At 09:15 AM 1/19/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: >>>I hear Bush warning us of financial >>>instruments of mass destruction and I remember how lousy the analysis >>>was the last time he offered a big warning about mass destruction. Fool >>>me once, shame on me... >> >> >> Oh good grief. Does noone in the Democratic Party have any shame? > >About what?
Your above paragraph is downright shameful. Its as if Bush is just making up the Social Security crisis (or that he made up the Iraq crisis.) Everyone who is saying that Social Security isn't a problem today was saying that Social Security was one of the nation's most serious problems the day before Bush came up with a Social Security Plan. That is shameless partisan politics at its worst. >> And BTW, please explain for me the difference between Bill Clinton's views >> on WMD's and the Bush Administration's views of WMD's in Iraq..... Did >> Bill Clinton fool you once, shame on you?????? > >Views? Views? How about the views of flag-draped coffins? Clinton >didn't even try to justify a war. That's seeing things differently. That's not lying about the threat. If you cannot distinguish between Bush's and Clinton's views on the threat I will presume that you concede that they are and were the same. The only difference is how Bush proposed to deal with that threat, and I that even you would agree that Bush was more than upfront about his plans for dealing with the Iraqi threat. >> Of course it is. The GOP is simply better at manipulating the "big >> media." It couldn't actually be that a majority of this country agrees >> with Republican Ideas and disagrees with Democratic Ideas, could it? > >If polls tell us anything, that's not the case. Bush is popular and >respected, but when it comes to policy, we are at best deeply divided. Well, you're not going to get anywhere with me by citing Zogby polls..... but I notice that even so, you didn't have any polls showing support for Democratic positions. Sure there are concerns about how the war is going - how could there not be? But that is different from saying that a majority supported the Democratic positions, and they plumped for Republicans only because the GOP controlled the Big Media. >Quite a leap there, it seems to me. When did I suggest that the media >is responsible for who won the election? Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I think the GOP invented ugliness in politics,I'll say that I think it's a product of the power of big media in our time, not politics. The GOP's successes of late are the result of doing best at taking advantage of it, I think. > I was talking about the >origins of ugliness, not saying that ugly politics yields Republicans >victories. I think Big Media has everything to do with who the >candidates are, not who wins. You appear to be saying that the Republicans win either because of ugliness or the Big Media. My original interpretation was the "it" the Republicans were "were doing best at taking advantage of" was the Big Media, but I'll concede in retrospect that you could have meant "ugliness." Not that that makes you look any better. Or any more serious. >Oh, and I'm not convinced that the future of the Middle East is in our >hands. Well, if you don't believe that George W. Bush dramatically changed the future of the Middle East then we are simply not operating on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
