me why he'd be better, they change the subject and tell me how evil Bush is.

So those of us who are not members of the Democratic Party--or who are former members--can be forgiven for thinking that you Democrats have become so bitterly partisan you are no longer able to explain clearly what you stand for or why we should trust you or believe in you or your message.

Me a partisan? Okay. I've spent two years on this blog explaining, in excruciating detail, why I'm unhappy with Democrats, why I've left, and how they could win my vote back. Mostly involving telling them to grow a spine and actually stand for something besides "Bush sucks."

Even now when I ask them why their guy, they give me a litany on why Bush sucks. That's not an idea. That's not an opinion. That's spewing talking points.

Any possibility here that any of the negative things we're facing are NOT the President's fault? Any possibility we'll hear your proposals for what would make things better besides "get rid of Bush?"

And will you STOP calling people "partisan" when they merely say, "wait a minute, your attacks on Bush don't seem fair to me?"

And is there any chance some of you guys will stop calling the man a "LIAR" when you could merely say you DISAGREE WITH HIM or that he's simply WRONG? Becuase I'll tell you honestly, I've reached the point where the first time I hear someone call Bush a "liar" I think, "you are a partisan hack moron and not someone worth even trying to have a sane conversation with because you are obviously a blinkered partisan asshole."

How many times have I defended Kerry? More than once. How often have I attacked people for making unfair allegations on him? I've outright endorsed Democrats for President. And I've said I'll tell Democrats any time they'll listen what would get me to vote for them again.

So how does that make me some great raging partisan? I'm happy to register Democratic and give Democratic candidates a fair shake, but you know what? You give me long diatribes on what an incompetent boob liar Bush is and why I'm closed-minded if I find that annoying, then, frankly, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say.

That's the truth. That makes me partisan? Gee, that's funny. I think I'm merely asking for sane, decent, thoughtful discourse, and asking you to explain to me why your ideas are the better ideas, rather than why Bush is evil, incompetent, and stupid--and why anyone who says "I don't think so" is merely a "Bush apologist."

I ask you to tell me what you stand for. And not bumper-sticker answers like "a better economy, a cleaner environment!" Let's hear the point-by-point steps on what you want done different. And let's not hear why you hate Bush (and don't mealy-mouth it, you fucking hate him or you wouldn't call him a liar and accuse him of destroying the country when that's all clearly over the top to any sane person), but why your guy is the guy to make the planet a better place. Indeed, I'd absolutely love to see any of you guys spend one entire week doing nothing except explaining why John Kerry's policies--what ever those are--would make America better, safer, and a better place.

I like his proposals on health care. What little I've heard. I want to hear more. Are they the better idea? What's he going to do on social security? Does he have any SPECIFICS on how he's going ot handle the war better, other than "not fuck it up?" I'm still waiting. I've been waiting forever, while all you guys do is treat Bush like a walking piece of shit.

It doesn't make you look good, and it doesn't make me a partisan to tell you that it doesn't make you look good.

And that's really all I can say. I've said it many times before, and I feel like I'm not getting through--which is why I've devolved to the point where I just think you guys' hatred for Bush exceeds all reason, and why your need to beat him has to do with something other than any kind of thoughtful idea on where you want the country to go other than "not in Republican hands."

Loyal democrats can also be forgiven for ever thinking that they can have a rational discussion of policy with a Republican partisan. No matter how much we talk about policy, serious policy differences and the respective visions behind policy directions, you guys deny the facts, deny that we’re offering a policy or change the subject entirely. You have nasty a habit of doing all three simultaneously. I don’t know if you are hopelessly partisan towards Bush (or against Democrats) and this is just your “get the other guy to make the argument” game or you are thinking and writing too fast to ever really read for what others write.

In this case, I laid out six (count ‘em) different policy directions (in one paragraph) that George Bush has chosen in which John Kerry offers a substantially different direction. In response, you ignored them all to spend 14 paragraphs telling me 1) it’s all because Democrats think Bush is “evil”, 2) Democrats are too mad to be able to explain what they stand for, 3) you’re a Bush partisan for the Democrats own good, 4) when they do tell you why Bush’s policies are wrong, that’s irrelevant because they’re “spewing talking points”, 5) reflexive Bush apologists shouldn’t be called “partisan”, 6) Bush can only be disagreed with or wrong, he can never have lied, 7) you are occasionally fair to some Democrats (true) but you won’t listen to criticism of Bush, 8) you’d really like to hear Democrats explain Kerry’s policy platform (hint: he does outline them in some detail on HIS WEBSITE if you are at all interested) and 9) again, why criticism of Bush and his policies isn’t reasoned, it’s just about hate and wanting to win (who is it who can't make a substantive policy argument again?). So I’ll bullet-point them to see if you can recognize the policy areas and minimize the chances that you’ll invent some hatefulness or add the “L” word to what I am saying:

Bush: continuous, massive tax cuts driving borrow and spend fiscal policies, which lead to enormous, sustained deficits vs. Kerry: fiscal policy that attempts to balance revenue and spending.

Bush: yer either with us or agin us unilateralism which inflames anti-Americanism and undermines world support of US policy interests vs. Kerry: pragmatic multi-lateralism stressing cooperation unless serious US strategic interests are beyond consensus.

Bush: war as a first choice to advance strategic interests regardless of alternatives vs. Kerry: war as a last choice only after exhausting all other options.

Bush: executive branch secrecy on all matters, especially for political advantage vs. Kerry: transparent government with appropriate congressional and public oversight.

Bush: trashing Constitutional liberty rights to hold US citizens (and others) without charge, representation or due process, to spy on American citizens, to undermine women’s reproductive control and amend the Constitution to permanently confer second-class status to gays vs. Kerry: none of that shit.

Bush: inflaming cultural differences and practicing scorched-earth politics (mid-census) redistricting and freezing the opposition party from participating in policy-making as well as sanctioning the most vile slander of political opponents like John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry) vs. Kerry: so far, none of that shit either.

Your serve.

No, Shep, you didn't lay out any substantive arguments or policy differences at all. You laid out a bunch of talking points spun in such a way as to make iBush look as bad as possible and giving cookie-cutter, child-simple explanations of the John Kerry "alternative" proposals. Case in point:

"continuous, massive tax cuts driving borrow and spend fiscal policies, which lead to enormous, sustained deficits vs. Kerry: fiscal policy that attempts to balance revenue and spending."

When will you stop with the bumper stickers and start talking? The tax cuts are not "massive" and they are not "continuous" and there is more that drives the deficits than the tax cuts, and your description of your candidate's alternatives is even weaker.

Why don't you just say he's for happiness and goodness and Bush is for badness and mean people?

"yer either with us or agin us unilateralism"

Still more spin, Shep. That's not what "you're either with us or with the terrorists" was not an across-the-board statement on every subject involving foreign policies and was aimed at specific governments.

"war as a first choice to advance strategic interests regardless of alternatives "

Still more lock-step, pulled-off-the-talking-points rhetoric. What the fuck are you talking about? If that was really the Bush policy we'd be at war with half the world right now.

DO I need to go on? Shep, you are spinning EVERYTHING Bush does in the most negative possible way, and in Kindergarten-simple phrases, and acting as if that's substantive.

I disagree with many your characterizations and, more importantly, none of them leave much to discuss other than "no it isn't/yes it is!" responses. And I don't say that because I'm "partisan" but becuase they're ridiculous oversimplifications and some of them are just plain false. Talking to you therefore becomes like talking to a Rush Limbaugh-style dittohead. There's nothing to discuss that I can see.

I don't argue with dittoheads either, and this is the reason. You're no better than Sean Hannity, Shep, just left-leaning instead of right. Who cares? What's the difference?

I thought you'd enjoy my characterizations, Dean. And I notice that, once again, the thrust of your “argument” isn’t substantive at all. Not surprising.

But, no matter how much “spin” you think I’m putting on it, those bullet points represent important policy differences that have fantastically important implications for our future and that’s why I support progressive politicians over politicians like George Bush, not because of any emotional drive. Any emotions come after politicians prove themselves by their behavior and policy choices. That is also what drives most Bush opponents and you are deceiving yourself by believing that it must be emotional, rather than pragmatic.

Your entire argument and your political philosophy, as I understand it, rests on the belief that the “truth” falls smack in between left-leaning (in this case represented by me – hee ;-) and right-right leaning commentators (as represented by Sean Hannity). I don’t happen to buy the conventional wisdom (and default media bias in favor of the right) that right and left are exactly equal parts right and wrong. In other words, the way I see it, the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters have it mostly wrong – with a few exceptions – and the Al Frankens, Michael Moores and Molly Ivins have it mostly right – with a few exceptions. Probably the way many Bush supporters see it, except in reverse.

By rejecting Hannity out right, you show yourself to be more politically sophisticated than rabid right-wingers. That’s good. Likewise, separating rejecting true crazies on the left. But George Bush and the contemporary Republican Party, as well as their supporters, don’t represent a reasoned center between the two extremes. Whether on foreign, fiscal or social policy, they actually represent a rejection of liberal, democratic and even conservative principles in favor of a logically and morally bankrupt radicalism that is chiefly motivated by winning.

The proof of that is found easily in the disparity between Goldwater-era Republicanism and conservatism and that of Reagan-Bush-Bush, as well as the disconnect between Republican rhetoric and policy – go ahead, try to explain how their policies fulfill their espoused principles of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. The sooner you realize that it isn’t the Democratic Party that’s lost it’s way, the sooner you’ll be able to argue substance instead of having to rely on repetitive ad hominem insults that sound merely like sad excuses.

I can only repeat that most of your charges are emotional and filled with partisan spin, and that this makes arguing with you an experience much like arguing with a Bizarro Dittohead. You speak in such inflammatory and partisan terms, it seems that any effort to discuss anything like this with you is as fruitful as trying to discuss things with a rock-ribbed dittohead.

Take it or leave it, it's how I've come to see you.

But for the record, my entire philosophy is absolutely not that "truth rests on the belief that the “truth” falls smack in between left-leaning (in this case represented by me – hee ;-) and right-right leaning commentators (as represented by Sean Hannity)." In fact, my philosophy is nowhere near to that.

It is true that the worst commenters on left and right, whether it's Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and so on, all speak in the kind of ridiculously partisan, bumper-sticker phrases that you do and, worst of all, regularly engage in ad hominem attacks. I find it all deplorable.

In many areas I believe the left is absolutely wrong. In many other areas I believe the right is absolutely wrong. But I don't believe in a sort of wishy-washy, watered-down "centrism" or "the truth is somewhere in between." No, sometimes the left is right, sometimes the right is right, sometimes they're both right and sometimes they're both wrong.

To me it is facts I want to discuss, and ideas. And I find talking to ideologues quite frustrating as a result. And that's just how you come across.

My view is that Bush is not, on 9 out of 10 issues, particularly to the right of Bill Clinton. Republicans have certainly backpedaled away from their position on limited government at the national level. On the other hand, Democrats have backed away from countless positions they took in the past. For example, Democrats used to suggest that balanced budgets were a Republican/right wing plot to cut social services. It took Bill Clinton to bring them to taking the budget more seriously. Now Bush has walked away from that, using as his excuse that there's a war on and that we had a recession in full swing when he took office. Okay, I can live with that--especially because it's been the standard economic policy of every President (except Reagan) since Franklin Roosevelt.

But no, Shep, I don't believe in "the truth is between th extremes" philosophy. Facts don't hold to a partisan agenda. I argue first and foremost from facts, and when I see people talking like bumper stickers and talking points issued from RNC or DNC headquarters, I roll my eyes and say, "okay, there goes another lock-step reactionary," and cease to find the person interesting.

So it goes I guess.

Deans:
"Republicans have certainly backpedaled away from their position on limited government at the national level. On the other hand, Democrats have backed away from countless positions they took in the past. For example, Democrats used to suggest that balanced budgets were a Republican/right wing plot to cut social services. It took Bill Clinton to bring them to taking the budget more seriously. Now Bush has walked away from that, using as his excuse that there's a war on and that we had a recession in full swing when he took office."

Well, contrary to what you always assert, sounds to me like what you are describing is exactly what I’ve been saying: the Democratic Party is evermore the party of responsible leadership while the Republicans have lost or discarded whatever guiding principles might justify their policy choices. Now they are doing what you accuse the Democrats of, becoming the party of special interest pandering. Without promising cash, cheap guns and a chance to institutionalizing “Christian values”, (and a whole lot of gerrymandering) how many votes do you think Republican political candidates would garner?

I’m not at all surprised that you see me as an ideologue because, otherwise, you’d have to consider the fact that you aren’t really non-partisan and that you can’t really square your espoused beliefs and your support of Bush and the Republican Party. You’ve admitted you had to (thoughtfully, of course) do a complete about-face in your belief in conservative foreign policy to reconcile supporting Bush. And your belief in small, transparent government and empiricism, by themselves, ought to warrant your daily repudiation of Bush administration policies but, instead, you pick nits at the Democrats.

I find it funny you should try to support your viewpoint by saying you’re interested in talking about facts and ideas (you almost never do when we talk politics – do a quick audit of this thread and see who spends more time on “facts” and ideas and who on the personal and subjective) so I’ll tell you a personal story. My dad was an engineer, son of eastern European immigrants, raised in Hell’s Kitchen, who took an early discharge to take care of his mother and sister after his father died. He parlayed his smarts and the GI Bill to two Master’s and a PHD. No matter who you have known, you have never met as rabid an empiricist. Along with his diplomas and awards, Lord Kelvin featured prominently on the wall of his office: "When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it."

As a wild-eyed liberal in the seventies, my political views didn’t exactly agree with his and we pretty much had to agree to disagree. But even when we talked politics, to his great credit, I never heard him disparage any politician, Republican or Democrat, until just last year. My father, the engineer, scientist, logician, was appalled by George Bush’s lack of qualifications for the presidency, especially his lazy intellect, and the ideological basis for administration policies. I couldn’t have been prouder to find among the last few check he had written, one to the John Kerry campaign and one to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Most people become more conservative as they age (from a growing sense of insecurity, in my opinion). A true empiricist, like my Dad, goes where the facts take him regardless of his emotions. If his opposition to Bush is more correct on the facts then administration critics may be less ideological or partisan than you think. A pro-Bush and/or pro-Republican ideologue, on the other hand, uses facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost – to support rather than to illuminate. That’s what your blog looks like to me.

See, Shep, there's the problem: I'm not a conservative, and don't claim to be one.

My view on foreign interventionism changed before Bush said anything. That's the sort of accusation that rankles me. My position is based on what I think, and who I support flows from that, not the other way around.

On domestic policy, there are two or thre issues where I support the President, and others where I disagree.

And while your stories about your father are very moving they don't change the fact that I rarely see you speaking from fact, merely emotion and what look like lock-step party line Democratic talking points. Including that ridiculous list of "substantive" assertions you made.

But I've said this already. You want to talk about what I'd like to see done with the budget? With taxes? With foreign policy? With the war? I'll be happy to. My opinions don't change based on who's in the White House or what party's in charge.

But whatever. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Dean,

I never said you were a conservative. Though I rarely see you speaking from fact, merely emotion and what looks like lock-step party line Republican talking points, “conservatism” is irrelevant to Republican partisanship (Republicans haven’t actually been conservative since Goldwater). You are a simply Republican partisan in non-partisan clothing. And Democratic opposition to Bush is just as policy-based and rational – I would say far more so – as your opposition to the Democrats. You may disagree with Democrats on the facts or on policy (I’m still waiting), but you should be honest with yourself (and your readers) about your own political bias.

Oh, nonsense Shep.

I don't even read Republican talking points, but if I wanted to speak like them it would be easy. If you'd like to see me try it I can give you an example of what that sort of thing really looks like.

You're just turning into a silly troll now.

No need, Dean. Really.

“Moore's been proven to fabricate and outright lie in his films on numerous occasions, quite often by responsible left-wing publications trying to distance themselves from his dishonesty. And by "dishonesty" we don't mean "matters of opinion." Moore lies. He lies a whole lot. He's made himself a multimillionaire by peddling those lies.”

“Debra Burlingame, whose brother was killed on the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and who was one of the people who originally called for the creation of a governmenet commission to examine the events of 9/11, has concluded the same thing that a lot of us have concluded: it's a divisive farce, a complete joke, and nothing but an exercise in finger-pointing, partisan sniping, and useless bloviating that's actually harming the country.”

“The government gave us well over a dozen major reasons for our action in Iraq, and "Iraq and Al Qaeda have extensive ties" was never one of them.”

“…the minor insurgency of Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq is over. And the latest minor blowup in Iraq that was blown into hysterical overproportions by people over here has been defused.

In two weeks the new government takes over, while Iraqis take over more and more of their own policing and security.

The good news just keeps getting better. What's so funny is how infuriating some people find that fact.”

“The Black Republican notices something I've noticed many times: even the gloom and doom naysayers' accounts generally reveal the fact that we're winning in Iraq.

It is amazing how hard some people will work to believe that record low casualties, incredibly light resistance, and amazingly fast reconstruction all add up to impending failure.”

“Arthur Chrenkoff has still more good news about Iraq. Be sure not to miss it.

As a weblogger, I have long considered it my patriotic duty to show you as much of the positive news on the war on terror that I can, because the mainstream press has so manifestly been failing in its duty to do the same. Arthur, not even an American by birth, has outdone me. I salute him.”

“Tom Brokaw, Dowdifier?
Well, now isn't this interesting: A New England Republican blogger notes that a recent interview with President Bush was substantially redacted for broadcasting, and the parts edited out seem to have been pretty substantial to helping the President make his case to viewers.

Fortunately, one enterprising blogger compared the video version with the transcript available ont he web site, and was able to highlight the differences, along with links where you can confirm (at least for now) the un-redacted original interview.

Interesting. Some of those cuts seem to have included quite important statements.”
“Others will vote their consciences, of course, but John Kerry has not disavowed his support for the mass-murdering Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Which tells me too much about where his support for human rights will be over the next few years if elected.”

“When America intervened in Chile, despite what criticisms anyone might make, it was to stop a Marxist who was receiving money and arms from the North Koreans, from Castro, and the Soviet Union. We helped, unfortunately, put a brutal dictator in his place, because it was the only option available to us except to allow another Communist state to take hold. But we urged that dictator to curb human rights abuses and to give his system up to democratic elections, and while it took until the early 1990s, he finally did that. Chile is a democracy with free speech and free press today, which it almost certainly wouldn't have been if the Communists had taken it over.

When we intervented in Nicaragua, we took out a Communist dictator named Ortega who had crushed freedom of speech, crushed opposition press, and slaughtered thousands of political opponents and inconvenient Indian populations. Due to our intervention, Nicaragua today has free speech, free press, and free elections.”

“
Reagan had an excellent record on gay rights issues--to the extent that anyone at that level of office in that day and age could be said to have such a record, anyway, since he had publicly supported gay rights measures and, while he did ally with some conservative Christian forces, never once backed any anti-gay legislation and was always personally gay-friendly.”

“I was rather pleased to see Ray Bradbury call Michael Moore an asshole. He had lots of other great things to say, too.”

“It's all part and parcel with an elitism and a condescension I've mentioned many times before. It all goes like this: ‘We're liberals. This means we're broad-minded and have a tradition of being thoughtful. Thus the only explanation for people in disagreement with us on any important issue is that they are stupid, dishonest, or evil.’”

“My favorite part is where he calls John Kerry "America's first war-hero candidate since John F. Kennedy." Well, if you don't count George McGovern, Bob Dole, or John McCain...”

“Of course, most push polls are a little more subtle than that, but that's the basic idea. In searching the internet, the poll report regarding Fox News seems to be this one right here. I only had time to skim through it, so I'm not seeing a lot on the methodology, but I do note that this "report" repeats the now-debunked canard that most Americans believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, which already makes me lean toward believing the Fox News folks.”

And that’s just June…without going to “Comments”…and DW was mostly guest-blogged.

Honestly, Shep, I don't even know how to respond to that.

I have to suspect you dont' even know what "talking points" are if you think those are "Republican talking points." You've got to be pretty far to the left, and pretty blinkered in your partisanship, to conclude that.

I'm sorry, I guess I had you mistaken for a more reasonable person than I thought you were.