Redstate

of many "mainstream" democrats already.  btw, the commercial is unfocused and offensive at best.  

If there is any legitimate criticism of how Bush has conducted the War on Terror it is this:  why have we not advanced into either Iran or Syria?  Also, why do we ask Israel to restrain itself when faced with the same situation as our own?  We did this during 02-04 time period.  But the view point of "we should not be in Iraq and let's pull out" is based in a hatred for America, as far as the Left is concerned.  They have this view because they want us to fail so as to blame the aftermath of that on Bush.  Here's the scenario:  "Pull out now!!"  "Sure, we will pull out tomorrow."  Look!!  Iraq is a mess.  See what you did."  That is what is going to happen if we follow the Left's lead on Iraq, no question.  They have already set it up that way.

As to the generals, let me say this.  They may not hate America, but they are willfully being used by people who do.  Concidering the ones that were praising the operation in the beginning or the one's during the Clinton Years who backed up the assertion that Saddam was a threat to the Middle East and beyond, I would say that they are opportunistic and fool-hearty.  (There seems to be a bit of an epidemic of opportunism when it comes to former military officers.  Ahem....McCain.)  Let me break it down for you real simply on a strategic matter.  

When the aftermath of 9/11 was unfolding, and Afghanistan had pretty much been subdued militarily, there were three nations labeled in Bush's Axis of Evil: N. Korea, Iran and Iraq.  Now, we know that al Qaeda was all over the Middle East.  They are all over the Pacific Islands--Phillipines and Malaysia come to mind.  The are all over Europe.  They were even in Southern Florida.  So why would they not be in Iraq?  As a matter of fact, they were.  Stephen Hayes of the Weekley Standard has done a great deal to document this.  ABCNews has released tapes where Saddam and his higher ups discussed using terrorism globally to achieve their own ends.  We even know that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers who attacked Isreal.  Also given the WMD factor, I would like to assume that Iraq was the furthest from having them when compared to Iran and N. Korea making them the easiest target out of the three.  Remember, in late 02 N. Korea announced that had them and in 04 Iran followed suit.  If this is when the media found out and reported it, we can assume that the Intelligence Community new way in advance.  (I don't think that the Intell Community is the bumbling naybobs that they are being made out to be.)  Also, Iraq is a strategic goldmine when it comes to the overall War on Terror.  Look at the map of the Middle East.  We are right in the middle of the caldren of hate.  We have Iran flanked on both borders and we have Isreal watching the rear when it comes to Syria.  Democracy is taking hold--look at Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt--and it is a result of us liberating Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iran is ripe for democratic change given the younger generation's appatite for a Western lifestyle.  This is what makes Iraq so important.  It is not a distraction; it is not a detriment.  And if you are concerned about Iraq making it harder to persuade the Islamo-facists that we mean them no harm, how might you explain 9/11?  Were we in Iraq at the same capacity as today before then?  What makes you think these people will ever like us?  These people understand one thing:  the aggressive use of force and we must apply that to them to the fullest.  That black flag, sir.  No quarter.

...on 11-06-08?  More Million-Man-March Math Made Easy™ from the Dems.

Leave it to the DCCC to turn out their base two months too early...unless they're subtly angling here for the absentee vote.

There was a lot of indignation over the use of a flag-covered (9/11) coffin in a Bush ad. Guess both sides find it convenient to hold the other to standards they're unable to meet themselves.

By design or not, yes they are.

When I read comments, it's subject, user name, comment.  When I read 'bee' in my mind it is Aunt Bee - female.  Then you turn out to be a man.  I'm always adjusting my thought process in the middle.  Would you consider calling yourself Mr. Bee or Man Bee or even Sir Bee?

;)

That Republicans are dumb enough to pull the "you need to apologize for ___" line which invariably comes off as phony and shrill to the general public when one partisan criticizes another partisan.

If they really did cross a line with this ad, then it would be more effective with the public for a group that isn't going to be so easily dismissed as just a Republican organization to lodge a complaint and to force the Democrats to answer to them and pay the price accordingly.

I think it's a very bad commercial. It doesn't strike me as offensive; just the opposite. It's...almost unfocused.

"Here's a lot of bad things. A LOT of bad things. Essentially, stuff is really bad. Even Dick Cheney's teeth. They're really bad, huh? But don't worry, here comes happy music. Look, Democrats with their names at the bottom. No, they're not running in your district. Look, there's an adorable Asian kid swinging. Bet you weren't expecting that minority. You know who our last good candidate was? Clinton. Here's some Clinton."

A good political commercial has a clear message. A clear cause. A clear reason. It inspires fear or it projects optimism. It does not do both while being vague on the optimism.

There's no reason to be outraged. At all. It's not worth your time.

Read this closely, there will be a test on it tomorrow.

Cheers.

than republicans using the military as a campaign tool, i.e. Bush jogging with a soldier with metal legs, Bush donning a flight suit on an aircraft carrier yelling 'mission accomplished', etc.  

Also, where was the republican respect for veterans when they attack John Kerry, John Murtha, or any veteran who differs from the administration opinion on the war.  Do you really think Karl Rove (or any campaign strategist) sees the military as anything other than a political tool?  Give me a break.  All politicians use the military as a political tool, be it photo ops with the wounded, photo ops with the equipment, photo ops with relatives of the fallen, and yes, photos of flag draped caskets.  But i forget, apparently americans can't be allowed to see that soldiers are actually dying in Iraq, whether they support the war or not.

1. I'm really not a guy you want to set about actively to brown off.
   
2. If someone said "these comments express hatred of America since they express hatred of Americans?" I'd say the person who said that was a flippin idiot. And as a follow up to "suppose the above were said in reference to you?  What would your reaction be, I'd like to know." If I'd cared what they though I might not have said that but I am long past the point of caring what they think.

The ad is ludicrous. Hurricanes? High gas prices? The Democrats are going to save us from those? Sure, there are people stupid enough to believe that, but few of those people vote. I think most people will look at that ad and see it as just more evidence that Democrats are not a serious political party. They have no plan; they have nothing. "Elect us and the hurricanes will stop?" Give me a break.

"Elect us and we'll pull a McGovern on the war" is even worse. Which is why they don't say it out loud. But their imagery absolutely says it. This ad will be a disaster for the Dems. Americans may not be happy about the Iraq War, but that doesn't mean they have turned into flag-desecrating peaceniks. With this ad, the Democrats have done just that.

I give it five stars. The Republicans couldn't have produced a better hit piece on the D's.

...right?  You know, how the angry Repub/Conservative reaction rallied public opinion to MoveOn's side and saw the ads replayed nationally to great acclaim and damage to Bush?

Instead of the, you know, backing, filling, smoke-blowing, de-linking and apologizing to which MoveOn was actually reduced?  MoveOn hasn't been the same since.

Streiff is right -- hang this ad around the Dem's necks like a sandwich board and make them answer for it.  Don't hope, based on nothing, that some civic-minded veteran's group will stand up for the poor, wee Republicans and fight the bad, bad Democrats for them.  Hope is a loser's strategy.

--furious

Victory and Defeat?

The examples you mentioned highlight the difference. The Republicans touted "Mission Accomplished" after the Iraq army disintegrated. The Democrats show us flag draped coffins. Which outcome do you want, victory or defeat?

I know that this was for some one else, but I would like a stab at it.  

As to why the Democrats are not as interested in national security as myself or Conservatives/Republicans in general, is really a three part answer.

First:  The Democrats don't think that we are really at great risk from this enemy--terrorism--or any other enemy.  This is their historical record since the end of World War II, and particularly since the Sixties.  They never viewed Communism and the numerous attempts to implement a global Communist Revolution as a threat to the US.  Everytime some one would speak of this threat, the Left would label them reactionary and extreme, this would be amplified in the media, and the accusor would either acquiesce or shut up all together.  The template is really no different today.  They look at terrorism as a legal problem to be fought in the justice system, just as they did during the Clinton Years.  9/11 changed all of that, and the sentiment should have been changed long before that.

Second:  The Democrats/Liberals look at this as simply a political issue, this War on Terror.  They think that if they can convince the American People that Bush/Republicans have failed then they can get their power back and fix whatever problems that exist once they succeed.  The become obsticals to fighting the War on Terror.  Take for instance the NSA program.  This was leaked by like minded people with access to the information for the explicit reason of portraying Bush as a Orwellian Dictator, never mind the fact that the program actually works or that has thwarted terrorist attempts since it began.  Meanwhile, the terrorists--who may have known anyway--can now make adjustments to get past this hurddle.

Three:  This one may cut a little too close to the bone for some of you, but the Democrats/Left hate this country.  They do not consider themselves to be citizens of this country, but rather citizens of the "Global Community."  As such, they view anyone who puts America's interests first as one of three things: A)hayseed hicks, B) neandertals or C) Nazi/Facists.  They don't like the fact that we are the sole Super Power and will do whatever it takes to put us in our place.  They view Patriotism as a narrow minded, simple emotion to have, one that is not very erudite or learned.  They would perfer to be liked by European Socialists than defend themselves from a group of madmen who would not allow them to live if given the chance.  

These three reasons are why it is not safe to vote Democrat.  For anyone to think that they just simply have a different view on how to prosecute the War on Terror, they are living in a dream land.  They don't have a different idea for the WoT because they don't believe there is a WoT.  That is my take on them anyway.

I'm not. I'm going to hang this on them and let them explain what it means.

You don't want to fight these guys, fine. Stand on the sideline and think big thoughts. It'll be a lot of help in November.

was for full service. Isn't there a bump up in price on that?

If you can point me at any Republicans that actively cooperated with foreign governments to try to undermine Clinton's policies, or actively criticized our troops and not just their leader while they were in the Balkans, then you might have a point.  Please show me anything from Republicans from the 1990s that is anywhere near the same level of bile as the moonbats holding signs saying 'We support our troops when they frag their officers', and then I might concede your point.

Otherwise, no, you're very wrong.

"And answer me this, how would the Democrats/Left act different and say different things if they actually did hate America?  What would change in their rhetoric?"

  If they really hated America, they might, as some would think to do, disguise that hatred under a blizzard of phony rhetoric professing their undying love for her.  But then, who couldn't do that just the same?

  Very, very few people, and no political parties, make hatred of their nation a part of their explicit platform.

 I'd like to suggest that you consider an incredibly amazing possibility: Democrats do not really hate America.  I know people claim that they do, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

I work with sooo many people like you. And yes, you have no idea what you have just said.

Thanks for proving just how brainwashed the masses truly are these days. There are sooo many examples of the LACK OF RESPECT and REVERENCE given to our US Military by the very names you cared to utter in your missive!!!

Wake up - politics is politics. Duh! Yet, scum have no limits and the Liberal Democrats take scum to a new low.

Wish your Grandpa was around to learn ya a little about who cares about our Military, and why.

Enjoy your nirvana!  ;)

 these branches of government?

 What would you do then?  

And why should  that--that is, their election to majority status in the Congress, or in the House or Senate alone, or their election to the White House-- necessarily  mean :

 "... risk [to] the safety of this country by having the Democrats run any of the branches of government."   ?

  Don't you think Democrats, too, want the nation protected and safe from harm?  Why wouldn't they want this as much as you do?

If someone is getting paid to put in "clever" little references like that it might as well be you.

thank you for putting it into clear words.

give it a rest.  your opinion mean nothing.

and/or moral, and/or patriotic American, you can no longer be a voter for any Democrat. The Party holds you in contempt and its candidates do not represent your values. This is the message that the Republicans should convey with every resource available.

how about this, "I hate all serial killers who are also American citizens."

recall with me this point of yours:

"Three:  This one may cut a little too close to the bone for some of you, but the Democrats/Left hate this country."

So you can see why I thought you were accusing Dems of hating America.

 Now, I understand you to say,

" It is not that their views on how to prosecute the war make them America haters."

rather,

  "It's that they don't even believe we are at war, therefore; they do not believe in one of two things: A) that this country is not worth fighting for or B) that they can ride back to power based on sabotage of fighting the war.  Anyone who has followed the last five years and actually read the Patriot Act--this being one of the biggest points of contention--will come to the conclusion that Bush is doing a stand up job considering the situation."

   If I understand you, then, it's impossible in your view to have followed the events of the last five years and to have read the Patriot Act(s) and come to any conclusion other than that "Bush is doing a stand up job considering the situation."--unless one hates America, that is.  

 You don't admit that there could be valid criticisms of Bush's prosecution of this war, or that these criticisms could include the belief that the entire war in Iraq has not only not seriously advanced the cause of defeating terrorism, but has even done very serious damage to our ability to defend ourselves at all ?

  You're aware that there is a sizable number--dozens?, scores? hundreds, perhaps?-- of active and retired senior officers who take precisely the view just described, aren't you?

  Are these active and retired military officers to be regarded as America-haters?

( Note: I'll use "Dems" as short-hand to refer to the political left-wing in general whether strictly Democrats or not; and then, when I mean specifically Democrats in the strict, literal party sense, I'll place it between these "_ _" marks or italicize it.)

Democrats were going to have a platform for the 2006 elections by now. Rahm will save us all from gas prices going up, hurricanes, and soldiers ever dying in war again.

 of the Talbot article.  I'll read it.

what a man. And you used the phonetic alphabet. How precious. From that we're supposed to think you are a veteran or a member of the Armed Forces instead of a pathetic little annonymous twit.

Well you certainly told us off. We need that every once in a while. Now off you go to post your "I Was Banned By RedState For Being A Wuss" diary.

Congrats and enjoy.

I assumed the 91108GOP was an attempt to imply the GOP was responsible for 9/11 and should be held accountable in 2008. But I don't have sound at work; does the audio talk about how the GOP will face a 9/11 in 2008 or how they will be wiped out in 2008 or something like that?

 Thanks for the reference.

...did you miss the Wellstone and Coretta King affairs?

"It is an act of self preservation on our behalf."

I could not agree with you more.

"the War on Terror is not a Conservative/Liberal issue"

right on the money-

- among my friends who fall into any number of political affiliations, none of them have any real interest in keeping abreast of the war on terror, unless something really "bad" happens. It is this lack of concern that I find frustrating.

outrage?

What a profoundly morally bankrupt position, Thorley. You're saying I don't have the right to be outraged by this? That I need someone else to do it for me?

What the veterans groups do is on them, but a couple of them are DNC shills so I wouldn't look for a lot of support there, what the "fighting Dems" do is their business. I care not a whit.

But I see no reason to hold someone else's coat in this fight.

and Murtha is a confirmed fool. Having been in the military is not an innoculation against either. I will give you a break by not expounding on how little regard your intellect deserves.     And, capitalize Americans from now on. We have earned it.

"The idea that you can expect the President to give speeches with the country at war, a war brought on by the 9/11 attacks, without referencing the incident is just bizarre."

It's ok for the President to use 9/11 to make political speeches or points. But nobody else can use it.

Do I have that right?

Bush campaign ad anyone?

This ad is vintage Howard Dean - blame Republicans for everything bad in the world, tell voters that everything would be better if Democrats were in charge (without saying why or how) and when it fails to work, yell it louder.

You seem to be making the same mistake Democrats are, in thinking that politics is a boxing match rather than a judo competition.  In boxing you throw punches at each other and the winner is the guy left standing.  In judo, you let your opponent tire themselves out with wasted motion and use their force against them.  

In this case Democrats seem to be repeating the same strategy that worked so well for them the last two elections.  If they really overreached with the draped coffins, then it would be far more effective to use their own force against them by letting the public backlash (spearheaded by non-partisan veterans groups) condemn it accordingly.  If Republicans condemn it publicly, then we've only succeeded in making this a story of "one partisan group demanding an apology from the other" (sort of like every time Howard Dean goes on Meet the Press).

We have a lot of real work to do before this next election.  We need to motivate our base to support Republican candidates this fall and bring in enough swing voters to ensure victory.  The Democrats don't need any help hurting themselves and if they are really so tone-deaf not to see how this crossed the lines of decency, then it's best to let them continue doing something that only serves to hurt them with the general public.

bush jogging with the soldier was keeping a promise he made to the soldier.

Multiple choice is intellectually lazy.

Like that's never happened before.

how does 9/11 relate to this story and how has it been used before?

From the diary itself:

It uses September 11th and our troops to raise money.

My initial comment was made before I even viewed the video. I honestly didn't have any intention on viewing it but now that I have, it seems pretty clear to me that the video is highlighting some of the more painful parts of recent American history while under Republican control.

Katrina. While the hurricane itself is nobody's fault, they highlighted the response it received.

Gas prices. Invoking perhaps a response after Katrina, but for me, brings to mind rhetoric on Iran and the possibility of being led into another war.

DeLay and Abramoff. Corruption throughout the Republican Administration.

Dead soldiers. What else is there to add? Obviously, it's a reference to the war.

As for "using" 9/11 and dead soldiers to raise money, I think it's more the message underneath that they're selling. That the country's stewardship under Republican leadership is wrought with danger, less security, war, corruption, etc.

Until shortly after the start of Bush's second term, 9/11 was a staple of so many of Bush's speeches and even today, when he makes a speech, it's common for liberals to take bets on how many times he will use the phrase "9/11." When's his next SOTU? Surely, there will be many references to it, and then a replay of "all that we've done" in response, and how things are looking great, Iraq is a flourishing democracy, electricity is on 24 hours a day, it's safer than D.C., there's only "isolated" violence, and on and on.

As for using the soldiers to make political points, as another commentor said, "Mission Accomplished." Frequent speaking in front of hand-picked, military crowds in which questions are pre-screened and don't allow for dissent. Photoshopping military backgrounds to portray more people than present.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the video itself; videos don't change my mind or my vote. Nor am I saying that highlighting the role, successes, and struggles the troops have to go through shouldn't be spotlighted.

But the feigned outrage that this little video has clearly created is a little transparent. Meanwhile, conservative pundits, bloggers, radio and tv hosts, on a daily basis, equate Americans who have a difference of opinion on the war, the economy, and a host of other factors to be enemies, traitors, and of course, in the end, deserving of death.

The whole "Media. Nooses. Some Assembly Required" thing is a stunning example of that. Recently, it's been extended to include Supreme Court Justices.

But that's ok, right?

Condoning a behavior in which we support killing fellow Americans solely on a difference of opinion.

How's that for outrage?

...or have the Dems given up on the middle and are only 'playing to their base?'

Who are they running against: the GOP or Nader?

This as with anything else coming out of the DNC, we should look to the KosKids...if they like it...everything is fine...if they are screaming about it, we MIGHT have trouble with it

"According to your  By: Capitalist Infidel  

absurd analysis since Charles Manson is an American and I hate him then I must be anti American. "

 Sorry, that isn't what I claimed.  I didn't argue that anyone who ever expresses any hate of anyone who is an American can therefore be said to be practicing hatred of America, no; not the point; not my claim, not the argument here.

 I cited the remarks:

 "I've come to the conclusion  By: streiff  

that I really loathe these people, I don't want to understand them or talk to them, I just want to make sure they never hold power in my country again.

to ask how they should be qualified-- is this an expression of 'love of country'?  'hatred of country'?  Neither?  Both?  How is a Democrat to interpret such a comment?  Suppose you're a Democrat, or suppose this was said about your political party?  What would your reaction be?

 Please try not to restate my claims for me--except as an enquiry, or rearrange what I am trying to get at; thanks.

 By the way, you don't mean to suggest that  "hating" asingle individual, (however deplorable that person),  Charles Manson--taken from your analogy-- is in any sense  on a par with someone who expressed loathing for what I assume are all "these people"-- the implication being those who, at the least, are Democrats, do you?

  That's quite a few millions of Americans there.

The imagery wasn't very good (it seems to do as much to promote Rahm Emanuel as it does any candidate) and it fails to make any argument what "new" or "better" direction they wish to lead the country which is the hurdle they need to mount if they hope to gain control of either House of Congress.  Also by showing military helicopters in the latter part of the ad, they have implicitly endorsed military conflict which undercuts their anti-war message.

I would caution against getting upset over the flag-draped coffins.  IMO if Republicans criticize this, they will try to counter with something to the effect of "Republicans are trying to hide the costs of their failed war" so some such BS.  I think a smarter move would be to let veterans groups without any partisan ties weigh in on whether they violated some protocol by featuring this in an ad, and then let the "fighting Dems" running for office be forced to either condemn (thereby eroding party unity) or defend (thereby undermining support amongst veteran's groups) this practice.

America Abroad by Strobe Talbot

 Republicans loved America while Bill Clinton was in office.

 "If I criticized my wife to anyone that would listen, second-guessed every decision she made even when she was trying to do what I wanted, took things that she said out of context to twist them to make her look bad, and praised people that she loathed, yet at the same time tried to convince you that I loved my wife and that I was really doing all this in her best interest, you'd call me a liar to my face-- and rightly so."

 "So when Democrats do the same to our country, why do you try to deny us the same conclusion?"

  Because the analogy is faulty.

  And because, on one hand, Republicans of all stripes and at all levels excoriated Bill Clinton's policies and made no apologies about it nor even dreamt that this could be regarded as an indication that they hated America, while, on the other hand, these same Republicans denounce as America-hating the very same--or milder--criticisms directed at the current president.

but it would seem reading comprehension is not your strong point. You don't think the president can talk about the war? From your standpoint I can see how that would be valuable as it was your party that disarmed us and ignored the threat.

You will note in the campaign ad you link that no one said 9/11 was the Dems fault though that case would have been very easy to make. There is a big difference in a fleeting image from a traumatic national event and milking unrelated images for a fundraising appeal.

But I really don't expect anyone from the "astrology based community" of "pay-to-play community" to be able to understand this.

is correct. That's what I would have put in their add if I had been producing it. Heck that is straight out of a Howard Dean television interview.

They don't say what it means, it is a number on what I think they want us to believe is a Tom DeLay mugshot.

I have been a "one-note Johnny" on the whole "don't sit this one out" line. As much as I would like to "send a message", let the Beltway know that "my vote has to be earned", "get the President to rattle that Veto pen" or "inject new blood into the party", letting the Kossacks win, and as a result validate commercials such as this, will hurt the country in ways far worse than anything a "message" will do. For doing things such as this, we cannot and must not let the Party of Astrology win.

If their actions/rhetoric did not point to another conclusion.  The fact that it would be political suicide to explicitly announce one's hatred for the same Country that they wish to rule is not a reason to discount the notion that the hatred exists.  It is also not a very good idea to use the "doesn't everybody do this" argument to win a debate, as you alluded to in your statement that if the Dems veiled their hatred, couldn't others.  The actions of others don't point to the likelihood of this.  And to prove my point with you specificly:  Why have you only addressed my third point on why it is not safe to vote for Democrats/Liberals?  You have not refuted the claims that they do not believe there is a War on Terror; you have just maintained that they don't hate America.

in an ad, but it's OK for the DCCC to do this?

They don't get it when it comes to the big issue of our time (specifically, the war on terror).

Hence, I believe the Republicans are the only game in town - and I'd far prefer to see them remain in charge by whatever they have to do, be it pork-barrel spending, earmarks, etc., than to risk the safety of this country by having the Democrats run any of the branches of government.

 right now, I can't read and reply to the 14-page article your link leads to.  But I'll try and read it and reply later.

  This may be all the fun I can stand for day #1 with my new conservative discussion partners.

  My internet connection closes in a short while.

  More another day.

...by raising the minimum wage.  Ooops, guess THAT won't work.

Let's just cross our fingers and hope no one will ask how the DNC plans on lowering the price of a tradeable commodity in a free market economy.  

Now, putting an end to the hurricanes is much easier.  Al Gore has a climate control plan that's so secret he didn't even disclose it when he lived in the White House for eight years.  Rigt, Al?  Al?  

They are not having the dead soldiers fill out voter registration forms.

... this is what Tough and Smart™ is supposed to look like.

As our good friend ConservativeD says in his tag line:

2006: It's just not safe to vote Democrat

These people, and I'm being charitable in the use of that word, need to be crushed - not defeated, crushed - come November.

Now here's the thing. We've been over this kind of silliness a dozen times. We debated it, we yelled about it, the election ended, we moved on.

We're now on a different topic. You may feel it trenchant to return to the old topic. We do not.

Now, were this your most famous stomping grounds, I would use the f-word, and you would be powerless before it, because as we all know, from reading any dKos thread, that short of astrological prediction, there is no power on Earth so great as the use of that word.

This is not dKos.

Were this tacitus.org, we'd sit around agreeing how great we are, then we'd engage in a senseless debate for the thousandth time, complete with endless levels of third-grade snark.

This is not tacitus.org.

Were this Obsidian Wings, we'd agree, as an initial premise, that everything is Bush's fault, and that most Republicans are racists, then move on to do the tacitus.org thing, while incidentally mentioning that Josh Trevino is a prig, and Moe Lane is an uncompromising fascist.

This is not Obsidian Wings.

Were this Balloon Juice, we'd all agree this is Bush's fault, and leave it at that.

Ain't Balloon Juice, either.

This is, however, RedState.com. Here, we discuss issues from a conservative and Republican angle. We appreciate folks offering cogent rebuttals to our points, because, despite the mandatory internal narrative of dKos, we actually do not want to become an echo chamber like, well, dKos. However, the minimal criterion for entry is intelligent, well-thought out commentary, that at least makes a run at being original.

In this, you have failed.

Now, for reasons that are utterly lost on me, and to my corresponding endless bemusement, you seem to have developed some cred around here. Reviewing your comment history, I'm baffled, but then again, I'm not precisely the sharpest tool in the shed, so there's hopefully something I'm missing.

With that in mind, this is a formal/informal warning to cut the crap. The formal end is that I'm quite serious. The informal end is that this is not being logged as your One Warning.™ Please continue my bemusement as you have up until now, and not in a new, exciting direction.

Thanks.

You appear as the sole voice of reason in this intellectualy and morally bankrupt wasteland of chest thumping jingoists who'd pee their pants if they ever heard shells hit the pavement.

the story instead of cherrypicking a single part of a single sentence you would see that the 9/11 reference is to how it is used as some sort of juvenile prediction of a "9/11" on the GOP in 2008.

So I find your statements in this regards purely trollish.

The idea that you can expect the President to give speeches with the country at war, a war brought on by the 9/11 attacks, without referencing the incident is just bizarre.

And, of course, there is the matter of context. If you are saying the president was never on the Abraham Lincoln or the Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq that would be stupid but meaningful. To say that it was used as a fundraiser as you apparently claim is just dishonest.

So I don't know what to say to such a collection of profoundly inaccurate statements that you've presented only that my first inclination is that you should toddle back over to DU where your comments would be more appreciated.

. . . foot, let them.

It's an ineffective ad and really doesn't do much to persuade people who aren't already going to vote Democratic.  It fails to effectively communicate a message to show how Democrats will do any better and if the flag-draped coffins really did cross the line, then it's better to let the public backlash accordingly (if not, we look shrill and weak for trying to manufacture outrage) particularly if it serves to undercut the "fighting dems" theme.

work that way.

If we don't mention this story then it will die. It was partisan commentary that carried the Swifties forward from their May press conference which got zero coverage (Brit Hume's panel on FoxNews polled themselves and all four agreed that no one would be talking about the Swifties by Labor Day). It wasn't neutral groups or the media. And you know what, when partisan groups brought those adds to the public's attention, no one said, Gee they are partisan who cares.

Sorry, you are dead wrong and you are proposing a strategy that is doomed to failure. We need to hang this thing around their neck and show people what they stand for.

If you don't think this helps motivate the base and turn off uncommitted voters you're not dealing in terrestrial politics.

enough is enough.

 

 back.  

 [ Multiple-choice test ?]

It will backfire if they run it.

Re the stupid part - a WEATHER MAP of a hurricane?  Does Bush control the weather?  Don't they think hurricanes will occur in 2007 & beyond?  Cheney's TEETH?  Rahm Emmanuel gets top billing as a pol?  He looks like a cadaver on the screen.  Closing with Bill Clinton, who ALMOST got Bin Laden and let Iraq fester for 8 years?

Wow!

"Now that your gas bag is full, why don't you blow away?" - the Honeymooners

 As you ponder the possibility of such please turn over in your mind the differences between Bush and Bill Clinton, who you might say is a walking benchmark.  In passing you may recall the expressed support and love for Bill C by Dems/Libs, which at the least shows they are capable of love and proves beyond doubt that all is not hate.

      Hatred is not measureable by a thermometer but that doesn't mean there aren't instances of it, moreso it's near cousin, contempt.  The trick is to be willing to recoginize what is sometimes under your nose but is denied precisely because of it's,ah ,  proximity.

      Sorry the nickels ran out on your Rent-A -Computer.

If Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Dean, etc. want to head out to Walter Reid and have a visit with wounded soldiers then more power to them.  They can feel free to mention their visits in speeches or even have press present, as long as they are respectful of the soldier's wishes on the matter.  All that would be an acceptable way to 'use' the military to help promote your image but as soon as they begin labelling, without benefit of a trial or even substantiated allegations, the men and women of the military as cold-blooded killers and terrorizers of Iraqi women and children they then basically lose their right to then wrap themselves in the flag when politically convenient.  

And to the average person, the very use of images of the military dead for purely political gain is so far beyond the realm of acceptable that it is unbelievable to me that anyone is here to defend it.  Only people that hold no respect for the military itself would even consider using those images in such a way.  You could as easily use a voice over or text on a screen to mention the number of dead if you want to make a point about the war (still a bad idea in my book but much more palatable) but to actually show coffins in a campaign ad, I just can't understand the thought processes involved in that decision.

Playing both sides of the coin, and in one breath demonizing the very men and women you in the next breath pretend to respect is one of the most infuriating traits of today's left.  

And not to bring Coulter into this discussion but your assertions that not respecting Kerry or Murtha is a sin because they served in the military goes right to the heart of her point about the Jersey Girls.  While the service itself should be respected, that only gets your foot in the door; it's your actions of today that determine the amount of respect you are afforded.  And if you want to truly follow the concept that simply serving makes you an expert on all things war related and invulnerable from attacks for anything else you say or do where is the left's respect for all the multitudes of other military voices (I believe the numbers are upwards of 70%) who support the President.  Where was the respect for the various Swift Boat vets who came forward with their claims against Kerry.  They were quickly attacked by most on the left as partisan hacks while at the same time a man running on the ballot with a big "D" beside his name was presented as the source of all truth because of 5 months of service in Vietnam 30+ years ago.

Nothing to see here, folks.

PDFTT.

If some one was to challenge my Patriotism and I had a public record that showed otherwise, I would just point to my record, both voting and in rhetoric.  The Democrats/Left have a record for doing things that are against the best interests of this Country.  They support are participation in the International Criminal Court.  During the Clinton Admin. a member of the State Department, Mr. Strobe Talbot, wrote an article in Time discussing the notion of national soveriegnty as being obsolete.  (You can read this here, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/15/30156.shtml

I would rather perfer to get the actual Time story, but it is from 1992.)

As to me knowing, personally, any one of these types of people, the answer is yes, I do know some of these people.  One of whom is an exgirlfriend of mine whose parents I still keep in touch with.  Others include colleagues and old college aquaintences.  There is no doubt in my mind that what I say about them hating America is correct.  

And answer me this, how would the Democrats/Left act different and say different things if they actually did hate America?  What would change in their rhetoric?

they "support the troops".

Next, why don't they do voter drives at the funerals?

I merely suspect you were an idiot. Thanks for removing the doubt.

There wasn't a "Donate Here" button after Bush jogged with the soldier.

I'm questioning their patriotism right now as I write this.

The more I learn about these arch-liberals that run dKos and other fringe outlets, the more concerned I become that they don't really like America.

If they ever talk about America in a patriotic way, it is a fictional America where gay marriage is the law of the land, abortion is free and easy to obtain, our country responds to terrorism by talking about the problem with the enemy rather than doing anything that might hurt someone, affirmative action is amplified so that whites and Asians have a harder time getting educated and employed, and those who own homes and have worked their way up the social ladder a few rungs are forced to hand their money over to the government for redistribution to drug addicts and other losers.

That America, unfortunately, is the only America that really inspires them.

"Three:  This one may cut a little too close to the bone for some of you, but the Democrats/Left hate this country.  They do not consider themselves to be citizens of this country, but rather citizens of the "Global Community."  As such, they view anyone who puts America's interests first as one of three things: A)hayseed hicks, B) neandertals or C) Nazi/Facists."...

How about the following?  How do you qualify this? :

 "I've come to the conclusion  By: streiff:  

that I really loathe these people, I don't want to understand them or talk to them, I just want to make sure they never hold power in my country again.

 Suppose someone told you that these comments express hatred of America since they express hatred of Americans?

And, just as important, or maybe more so-- suppose the above were said in reference to you?  What would your reaction be, I'd like to know.

Do you know any of the "the Democrats/Left" who have told you that they "hate this country," or that  "They do not consider themselves to be citizens of this country" ?

Even leaving aside the use of the flag draped coffins, as other have said, the quality of the ad is pretty poor.

Their targets are all over the place and most are poorly choosen.  

Gas prices, while not directly under federal control are usually blamed on the government in power so that's a legitimate target.

Hurricanes??  I know that Al Gore and his ilk like to try and blame the entirity of global warming on the last 6 years of Republican rule but I don't think that's much of a winner.  And you might not want to draw attention to the fact that of the various states devestated by Katrina, only the one with purely Democratic control on the municiple and State level really showed signs of utter chaos .  But this is a Dem ad so facts are not really wanted or appreciated.

Job losses: I'm assuming that this is suppose to reflect something to do with the economy which happens to be at one of its strongest points in several decades (though you may never know it if you only go by reports you see on TV or read in the the Times).  And even with the 'tax cuts for the rich' the government is taking in more money than previous years.

Scandal: do they really want to try and claim the high road on this one?  Delay and others may have been indicted (in Delays case with some charges so trumped up that the prosecutor may end up in jail) but it was a Dem who had tens of thousands of dollars stuffed in his freezer.  Which do you think is the easier case to make to the public.

Karl Rove: Does anyone in Middle America even have a clue as to who Rove is?  There is no name in the ad, just a picture with a message "American Families are Paying the Price".  What does that mean?

And the intercut scenes with the various candidates just defies any logic.  

Does Ram Emanuel fly helicopters in his spare time?

Is Nancy Pelosi selling laptops or something to make some extra cash?  

I'm guess Steny Howard is for wind farming though he may want to check with his esteemed college from Mass. as to what the current Dem policy on wind farms actually is.  I'm assuming the one pictured is in no way visable from any multimillion dollar vaction home in the Cape Cod area.

It's just a very odd half baked effort with no message, offering no clear alternatives and only sad attempts to play on viewers emotions.  So I guess I'm wrong, it does represent the Dems policy outlook perfectly.

that I really loathe these people, I don't want to understand them or talk to them, I just want to make sure they never hold power in my country again.

he does!!! don't you know that rove uses the master weather control in the basement of the white house????  it's right next to the master diebold vote changing machine and the earthquake/tsunami creating device!!!

</far left moonbat&gt ;)

as i said in another post, i've washed my hands of them.  they are not the party of reason anymore.  the only reason i don't jump to independent is the fact that the dems need voices of moderation and reason.  some day we will get control of the party back from the far left...

'bee' is my initials; I've been using them on video games and pinball machines since 1981 at least.  It's lowercase because 1) lowercase is more legible and 2) I also use it as my Unix login, where case is significant and lowercase rules the day (used to be, if you tried logging into a Unix box with your username all in uppercase, it'd presume you were on an ancient terminal that only HAD uppercase so it'd go into this funky emulation mode that confused the stuffing out of anyone that hadn't run into it before).

When I registered I considered using the alias of Finrod (which I've used online since 1990), but I figured that 'bee' actually has a real connection to me, so I went with that.

Your claims that we have been at war since World War II are striking.  The word "war" can be used to describe grave conflict as much as an action between two or more states/entities of political power.  If you go here:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

you will see that "war" can be defined as "A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war."  Using this sense, is not logical to conclude that we were in active antagonism against Communism?  "A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain."  Does this not describe our attitude toward the importation of drugs into our country?  Vietnam was a UN action, as was Korea and the first Gulf War.  What we are engaged in now is something we have not seen since World War II, i.e. a party/entity striking our homeland with the intent on political change.  (Granted the political change is geared more toward the religious, but none the less....)  To not see this current conflict as what it is, is neglecgible at least.  In this light, we must conclude that the current situation in the War on Terror is not a Conservative/Liberal issue, and it should not be.  It is an act of self preservation on our behalf.

If this represents their best effort, then things may not be looking quite as bad for Republicans as we've been told.  Hopefully they'll expend their finite resources trying to promote this sort of confusing ad rather than trying to focus on a message that might actually work.

The Democrats want a change alright.  They want a change back to the days of Bill Clinton because they have nothing for the future.

absurd analysis since Charles Manson is an American and I hate him then I must be anti American.

See what I mean?

Too many words and emotions are coursing through me right now! This needs to get out as one of the most disgusting things the Democrats have ever done! Not to mention the demonization of Conservatives at every turn.

This needs to be used by EVERYONE within earshot as the reason Democrats and Liberals should never be able to hold office anymore.

So, is Murtha the spokescum for these ads? Wouldn't put it past him and Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Reid!

¨¨¨¨¨¨Condoning a behavior in which we support killing fellow Americans solely on a difference of opinion.

How's that for outrage?¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

How about killing inconvenient unborn children.

That's a great plank to have in the party's platform.

third sentence:  The "not" should be removed.

That's the problem with the Democrats/Left, they view this thing in ideological/political terms.  It is not that their views on how to prosecute the war make them America haters.  It's that they don't even believe we are at war, therefore; they do not believe in one of two things: A) that this country is not worth fighting for or B) that they can ride back to power based on sabotage of fighting the war.  Anyone who has followed the last five years and actually read the Patriot Act--this being one of the biggest points of contention--will come to the conclusion that Bush is doing a stand up job considering the situation.  It's not like Democrats are saying we should have gone into Saudi Arabia and not Iraq.  They don't want us to go anywhere except Afghanistan, and they are starting to voice opposition to that as well.  Yes, you can say that Iraq did not have anything to do with the event of 9/11, but you cannot say that they did not have anything to do with terrorism, which is what we are at war with now.

My family had mixed feeling about the 2004 Bush campaign using the video of the flag-draped victim being carried from Ground Zero. My problem isn't so much with the DCCC showing such video as them being hypocrites about it.

that in an election year, any group that comes out to criticize Democrats during an election year is going to be labeled as a Republican hack squad by the MSM?  They do this all the time and not all voting Americans are up to speed on current events like many of us here.  I say we take 'em head on and just push them.  I am tired of Conservatives/Republicans trying to beat these people by being too smart by half.  We always seem to get our clock cleaned when that happens.  I think the Left is much like an egg in that one good squeez will bring the yoke streaming out.  We need to press them, force them to show completely, for all the Country to see, just how much they hate the Untied States and how far they will go to destroy it.  It can be done, we just need to quit thinking of the sentiments of "middle" and crush these people.

If anyone thinks this won't get worse unless it is confronted now, they simply are wrong. Yesterday I predicted that if McCain were the GOP nominee the Democrats would use his POW experience against him. Some laughed and said that would be suicide, and the Democrats never would do it. This involves soldiers at war right now...why would the Democrats hesitate to do a number on a retired Navy pilot who is in the Senate?

Again, steiff is right. This cannot be ignored and their noses must be rubbed in it.

Dead soldiers to vote Democrat

...Sen. McCain called them on it.  He's veteran AND partisan.  He's two-two-two mints in one!

Question if Sen. McCain would attract the same number of microphones as he did when he condemned the SwiftVets' ads, but it would be nice if he tried.

--furious

It seems that is almost as intolerable as departing from "Democratic values" as defined by Kos, MoveOn, and DU.

Without the Democrat Party's strategic vision and such tactical masterstrokes as these, the Republicans would be doomed.  

People do not like to see the flag, or a helmet, used to make them unhappy.  They respond negatively to things that make them unhappy.  I will be utterly shocked if this works for the Dems.

And in the Delay mug shot, invoking 9/11 will backfire.  Not only is it non sequitur, it misses entirely the hook into people's emotions that 9/11 still has.  People (except for the batroots) know that our nation was attacked without cause.  Whatever they think of the strategy of the President since then to fight the GWOT, they will resent, even abhor, using 9/11 itself this way.

Try this one, http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/idealogical_war.pdf

much more to the point.

  You sound like you make a short-list of things and if the Dems don't measure up on these--that is, they have the nerve to actually have a different opinion on them-