Liberals Must Squash Republican Right Wing Talking Points - Comments Page 2

The Republican right wing are great corruptors of the truth. Their talking points have already been published.

The Republican right wing are great corruptors of the truth. Their talking points have already been published. They are all over the airwaves, the blogosphere, the websites, and newspapers with a consistent message. It is imperative that bloggers, liberal or otherwise, do not allow their false talking points to metastasize into the public’s psyche. Each mis-statement, lie, or truth twisting must be addressed immediately with documented facts.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 26 - bhw

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:09 pm

    There were indeed personal attacks in those comments because they were referring to other commenters on this thread. It's still a personal attack if it's aimed a group of specific persons.

  • 27 - Cunning Linguist

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:17 pm

    Political truths I do know who is trying to take away our rights. The Liberals

    I'll use the example of Kelo versus New London that was recently decided by the Supreme Court. In deciding the case it was the liberal judges who rules in favor of the city of New London so that they could seize private property and give it to business. It was the conservative justices who dissented.

    Then after the decision Howard Dean goes on TV and tells people that "George Bush's right wing supreme court is trying to take your rights away," referring to Kelo versus New London. Actually when the case had been decided George Bush hadn't made a single appointment to the supreme court. So it was hardly Bush's Court. And as I mentioned it was the liberal justices who sided with New London. How's that for a liberal talking point Politicaltruths?

    This is who you want leading your party?

    I know Dean is who I want leading the Dem party.


    And as for you Roger, I doubt Bush will take this opportunity to "push back." He's starting to get the message and he knows that you pinkos would never support him no matter what he does so he will do what he needs to do satisfy his conservativebase otherwise he will be facing a very long and troubling remainder of his 2nd term.

  • 28 - Winston Jen

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:20 pm

    Just remember this, CL. When you are crying out for your rights to be defended, remember that you opposed gay rights, women's rights, and the right to assisted suicide.

  • 29 - Cunning Linguist

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    Show me where in my post I said I oppose those things Winston.

  • 30 - Anthony the Sane and Sensible

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:23 pm

    Bhw, I think I will choose this as my single name from now on. If I change my name I will let you know.

    I am a democrat and I am very happy with Dean leading my party.

    I can't wait until we nominate him to run for president.

  • 31 - troll

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:24 pm

    I object to such editorial heavy handedness - may Lenny's spirit haunt your dreams tonight

    troll

  • 32 - PoliticalTruths

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:28 pm

    AG, you prove what I mean when I say that Right Wingers generally do not think things through and for that matter would support diametrically opposing points and not see it.

    You State:
    The Liberals. Roe v. Wade states that a state DOESN'T HAVE THE CHOICE to decide for itself to if abortion is o.k.

    Fact
    The Supreme Court is simply is preventing the state from imposing its will on an individual’s civil rights. It did not remove an individual’s right but instead a state’s right to do so. Thank God for this as many states have been happy to be discriminators over the country’s history (slavery, poll tax, etc).

    You State:
    Liberal judges have decided that a doctor DOESN'T HAVE THE CHOICE to decide for himself/herself to perform an abortion or not.

    This is simply a lie. Any doctor has the right to perform whatever surgery he or she desires. If he works for an employer and not him/herself he must abide by the contract that was signed. A postal worker who hates guns must still deliver the gun manufacturer’s guns and mail.

    You State :
    The Conservatives are not getting into personal lives. We say that a woman cannot kill a baby. It is not personal because the baby is also involved. Me killing my Nazi neighbor is not personal because my Nazi neighbor is also involved.

    This is another closed minded argument. You may believe that life begins at conception and as such abortion is murder. I do not believe that life begins at conception; as such I do not believe abortion is murder. You would want to impose your religious belief of that fact on me. I will not accept it. We can live in peace if those who do not believe in abortion should not have one, and those who have no problems may.

    You State:
    The Conservatives are not getting into personal lives. We say that a man cannot smoke marijuana because it is not personal he is hurting and endangering everyone around him.

    This is hypocritical. Right Wingers generally say “it is not the gun that kills but the person”. Replace the word “gun” with marijuana. You want to impose your will on the thing you arbitrarily do not like and find a shallow argument for what you want to maintain. (e.g., A culture of life that fights for the fetus, and provide little actual meaningful support for the baby, the child, the young adult. A culture of life that values capital punishment. A culture of life that values war at any cost.)

    How can one take the Right Wing seriously? Liberals, we must wake up and challenge these dichotomies. Let us really help the country rid itself of this cancer lest it destroys us as it has already begun.

  • 33 - Winston Jen

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:28 pm

    You are very conservative, CL. That implies that you want government control in activities that you disapprove of, such as private drug use.

  • 34 - Anthony the Sane and Sensible

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:29 pm

    Winston, Gay Rights???

    What right do I have that gays don't???

    Women's Rights???

    What right are you specifically talking about???

  • 35 - Russell Imrie

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:34 pm

    Until a few years ago (80's) female CIA agents had to resign if they married. This did not apply to males. I think that dinosaurs/macho men like Cheney are having their own self-fulfilling prophecy day with exposing Wilson's wife, Valerie. They resent the way things have changed and don't care as much about Valerie's mission/job as they do with fulfilling their own fantasies and empire building.

  • 36 - RogerMDillon

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:35 pm

    I supported him until he started with the litany or errors and mistakes, but of course anyone who uses critical thinking is a "pinko", while the mindless sheep are considered patriots.

    He is already facing a very long and troubling 2nd term and it won't get better for a while.

  • 37 - Cunning Linguist

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    Yes "pinko" Roger.

    If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck.

  • 38 - Anthony the Sane and Sensible

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:42 pm

    Cheney and his crew are against Wilson because she is a women???

    No. It is because she lied about what really happened in Nigeria.

    Roger, he is having a hard second term??? Isn't that what you guys said about his first term when he was up for re-election???

  • 39 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 30, 2005 at 7:55 pm

    >>If facts are getting spun in a manner not to your liking, wouldn't you try to "spin" them back in a manner you see as both truthful and beneficial to your side? Your argument, in my view, does not hold.<<

    Spinning the facts your way is a reasonable defensive response, but that can't be all you have to offer. The problem the Demos have and have had for quite a while is a complete inability to offer appealing alternatives that people believe in. It may be a fundamental flaw in the party, because the only people who have new ideas are extremists who can't offer them in a mainstream-enough way to appeal to the general public.

    Dave

  • 40 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 30, 2005 at 8:15 pm

    I think "complete inability" is hyperbolic and is, in fact... spin! Bush needed the Supreme Court in '00 and had a modest victory a year ago in an environment whipped into a frenzy of fear and... spin (see: Swift Boats), etc.

    And to counter the spin: the Dems have plenty of good ideas, and I believe they'll put together a very solid agenda in '06.

  • 41 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 30, 2005 at 8:24 pm

    >>And to counter the spin: the Dems have plenty of good ideas, and I believe they'll put together a very solid agenda in '06.<<

    Let's hear a few that are both 'good' ideas and also acceptable to the general public.

    Dave

  • 42 - Winston Jen

    Oct 30, 2005 at 8:29 pm

    If the Dems propose a Roe vs. Wade referendum-style law for assisted suicide, they stand a good chance in the blue states. It passed in Oregon, after all.

  • 43 - RogerMDillon

    Oct 30, 2005 at 8:42 pm

    Not really a cunning comeback, but so few on the right are known for their wit or intelligence, so I'm not surprised.

  • 44 - Cunning Linguist

    Oct 30, 2005 at 10:38 pm

    Yeah we're just known for winning elections in the past 12 years Roger.

  • 45 - RogerMDillon

    Oct 30, 2005 at 11:24 pm

    I'm sorry, what office did you run for? You are no different than a sports fan who has jumped on the bandwagon of the front runner. When you actuallly accomplish something then you can use "we."

  • 46 - MCH

    Oct 30, 2005 at 11:31 pm

    Agreed Roger, he's a front runner and a phoney.

    Just like he "supports" the war, as long as it's someone else risking their necks over there...

  • 47 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 30, 2005 at 11:33 pm

    Sorry Winston, I like the idea, but you can't pass it as a law on a national level, it's too controversial. Dems would slit their wrists by endorsing something like that. They need new, realistic plans on existing major issues.

    Dave

  • 48 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 30, 2005 at 11:33 pm

    Polls consistently indicate that the majority of the American people are on the side of Democrats on most major issues, particularly on the domestic agenda. And of course the President and Congress' poll numbers have sunk across the board of late.

    Republicans have been better lately at mobilizing their base, there's no doubt. Additionally, they've used national security as a weapon effectively.

    But all indications are that many of the advantages that the GOP has enjoyed this decade are slipping away. If I were a GOP strategist, I'd be anything but over-confident right now. The best news for them is that 2006 is a year away.

  • 49 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 12:09 am

    Eric, if most people are pro-Democrat, how do you explain that independents tend to vote republican about 70-30?

    What's really going on here is that if you go issue by issue people support the democrats on more issues than the republicans, but if you rate the issues by importance to the actual voters then on the ones they consider make or break issues - particularly economic issues - they favor the republicans.

    The unspoken truth is that most of the middle class people who make up the bulk of the voting population don't really give a rat's ass about Roe vs. Wade or the environment or health insurance for poor people who don't vote - though they do have nominal positions on these issues. They REALLY care about their paycheck, their tax bill and how the stock market is doing. So the republicans win again and again.

    Dave

  • 50 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 31, 2005 at 1:02 am

    I agree that people tend to vote their pocket book, though security issues were a gut check issue in '04, which hurt the Dems for a variety of reasons (some fair, some not).

    I don't know where you're getting that independents vote Republican by a 70-30 margin. That sounds completely out of whack to me. In fact, if you go by the conventional wisdom that roughly 1/3 of the voting public are Dems, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 Independent, it's impossible for those figures to be correct given the popular outcome of the election.

  • 51 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 2:21 am

    As of the last election there were slightly more voters claiming to be Democrats than Republicans - like 42% to 35%. The remaining 23% are Independents. So 35 republicans plus 70% of 23 independents (16) equals 51% of the total vote. Of course, there were also crossover votes. 8-15% of each party usually crosses over and votes the other way. Less in 2004 as I recall. But those folks usually cancel each other out.

    Dave

  • 52 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 31, 2005 at 2:52 am

    Dave, your numbers are completely wrong.

    From CNN:

    * 37% of voters identified themselves as Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 26% Independents.

    * Dems went 11% for Bush, 89% for Kerry
    * Repubs went 93% for Bush, 6% for Kerry
    * Independents went 48% for Bush, 49% for Kerry

    Thus, one of the main storylines of the 2004 election was that in a tightly divided nation, the Republicans (led by Rove in this effort) were able to mobilize their conservative base to an unprecedented extent.

    Kerry went for the middle, won narrowly, yet still lost the popular vote by several percentage points.

  • 53 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 3:42 am

    My numbers came from a Gallup poll conducted right before the 04 election. Your CNN numbers are from the exit polls which have already been established as having been crap. And those party breakdowns just don't match what's generally reported. Virtually every poll except for that exit poll has the Democrats with more acknowledged adherents than the GOP. There's a Harris Poll site which shows the historic pattern of democrat and republican allegiance. As for the independent voters, the 70/30 split is typical in local and state elections. It may be closer in national elections.

    Dave

  • 54 - Silas Kain

    Oct 31, 2005 at 7:57 am

    The Gates of Hell have been unleashed as news reports have leaked the name of Samuel Alito as the new nominee. He is a darling of the uber-conservatives and in some circles is referred to as "Scalito". This is just what we need -- a Scalia clone. The White House will have given their conservative backers a candidate they can orgasm to. George W. Bush may very well have fired the shot that will cause this nation to go into Civil War. I honestly don't think that I am that far off base in making the charge. If SCOTUS whittles away at certain civil liberties and proceeds to overturn Roe v. Wade that will get the ball rolling. The final nail in the coffin will be the outlawing of "gay marriage". There will be civil unrest like nothing that has been seen since the 60's. Perhaps, GWB is doing us a favor by nominating this guy. It will be just enough to get the American people to wake up and smell the oil spill.

  • 55 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 8:38 am

    Silas, you're overreacting just a teensy wee bit, aren't you? Another Scalia isn't exactly a disaster. Scalia has been far more reliable in upholding the constitution than several of the other justices. Plus, Alito has a history of supporting basic abortion rights, so on that issue there's not going to be a major problem unless you believe in the absolute right to partial birth abortion. Even more importantly, Alito has ruled in support of constitutional precedent and the idea of established law a number of times.

    It'll take a lot more than this to spark popular outrage. Further outraging the extreme left who already exist in a state on continual systematic outrage isn't going to change anything.

    Dave

  • 56 - Scott

    Oct 31, 2005 at 8:38 am

    I believe Eric's numbers. I mean, Independents vote for Republicans 70/30? That doesn't ring true.

  • 57 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 8:45 am

    Independents don't vote 70/30 Republican in every election, just on certain issues and in the 2004 presidential election. They tend to break down that way on economic issues, and break the other way, like 60/40 for the Democrats on social issues. But in a national election economic issues trump social issues, which most people assume are more a matter of state politics.

    Dave

  • 58 - troll

    Oct 31, 2005 at 8:46 am

    this discussion of numbers is nice but the question remains - what good ideas are the Dems floating to make their (non-existent) agenda attractive for 06 and 08 - ?

    take your diversionary polls off my bridge

    troll

  • 59 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 8:52 am

    I believe their main campaign idea is 'Bush is Hitler' which isn't going to get them very far in 08 when he's not running.

    Dave

  • 60 - Nancy

    Oct 31, 2005 at 9:00 am

    I hate to say it, Silas, but I don't think most Americans are so concerned with gay rights that they'd be either outraged or that it will cause civil unrest, and there aren't enough gays/lesbians to create that kind of disturbance, either. People will "tsk-tsk" & go back to worrying about gas prices, if they react at all. For most, if they're not gay, it's not an issue. I'll have to agree w/Dave on this one. Sorry.

  • 61 - troll

    Oct 31, 2005 at 9:25 am

    A virus free chicken in every pot and a hybrid car in every zoning approved garage

    Vote (?) - (s)he is not a crook

    troll

  • 62 - Scott

    Oct 31, 2005 at 9:56 am

    The one big issue I can think of on the Dem agenda that will come up in '08 is universal healthcare.

  • 63 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 10:08 am

    If the best they can come up with is another rapacious socialized solution to healthcare then they're doomed as usual.

    Dave

  • 64 - Scott

    Oct 31, 2005 at 10:59 am

    Wishful thinking as usual for you Dave. What exactly do the Republicans have to run on in '06? Bupkis. Except to say "I'm with you guys, I don't support Bush either." and "We've only begun to drive this country into the ground!"

  • 65 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 31, 2005 at 11:16 am

    Dave, your position still makes no sense:

    My numbers came from a Gallup poll conducted right before the 04 election. Your CNN numbers are from the exit polls which have already been established as having been crap. And those party breakdowns just don't match what's generally reported. Virtually every poll except for that exit poll has the Democrats with more acknowledged adherents than the GOP. There's a Harris Poll site which shows the historic pattern of democrat and republican allegiance. As for the independent voters, the 70/30 split is typical in local and state elections. It may be closer in national elections.

    The Harris link you provided doesn't talk about a 70/30 split I can see.

    But the fact remains that, given the outcome, it's impossible for independents to have voted for Bush in the numbers you've alleged. And the CNN exit polling of more than 13,000 voters backs me and the established conventional wisdom espoused after the election.

  • 66 - Silas Kain

    Oct 31, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    ...I don't think most Americans are so concerned with gay rights ...

    I totally agree, Nancy. That's why it is the third item in my litany. I don't think I'm over reacting by any stretch at this stage. Think about it for a moment. What if this new SCOTUS hands down some extremely conservative rulings that give law enforcement and government broader control over our civil rights? On top of that, what if they then overturn Roe v. Wade? Beyond that, the gay marriage issue would just be icing on the cake. I honestly think that an over zealous conservative court would lead to civil unrest. There's a quiet sense of uneasiness in the nation right now. The President's popularity is at an all time low. We're the kind of people that tend to ignore problems until the manure hits the fan. Right now, the fan is turned on and the manure is positioned to be flung.

  • 67 - Nancy

    Oct 31, 2005 at 1:59 pm

    I've come to the unhappy conclusion, Silas, that most Americans these days are incurably, deeply apathetic - even when it's their own hides at stake. Otherwise, they should have been raising hell about all these breaks for the oil companies, etc. long, long ago. It's not like it was in the 60's or 70's, when you could get a couple hundred thousand marching almost at the drop of a hat. I think Ipods & electronic games have fried what few brains they were born with.

  • 68 - Silas Kain

    Oct 31, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    Lord, Nancy, I think you may be on to something. I was watching news accounts of the folks in Florida in the aftermath of Wilma. They were talking about hardly being able to survive without plumbing, electricity and gasoline. Um, folks, what would you have done previous to 1900? We're a spoiled, self-indulgent society. We have come to expect that all the modern conveniences are a Constitutional right. Kids aren't happy without their X-box, iPod, PS2 and toll free number to Children's Services. Parents don't parent any more -- they are too busy working 3.5 jobs to pay for the modern conveniences, day care and baby sitters for their kids. If a kid had to go without a video game for longer than 24 hours it's like dealing with a heroin addict that ran out of smack. Americans are just a blown up power plant away from returning to candles and talking to each other.

  • 69 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Silas, there's no constitutional right to gay marriage. There's no constitutional right to a government authorized marriage of any sort. What the Supreme Court ought to do when faced with a gay marriage case is strike down state sanctioned marriage laws alltogether and say that people are free to associate and form contractual relationships regardless of relative gender. That would be a true, conservative position.

    Dave

  • 70 - Nancy

    Oct 31, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    There was a recent item on one of the radio news reports of a study that showed that people these days (especially those under 40) are almost totally unable to either handle silence or entertain themselves without electronic prompts, and a scarey percentage are unable to feed themselves without access to convenience foods, fast food, or microwaves! Good God!

  • 71 - Silas Kain

    Oct 31, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    I agree, Dave. There's no Constitutional right to ANY marriage. The bottom line is that marriage is a contract in secular terms. Two people should have the right to enter into that contract regardless of all the broo-ha-ha. Unfortunately, we will have a Supreme Court with two rabid Catholics (Scalia and Scalita). The conservatives will be in the majority though I sense that the Chief Justice will not be a puppet of Conservatism. There's something about him that I sense is different. Maybe Bill Maher is right in his assumptions of the good C.J.

  • 72 - Eric Berlin

    Oct 31, 2005 at 5:00 pm

    Dave, if you could respond to my last comment when you get a chance, that would be super.

  • 73 - Dave Nalle

    Oct 31, 2005 at 5:09 pm

    What is there to respond to, Eric? You don't agree. You'd rather believe a poll which came up with the wrong outcome to the election and then had to be fixed after the fact. The basic truth here is that people lie in exit polls and they've been proven to be among the most innacurate. I have more faith in polls taken in true anonymity where people are more dispasionate and have no motivation to lie.

    >>The Harris link you provided doesn't talk about a 70/30 split I can see.<<

    That comes from a Gallup poll which I don't have the original link for, but it's borne out by a number of other polls which ask people how they were planning to vote in 2004 and break it down by party affiliation, including 'independent'.

    >>But the fact remains that, given the outcome, it's impossible for independents to have voted for Bush in the numbers you've alleged.<<

    Why? I did the math based on that Harris poll and it works out exactly right.

    >>And the CNN exit polling of more than 13,000 voters backs me and the established conventional wisdom espoused after the election. <<

    The established conventional wisdom is that the exit polls are completely worthless.

    Dave

  • 74 - Non Phixion

    Nov 01, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    This country is fucked.

  • 75 - Non Phixion

    Nov 01, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    I hope you fucking parties are happy putting yourselves above the people. Thanks for being such as great help. I'm gonna piss on the walls of the police station now and take a shit on the steps of my grandmother's steps now. I won't do much, but i don't have the guns to shoot the president yet. You wait 'til i get my unemployment check. Protect ya groin. Ka-pow.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Mar 21, 2010

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for February

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs

Upcoming Stories from Blogcritics
  •