Gus and I Two

(JM) "'Who am I? I'm under 45 years old, I love the outdoors, I hunt, I am a Republican reformer, I have taken on the Republican Party establishment, I have many children, I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office. Who am I?" Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

(Russ) Second worst president in the history of the U.S.

(JM) Bush is the worst president? Where do you place Jimmy Carter?

(Russ) Not exactly sure. Mixed bag. On the one hand he established a national energy policy that included conservation, price decontrol, and new technology. Foreign oil imports were reduced by 50% from 1977 to 1982. Most significantly he negotiated the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

On the other hand he bungled the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran along with a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages ensued and he did nothing about the Soviet invasion Afganistan (sic).

So, on the whole, fairly ineffective except for the peace treaty which holds to this day. So, I guess not much for the U.S. but Israel probably has a monument erected somewhere, as they should.

(Russ' response after I send my 'Change' article) Mostly exaggerated hyperbole. How about some reality. ENDLESS WAR!!!

(JM) Just a defense of America, and the institutions that have made it great. Not a perfect nation, of course (it's kinda silly to have to say that), but the best so far.

(Russ) I would love to see the debate (b/w Dinesh D'Souza and Ron Paul). Do you agree with D'Souza's position that "in retrospect the Iraq invasion was a mistake"? Other than that statement I couldn't disagree with him more. We should be careful what we wish for.
(Russ sends) What Does 'Democracy' Mean – Over There? by Patrick J. Buchanan

(JM) No, I prefer where he said (paraphrasing). We can't spread democracy 'everywhere', but we ought to try it 'somewhere.'
You know, I really like Buchanan. He's written 8 books or so, and I'll bet I have at least 5 or 6 of them, but I do not agree with his assessment here.

(Russ) What about it do you disagree with? Do you disagree with history that shows when these people get a chance to vote, they vote in the more radical elements of their society?

(Russ' response to JM sending Ben Stein's Can America Survive Chapter on American Imperialism)

The question is: "Can America Survive"? There are many types of welfare, ie. we the US taxpayers gives away money. On the retail level there are food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare, education and deductions for interest on mortgage expenses among others. On the wholesale level there are corporate loopholes that subsidize big agriculture, oil exploration and tax subsidies for corporations who export jobs among many others. On the planetary level, we provide a security blanket for much of the world, and we spend billions for for everything from military hardware and training, bases, wars, and yes humanitarian efforts. We spend more than we make. You tell me, can America survive? Our big spending ways will end when our masters cease to lend. Don't worry, it won't be long now. As soon as the world no longer wants Treasury Bills, the jig will be up.


(JM) show me the equivalent of this on the right
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-lefts-obscene-hatred-of-the-rest-of-us

(Russ send The New Yorker with Barack and Michelle Obaba in Muslim garb)
[http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/07/14/image4257658g.jpg]

(JM) Uhm...The New Yorker is NOT conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker#Politics -- Under the Heading "Politics"

"Traditionally, the magazine's politics have been what could be called liberal and non-partisan. An example of this can be seen in the magazine's coverage of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, led by editorial writer Hendrik Hertzberg and then-political correspondent Philip Gourevitch, when Democrat John Kerry was strongly favored. In its November 1, 2004 issue, the magazine broke with 80 years of precedent and issued a formal endorsement of Kerry in a long editorial, signed "The Editors", which specifically criticized the policies of the Bush administration.[10]"

Try again...
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/07/the-new-yorker–more-liberal-hate-speech/

(Russ) You mean they (The New Yorker) are not biased. If they were a biased liberal mouthpiece, why would they try and take Obama down? Looks fair and balanced to me.

(JM) C'mon...C'mon! It's not our fault if they eat their own. Bottom line...NOT a conservative publication by any stretch of the imagination. Look, we don't do that over here. You wanna know why the left does it, and the right does not? First, although we feel the left to be mean-spirited and terribly misguided, we still see them as Americans...our bretheren. I have pics of left protestors with Bush as a Nazi, where they said "Deport all Republicans" at the Mexican rally a couple of years back...there is real hate on the left...real hate! And I think I understand why...it is simply because they see us not just as wrong headed but evil. Therefore, they represent good, and good can, should, and must do anything to defeat evil in their eyes, even if it requires cheating (Dems. engage in much more election fraud that Repubs), lying (where do I begin?), stealing, whatever. They sleep sound at night fully justified in their deplorable tactics because of 'the greater good.'

(As Russ continues to fail)

(Russ) Sheesh, sensitive bunch those Republican are! They can't even take it when the Lib's make fun of themselves. LOL!!!

(JM) Still looking for a CONSERVATIVE" source...give up, you won't find one. We don't succumb to the same tactics the left does. It's simple...the left lies.

(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. I didn't think it to be a real problem. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive. If you haven't noticed, Rebups are excellent character assassinators.

As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows, a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly. GOP strategists have long appreciated the fact that many voters, particularly in presidential elections, are influenced more by their perceptions of the candidates' characters than by the positions the candidates hold on any particular issue.

In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.

From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.

In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, someone who was willing to do and say anything to be elected president. Gore was also caricatured as a rich elitist and child of privilege who, unlike George W. Bush (???!), was stuck up and out of touch with the concerns of everyday folk.

In 2004, Republicans were able to portray a decorated war hero as an effete, elitist flip-flopper who stood for nothing and lacked the experience and resolve necessary to protect us from terrorists.

The caricatures are slightly different each time, but as sure as the sun rises, the Democratic nominee in 2008 will be subjected to the same kind of relentless assault on his (or her) character. And though it is incredibly early in '08 cycle, it's not hard to predict what form these attacks will take.

Hillary Clinton:

The attacks on Clinton are the easiest to anticipate because she has been subjected to this kind of character assassination for the last decade and a half. She will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000. But there will also undoubtedly be a strong misogynist undercurrent to the attacks. Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president. They'll attempt to play up characteristics that people find more off-putting in women than men; Hillary will be caricatured as shrill, ambitious, and vindictive. They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.

John Edwards:

If John Edwards manages to win the nomination, Republicans will go after his most obvious political asset, his good looks and charm. They'll attempt to feminize him, to caricature him as a pretty boy and prima donna. In fact, they're already doing this. Rush Limbaugh literally cannot mention John Edwards' name without referring to him as "the Breck girl," an insult that has quickly caught on among right-wing bloggers. Limbaugh recently joked that Edwards may become our "first woman president." Ann Coulter's now infamous use of the word "faggot" to describe Edwards was just a variation on this theme. The goal will be to portray Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.

Barack Obama:

It's a little harder to predict how the GOP will choose to caricature Obama. Because he is relatively new to the scene, his negative framing is still in flux. On top of that, Obama's most obvious characteristic--his race--has to be approached delicately by his opponents. While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia, anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.

I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance. They'll attempt to portray Obama as an overly-ambitious neophyte, a man who's all style and no substance. They'll play the race card, but very subtly. They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party. Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.

Whoever wins the nomination, this is the kind of thing they'll have to look forward to, so I hope the various campaigns are doing what they can now to prepare for it. I also hope that the Democratic candidates can avoid feeding into these particular caricatures as they campaign against each other. As for the rest of us, it's important to spot these caricatures as they're forming and to call out mainstream journalists and fellow liberals when they mindlessly play into them. And that's true whether or not the candidate in question is your preferred candidate.

(JM's response)
(Russ) Whatever. I didn't look that hard. How about answering all the points that I make. Didn't know you guys were so sensitive.

(JM) What was that about "evasion?"

(Russ) As anyone who pays any attention to politics knows..

(JM) Sounds like you're very proud of your political acumen

(Russ) ...a key component of the Republican electoral strategy in every presidential election is creating a disparaging caricature of the Democratic candidate and mocking that person relentlessly

(JM) Yeah, Dems never do that. Obama didn't flat out knowingly lie about Rush Limbaugh and then try to tie him to McCain which is silly since the two have never agreed on the border situation. Besides, if the Repubs. ever lied, they'd be tarred and feathered by the mainstream liberal media. They're out there just waiting for the conservatives to slip up...ready to pounce.

(Russ) In particular, voters are looking for someone who appears serious, competent, and likable, someone they can picture as president.

(JM) Oh! Like Barack?!

(Russ) From the GOP's perspective, therefore, the goal is to turn the Democratic candidate into an object of ridicule and scorn, to make him (or her) seem thoroughly unpresidential.

(JM) By using their own words and votes against them.

(Russ) In 2000, Republicans (with a big assist from people like Maureen Dowd, Ceci Connolly, and Kit Seelye) were able to portray Al Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator...

(JM) Maureen Down is an avowed liberal! What are you talking about?

(Russ) She (Hillary) will be portrayed as an overly-ambitious, calculating opportunist, much like Al Gore was in 2000.

(JM) And she's not?!

(Russ) Republican strategists will attempt to exploit--sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly--uneasiness among voters with the idea of having a female president.

(JM) Yeah, that's why they love Palin who we keep hearing is a hair away from the presidency if McCain wins.

(Russ) They'll also play into existing female stereotypes, portraying Hillary as jealous, unstable, and weak.

(JM) Are you copying and pasting from a lib blog?

(Russ) The goal will be to portray (John) Edwards as some sort of girly-man poser, not a man's man like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or whoever the GOP nominee happens to be.

(JM) Edwards is a scumbag! C'mon...

(Russ) While the GOP may be able to get away with attacks that reek of misogyny or homophobia (vis-a-vis Obama), anything that smells racist is likely to create a major media backlash.

(JM) No self-respecting conservative plays up the homo thing at all.

(Russ) I suspect, therefore, that the GOP will focus primarily on Obama's inexperience and supposed lack of substance.

(JM) Supposed?!!! His resume is out there for all to see...talk about kool-aid drinking ideologue.

(Russ) They'll play the race card, but very subtly.

(JM) No! No! No! No Repub or conservative has played this up. Barack himself has!

(Russ) They'll use Obama's liberalness as a proxy for race, alleging that he's "out of the mainstream" and that he represents the "Jesse Jackson wing" of the Democratic party.

(JM) Rev. Wright ring a bell?

(Russ) Some will even try to make an issue of the supposed militancy of Obama's church and will throw around terms like "black power" in an effort to scare white voters.

(JM) "Goddamn America!" - Rev. Wright; "The U.S. of KKK!" - Rev. Wright


(Russ)
Sleaze is bad but this will destroy America. Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic adviser and future Treasury Secretary if McCain gets elected, legislated the pieces of law that made all this possible. Just another example of John McCains judgment.

Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown."
by David Corn" May 28, 2008 "Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?"

(JM)
Sure, I'll read it, but David Corn? You dismiss Michelle Malkin, but not this guy?

About David Corn from davidcorn.com

David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine. Prior to that, he was the Washington editor of The Nation magazine for twenty years. He has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA leak case, corruption in Iraq, Senator David Vitter, the Pentagon, and assorted Washington players and institutions. (Hmmm!)

He is a Fox News Channel commentator and a contributing editor for CQ.com. His daily blog, www.davidcorn.com, is a CQ.com blog. He also has blogged for HuffingtonPost.com and the "Comment Is Free" site of The Guardian.

He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, the LA Weekly, the Village Voice, The Independent, Elle, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com, Alternet.org, and other publications and websites. (!)

He is the co-author (with Michael Isikoff) of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown, 2006), a New York Times bestseller. The New York Times (of course) called the book "fascinating reading" and the most "comprehensive account" of the Bush administration's misleading sales campaign for the war. The Washington Post (ditto) hailed Hubris as a book of "shocking clarity" and compared it favorably to Barbara Tuchman's classic March of Folly. Tom Brokaw of NBC News said, "Hubris is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." (imagine that, Brokaw)

His book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown, 2003) was also a New York Times bestseller. The Washington Post called it "a serious case....[that] ought to be in voters' minds when they cast their ballots. A painstaking indictment."

His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published by St. Martin's Press in 1999. The Washington Post said it is "brimming with gusto....As clean and steely as an icy Pinot Grigio....[An] exceptional thriller." The Los Angeles Times called it "a slaughterhouse scorcher of a book you don't want to put down" and named it one of the best novels of the year. The New York Times said, "You can either read now or wait to see the movie....Crowded with fictional twists and revelations." The Chicago Tribune noted, "This dark, impressive political thriller...is a top-notch piece of fiction, thoughtful and compelling." PBS anchor Jim Lehrer observed that Deep Background is "a Washington novel with everything. It's a page-turning thriller from first word to last...that brings some of the worst parts of Washington vividly alive." (all liberal papers)

Corn has long been a prominent commentator on television and radio. He was a regular panelist on the weekly television show, Eye On Washington, which was syndicated on PBS stations across the United States. He has appeared on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Fox News Sunday, Washington Week in Review, The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and many other shows. He is a regular on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and To The Point and has contributed commentary to NPR, BBC Radio, and CBC Radio. He often appears on Sky News (of England). He has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs. He has spoken, lectured or debated at many colleges and universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Notre Dame, Yale, Amherst, University of Southern California, American University, and Arkansas State University.

Pretty liberal circles this guy runs in. His regularity on Fox News is a testament to that network I believe.

Liberals at Fox News (not a comprehensive list)....wonder if any one can come up with 'Conservatives on CNN' like this one

Geraldine Ferraro
General West
Jane Hall
David Corn
Geraldo Rivera
Alan Colmes
Susan Estrich
Ed Koch
Juan Williams
Laura Schwartz
Kristen Powers
Bob Beckel
Pat Caddell
Greta Van Susteren
Mara Liason
Mary Anne Marsh
Marvin Kalb
Eleanor Clift
Ellis Henican
Lanny Davis
Howard Wolfson
Dick Morris

(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator. Double-standard methinks. Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.

(JM) Wait...let me make sure I have this straight...

1. I send a Michelle Malkin article
2. You dismiss her as a right winger
3. Then you send me a David Corn article
4. I point out the double standard
5. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy

is that about right?

And to answer your question, it's simple...liberals lie.

And why is the 'evasive' label attached to me? I know you didn't read her article, or the attachment about WMDs or Ben Stein's chapter, etc.

Let's do this...read each others stuff (and I do) and then respond to the points specifically made in those attachments...then we'll know if we're reading each other's sources, and not just trying to win the debate with argumentative tactics and gotcha moments. Cool?

(Russ) Not quite.  This is my quote. "Michelle Malkin, like all partisans, tells the truth but not the whole truth.  For every Michelle Malkin there is a liberal source exposing Republican warts."  Contrary to the charge, this is not a dismissal.  I did not refute the validity of her article, I just pointed out that the Dem's do not hold a monopoly on sleaze.  If you find conflicting information about John McCains economic adviser, I am all ears.

(JM) Like I said, I'll read yours, but please read mine too.

(Russ) How is it that you feel you can use any source you like, Michelle Malkin, Ben Stein, etc. (admitted right-wing writers) and I can't use this guy who by your own bio post is obviously a respected and legitimate commentator.  Double-standard methinks.  Anyway, read it and check his facts with your "sources" for any inaccuracies and educate me, but it seems rather hypocritical to reject it out of hand.

(Russ' response to 'liberals lie') Ha Ha Ha, yeah, I think it's in the bible somewhere.  You have my condolences.  This is too easy!
 
Some examples:
PALIN LIES: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.”

Another example:
PALIN LIES: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Mike Huckabee uses the Big Lie:
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE LIES: Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.”
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor’s election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

(JM) Yeah, like your "facts" about Condolezza Rice being a "liar," which were written by a former staff member of the Bill Clinton administration! Are you serious?