The Contradictory World of Democratic Spin

[Nate]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3133.html
The Contradictory World of Democratic Spin
by George Shadroui
13 February 2004
The President is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the
right for not responding negatively to his critics.
Geez, let me get this straight. To talk about Bill Clinton's avoidance of
military service and his protesting on foreign soil was a divisive,
mean-spirited attempt by Republicans to reignite the bitterness of the
Vietnam War.
To question the President of the United States on his honorable service in
the National Guard during that same war, after it has been discussed in at
least two previous elections, is a fair-minded, intellectual pursuit of
truth.
Right.
What we are witnessing, folks, is hypocrisy so pure that one can only hope
the American people get it before we get stuck with a Democratic
administration long on talk and short on specifics about how it would deal
with the tough issues our nation confronts.
The Big Money scam: The same Democrats who bemoan big money in politics

have

sought out, without shame, the financial support of multi-billionaire

George

Soros even as John Kerry, heir of sorts to hundreds of millions of

dollars,

leverages that wealth to finance his campaign. At least Howard Dean was
honest about his position on campaign finance.
The negativity scam: During the final years of his administration and
throughout the Gore campaign, all we heard about was how Republican attack
dogs had gone after Clinton and the Democrats, which was, in itself, a

gross

distortion. Bush tried to bring a new tone to Washington and has spoken
nary a negative word against his opponents other than to say, aw, shucks,

it

's just politics, and he has been subjected to a non-stop character
assassination by the media and the Democratic leadership. They have called
the president a liar, they have accused him of desertion, they have

claimed

he betrayed and intentionally misled the American people on Iraq, charges
which they know are false because they themselves reviewed the same
intelligence and came to the same conclusions the President did. When the
president's defenders raise legitimate questions about Senator Kerry's
record, however, what is the Democratic response? How dare the Republicans
go negative!
The Iraq flip flop: They supported the war in Iraq; they didn't support

the

war. They supported regime change, as long as it did not require any

action

or political courage. They believed there were WMDs, but now they don't.
Confusing? You bet and hardly a recipe for a coherent foreign policy. Even
more confusing, the allies they want us to repair relations with were
precisely those allies who were most benefiting from a cozy relationship
with Saddam. So while they accuse the President of allowing American
corporations to participate in rebuilding Iraq (and, egads, actually

getting

paid), the Democrats aim little criticism at those nations that would have
allowed a tyrant to persecute his people and defy the international
community so that they might profit.
Spending too much or too little? On the one hand they accuse the president
of being fiscally irresponsible (in the midst of a major war), on the

other

they accuse him of heartlessly trying to destroy programs for the
disadvantaged. In fact, the president has tried to find a healthy middle
ground, spending too much here and there, but also trying to build
incentives and privatization into his proposals that would relieve the
American taxpayers over time.
The homeless conspiracy: And while we are at it, perhaps the time has come
to investigate what might be the most remarkable conspiracy of our time.
Apparently, there is an army of homeless people who are on the Democratic
payroll. As soon as a Republican becomes president, they rush onto the
streets of America. As soon as a Democrat becomes president, they

disappear

even though there has been no change in policy. Where do they go? Where

are

the Democrats keeping them? This could make our holding of suspected
terrorists in Guantanamo Bay a minor issue in comparison, if the media

would

do a little digging.
Corporate scandals: Same is true of corporate scandals, actually. I find

it

remarkable that Enron and other corrupt corporate leaders thrive

throughout

the Clinton years, including hanging out with Clinton, but within months

of

taking office somehow years of misbehavior under Clinton's watch becomes
evidence of Bush's lenience toward big corporations.
The recession: And finally, as we all know, the economic downturn did not
start under Bush. The market was increasingly volatile before Bush ever

took

office, and an economic downturn was seen and predicted while Clinton
occupied the White House. A fair-minded person understands, of course,

that

President Clinton is probably not personally responsible for the

recession,

but as long as Democrats want to assign responsibility, I say pin the tail
on the donkey.
We all know that politics is politics. Republicans have played these games
themselves from time to time. President Bush has stayed true to his
commitment to not engage in a lot of partisan sniping. The result is that

he

is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the right for not
responding negatively to his critics.
The political discourse on the Democratic side during a time of war, in a
post 9/11 world is nothing short of shameful. And it would be a shame if

the

American electorate does not pass judgment on the quality and tenor of

this

rhetoric come November.

Bush's service isn't important … it's the hypocrisy, stupid.



Clinton honestly said he didn't want to go to war and did his best to avoid
it. The problem with Bush is that he used his daddy's connections to avoid
the war, and then prances around in a flight suit under a "Mission
Accomplished" sign like he's John Wayne.



Of course the Democrats have taken some big money. I know it would be
better if they tried to defeat the Republicans with bake sales and tin cups,
but they are so hypocritical. Don't I remember a few in the administration
questioning the patriotism of those who disagreed on Iraq? Well, maybe not.
It must have been a stray Democrat in Republican clothing (expensive suits
with fat wallets).



Yes, Kerry has taken money from "special interests." Yes, he has taken more
money from lobbyists than any other Senator in the past 15 years. But don’t
forget … Bush has raised more money from special interests in 3 years than
Kerry collected in all those years combined. And Bush has raised more
special interest money in those same 3 years than Clinton (you remember, the
“fundraiser in chief”) raised in 8 years.



But, that's because the people love Bush so much, and the people at Enron
who gave the largest donation to Bush's campaign.

[Nate]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3133.html
The Contradictory World of Democratic Spin
by George Shadroui
13 February 2004
The President is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the
right for not responding negatively to his critics.
Geez, let me get this straight. To talk about Bill Clinton's avoidance of
military service and his protesting on foreign soil was a divisive,
mean-spirited attempt by Republicans to reignite the bitterness of the
Vietnam War.
To question the President of the United States on his honorable service in
the National Guard during that same war, after it has been discussed in at
least two previous elections, is a fair-minded, intellectual pursuit of
truth.
Right.
What we are witnessing, folks, is hypocrisy so pure that one can only hope
the American people get it before we get stuck with a Democratic
administration long on talk and short on specifics about how it would deal
with the tough issues our nation confronts.
The Big Money scam: The same Democrats who bemoan big money in politics

have

sought out, without shame, the financial support of multi-billionaire

George

Soros even as John Kerry, heir of sorts to hundreds of millions of

dollars,

leverages that wealth to finance his campaign. At least Howard Dean was
honest about his position on campaign finance.
The negativity scam: During the final years of his administration and
throughout the Gore campaign, all we heard about was how Republican attack
dogs had gone after Clinton and the Democrats, which was, in itself, a

gross

distortion. Bush tried to bring a new tone to Washington and has spoken
nary a negative word against his opponents other than to say, aw, shucks,

it

's just politics, and he has been subjected to a non-stop character
assassination by the media and the Democratic leadership. They have called
the president a liar, they have accused him of desertion, they have

claimed

he betrayed and intentionally misled the American people on Iraq, charges
which they know are false because they themselves reviewed the same
intelligence and came to the same conclusions the President did. When the
president's defenders raise legitimate questions about Senator Kerry's
record, however, what is the Democratic response? How dare the Republicans
go negative!
The Iraq flip flop: They supported the war in Iraq; they didn't support

the

war. They supported regime change, as long as it did not require any

action

or political courage. They believed there were WMDs, but now they don't.
Confusing? You bet and hardly a recipe for a coherent foreign policy. Even
more confusing, the allies they want us to repair relations with were
precisely those allies who were most benefiting from a cozy relationship
with Saddam. So while they accuse the President of allowing American
corporations to participate in rebuilding Iraq (and, egads, actually

getting

paid), the Democrats aim little criticism at those nations that would have
allowed a tyrant to persecute his people and defy the international
community so that they might profit.
Spending too much or too little? On the one hand they accuse the president
of being fiscally irresponsible (in the midst of a major war), on the

other

they accuse him of heartlessly trying to destroy programs for the
disadvantaged. In fact, the president has tried to find a healthy middle
ground, spending too much here and there, but also trying to build
incentives and privatization into his proposals that would relieve the
American taxpayers over time.
The homeless conspiracy: And while we are at it, perhaps the time has come
to investigate what might be the most remarkable conspiracy of our time.
Apparently, there is an army of homeless people who are on the Democratic
payroll. As soon as a Republican becomes president, they rush onto the
streets of America. As soon as a Democrat becomes president, they

disappear

even though there has been no change in policy. Where do they go? Where

are

the Democrats keeping them? This could make our holding of suspected
terrorists in Guantanamo Bay a minor issue in comparison, if the media

would

do a little digging.
Corporate scandals: Same is true of corporate scandals, actually. I find

it

remarkable that Enron and other corrupt corporate leaders thrive

throughout

the Clinton years, including hanging out with Clinton, but within months

of

taking office somehow years of misbehavior under Clinton's watch becomes
evidence of Bush's lenience toward big corporations.
The recession: And finally, as we all know, the economic downturn did not
start under Bush. The market was increasingly volatile before Bush ever

took

office, and an economic downturn was seen and predicted while Clinton
occupied the White House. A fair-minded person understands, of course,

that

President Clinton is probably not personally responsible for the

recession,

but as long as Democrats want to assign responsibility, I say pin the tail
on the donkey.
We all know that politics is politics. Republicans have played these games
themselves from time to time. President Bush has stayed true to his
commitment to not engage in a lot of partisan sniping. The result is that

he

is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the right for not
responding negatively to his critics.
The political discourse on the Democratic side during a time of war, in a
post 9/11 world is nothing short of shameful. And it would be a shame if

the

American electorate does not pass judgment on the quality and tenor of

this

rhetoric come November.

You're right about those corporate scandals. It took a Republican Justice
Department to bring those nasties to justice. Oh, wait ... Kenny boy still
hasn't been indicted, but Martha Stewart is going down!



Yep, Clinton is responsible for the recession, and the eight years of
expansion, the longest expansion in history, and the millions of jobs
created. Yes, Bush is fighting a war and we all must sacrifice and spend
some money we don't have. I mean Johnson fought a real war and didn't have
these deficits, but who's counting.



I'm sure the richest one percent are bearing quite a burden in just counting
the money they get from the Bush tax cuts. Their burden makes me weep. If
only the men and women in Iraq knew how tough that top one percent has it.

[Republican Double Standard]

Post by Nate
Bush's service isn't important … it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Clinton honestly said he didn't want to go to war and did his best to
avoid it. The problem with Bush is that he used his daddy's
connections to avoid the war, and then prances around in a flight suit
under a "Mission Accomplished" sign like he's John Wayne.

It's even more fundamental than this. It's like republicans are saying
that doing for yourself (ie earning a prestigious international
scholarship) is bad but having things given to you only because of who
your daddy is (ie leapfrogging a 500 name waiting list to get into the
"champaigne squadron" of the air national guard) is good. This is the
very antithesis of what America stands for. We are a nation of achievers.
The concept of an elite aristrocracy of priviledge is exactly what the
founding fathers were escaping. What I want to know is why these
republicans hate America so much that they want to turn it into a
combination of colonial England and Soviet Russia.

[Roedy Green]

Geez, let me get this straight. To talk about Bill Clinton's avoidance of
military service and his protesting on foreign soil was a divisive,
mean-spirited attempt by Republicans to reignite the bitterness of the
Vietnam War.
To question the President of the United States on his honorable service in
the National Guard during that same war, after it has been discussed in at
least two previous elections, is a fair-minded, intellectual pursuit of
truth.

What Bush did was ILLEGAL, punishable by death. What Clinton did was
completely legal.

Bush has not been forthcoming. He has recently lost credibility with
the WMD, so the people are not longer willing to give him a pass on
the deserter charge just on his own say so.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.