Blogcritics: Comments on The Liberals' Creed

Comment by bhw

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:39:02 EDT

lol, jack e. jett ....

Comment by jack e. jett

Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:44:41 EDT

long live the liberal creed..... now if i can just get a copy of that gay agenda. jack e. jett

Comment by Mark Saleski

Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:42:18 EDT

david, what 'article'? it's a whole book.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:04:32 EDT

Mark, Alterman's article is, in my opinion, wishful thinking and spin. I read the article and it completely certain tacticts used by mainstream media to promote certain facts while ignoring others. Sins of commission are a problem, but sins of ommission are at least as prevalent and just as troubling. I'm not painting everyone with the same brush, but if you think that there is no liberal bias coming from much of mainstream media then I have a bridge to sell you. And many self-avowed liberals in the media agree with me on this point. Thanks. David

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:19:04 EDT

First of all, Kerry voted against the supplemental funds because he was trailing badly in the polls to Dean. And how do you know this? Did O'Reilly say 'It Was So'? As for Iraq; there's no doubt in my mind that we have done the correct thing. It's amazing to me, how low the bar is set for this President. Conservatives will forgive him for anything. I agree that Saddam needed to be removed from power. How we have done it, has caused far more harm than good. There have been so many intelligence failures. Not only the ones leading up to 9/11, but so many since then. Including the Chalabi/Iran incident(s), the erroneous reports that Saddam was a military force with large stockpiles of WMD, the lack of understanding in how the Arab world would react to an occupation, arresting innocent Americans for terrorism, even when other countries like Spain say 'no, that's NOT his fingerprints', the list just goes on and on and on. This war cabinet, consisting of Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc. can absolutely get away with absolutely anything, and conservatives will still rally behind the cabinet's Commander. If the intent in making Iraq a democracy, was to remove a place for terrorism to hide, it's failed. A man was just arrested in Oregon for trying to set up an Al Queda camp there. Thankfully, we caught that in time. But they're probably here, they're in Germany, Russia, all over Africa, Saudi Arabia - our ally, etc. If there's one thing that Al Queda morphed into, it was something that can hide in a democracy. And according to reports, it's numbers are swelling rather than diminishing. So was the intent of making Iraq a democracy, to free it's people from torture, terror and the horrors of an evil regime? If so, we're awful selective. Sudan is currently going through far worse than Saddam ever did to his own people, and we aren't lifting a finger. The rest of the world sees that, and comments on it, just conservatives don't because it's still above that low bar. The price we are paying for Iraq is totally taking away from the actual war on terror. To fight terror takes more than tanks on city streets. It takes diplomacy. Bush's diplomatic relations with anybody other than Tony Blair is a dismal failure. It takes counter intelligence. With as many intelligence failures as this administration has had already, it's my opinion that Bush has failed with that as well. It takes spies, espionage, and covert intelligence to combat an enemy who hides among the innocent. Not tanks, missiles and bombs. As for Iraq; there's no doubt in my mind that we have done the completely incorrect thing. While it might be natural for you and most other Americans to want the newcomer to prove he's as good as the incumbent, for me, it's like the incumbent is still up at the plate and has missed no less than 20 strikes in a row. Hell, ANY newcomer wouldn't have to prove much at all to be given a chance in my eyes. The fact that there's a newcomer who has proven military experience, a proven record of international diplomacy, and a politician who has spent many years in Washington, is certainly good news to me!

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:47:36 EDT

...and then go ahead and read Alterman's "What Liberal Media"....a well-research total debunking of the liberal media myth.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:44:01 EDT

Mac, I agree that if you talk to AVERAGE liberals, you'll find that most don't agree with the creed. However, if you watch Nightline, Dateline, the Today Show, read papers like the NY Times, The LA Times, or any number of other left-leaning media sources, you'll DEFINITELY see that they are right in line with this creed. Go to MoveOn.org, or even read some of the blog postings from some of our contributors and you'll see the same alignment. Does anyone here know, other than conservatives like myself, that Joe Wilson, in his recent book, "The Politics of Truth," admitted that he was wrong when he claimed that Iraq was not seeking yellow cake uranium in Africa? The press made almost nothing of the fact that, when Joe Wilson was screaming, "BUSH LIED," it was actually he who was wrong. Conservatives are used to this kind of slant from the mainstream media. Nuff said. David

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:11:18 EDT

Boom, First of all, Kerry voted against the supplemental funds because he was trailing badly in the polls to Dean. Dean's antiwar stance was KILLING Kerry, so he did his normal thing and "nuanced" the issue and was one of the very few senators to vote against the funds. Secondly, I don't critisize Kerry's foreign policy experience. As a matter of fact, I agree with you that Bush was in the same boat, or even worse. Bush had NO foreign policy experience, Gore had tons. The irony in my opinion, as I listened to the debates during the 2000 election cycle, was that, eight years earlier, I remember Clinton and Gore having to defend their ability to handle foreign policy issues. This is just another one of those incumbent advantages we see in politics. The acting President has the high ground on this issue. Everyone else has to show that they can come in and do the job just as well or better. As for Iraq; there's no doubt in my mind that we have done the correct thing. Has the President done everything perfectly? No way, but Bush would be attacked on Iraq no matter what course he had chosen. If he hadn't gone in on Iraq, Kerry would right now be campaigning that Bush failed to protect the country by taking out the aggressive dictator. And I'd be nodding in agreement on that point. Nothing that Bush does will ever please the angry left, except resign, of course, which he'll never do. Because of the situation in Iraq, Kerry now has a chance of winning in November, BUT, even if the President does lose (which I still do not think will happen), at least he'll have lost for doing the right thing. Thanks. David

Comment by Shark

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:40:02 EDT

This piece illustrates the true HUGE difference between the Left and Right; the Right does bad satire badly.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:23:58 EDT

The so-called "Liberals's Creed" is clearly partisan sniping. But David Flanagan and RJ Elliot were clearly responding to Natalie's labeling of the piece as "a semantic hate crime targeting millions of Americans", which seems like it might be a touch overwrought. Heck, I'm not even sure what a "semantic hate crime" would actually be, but the label is, well, funny!

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:46:32 EDT

David Flanagan, I suggest you defer to Natalie's Mom. Moms know things. The thing that strikes me in regard to entries like this one is that they rely on not talking to or reading the people they are supposedly about. Ask most liberals and progressives about the topics Alt is nattering about and you would get opinions quite different from anything he says. So, why not ask? Because then one could not produce a far Right diatribe against liberals thinly disguised as a creed.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:02:22 EDT

It's actually pretty hysterical. And also hysterically funny. As a liberal, I found my head nodding yes quite a few times. A lot of that creed is right on the money. A lot of times I was also nodding my head at the thought of 'here goes the generalizations again'. Thank you for giving this liberal laptop whiplash. There's so much to laugh about, but I'll just point out one thing: "We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief." America KNOWS already, that the SUPPLEMENTAL bill which he voted against body armor, constituted less than 1% of the overall total of the bill. America KNOWS that it was the other 99% of the bill he was voting against. America KNOWS that whenever this is touted by conservatives, that a red flashing light goes off in their heads, telling them anything else the conservatives rant about is just as skewed and misrepresentative. From my own personal creed, attacking Kerry's ability to handle national security is just laughable coming from a pro-Bush poster. Bush had never been out of the country before he was president. He had never studied foreign affairs. He had never served in the military beyond 'border patrol' for a southern national guard latrine. He has completely blundered the war on terror and the rebuilding (credibility) of Iraq practically beyond repair. He has made millions and millions more hate us now than before 9/11. He completely flip flops on wanting some people in Iraq dead, then next thing you know, they are recommended for the next positions of power of there. Oh geez, if there's any hope for the future of this country at all, it is with a proven military soldier as commander in chief. not Yosemite Sam, smirking from his Ivory Palace, about the credentials of another to be sherriff.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:57:24 EDT

Not at all. Checked with my mother and rechecked my birth certificate. And checked out many of Alt's previous writings. His obvious intent was to slap libs around.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:50:25 EDT

Hyperbole, thy name is Natalie Davis... ;-]

Comment by David Flanagan

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:01:05 EDT

A "semantic hate crime targeting millions of humans?" Okay, sure, whatever you say. David

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:39:22 EDT

and, just for fun...let's write up a conservatives' creed. no, wait...it's already been done (thank's to Blogging of the President)...here' are some fun bits from the year 2000 Republican Party Platform. smell the irony!!! here goes:

"The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries." [ed. this is referring to Clinton's administration] "Gerrymandered congressional districts are an affront to democracy and an insult to the voters. We oppose that and any other attempt to rig the electoral process." "Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America's intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future." "The current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies. Over the past seven years, a shrunken American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment." "The rule of law, the very foundation for a free society, has been under assault, not only by criminals from the ground up, but also from the top down. An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice." "Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness." "Our goal for NATO is a strong political and security fellowship of independent nations in which consultations are mutually respected and defense burdens mutually shared." "As the traditional advocate of America's veterans, the Republican Party remains committed to fulfilling America's obligations to them. That is why we defeated the administration's attempt to replace veterans' health care with a national system for everybody." "The weak leadership and neglect of the administration have allowed America's intelligence capabilities, including space based systems, to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation surprises such as Iraq's renewed chemical and biological weapons programs." "The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget." "Inspired by Presidents Reagan and Bush, Republicans hammered into place the framework for today's prosperity and surpluses. We cut tax rates, simplified the tax code, deregulated industries, and opened world markets to American enterprise. The result was the tremendous growth in the 1980s that created the venture capital to launch the technology revolution of the 1990s. That's the origin of what is now called the New Economy: the longest economic boom in the Twentieth Century, 40 million new jobs, the lowest inflation and unemployment in memory." [ed. the reason I find this ironic is becaues it contradicts administration claims that the recession began under Clinton] "A Republican president will work with businesses and with other nations to reduce harmful emissions through new technologies without compromising America's sovereignty or competitiveness — and without forcing Americans to walk to work." "We applaud Governor Bush's pledge to name only judges who have demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution." "Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises, the administration constantly enlarges the reach of its rhetoric — most recently in Vice President Gore's "new security agenda" that adds disease, climate, and all the world's ethnic or religious conflicts to an undiminished set of existing American responsibilities. If there is some limit to candidate Gore's new agenda for America as global social worker, he has yet to define it." "A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction." "The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime." "Republicans prefer an America that is far less dependent on foreign crude oil. A Republican president will not be so tolerant if OPEC colludes to drive up the world price of oil, as it has done this past year."

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:35:44 EDT

Hmmm. I'm a liberal. I don't agree with a lot of what is in that creed. The above is less a group creed than it is either a listing of the stereotypes for which Alt has fallen or a semantic hate crime targeting millions of humans. Sad.

Comment by ColdForged

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:35:14 EDT

And moderates nod because partisan political wang-waving is just so damned funny to watch.