New Republic even bashes Kerry's flip-flopping

your previous attempts to shoot down even the most benign criticism of kerry belie your evasive comeback.

i've said it many times before, but here is a challenge for all the liberals on this board. It's no secret i like bush, yet i have posted several articles, and started several threads, that are critical of some bush policy or another. i have yet to see a single liberal post a single comment/article/opinion that is critical in some way of one of the democrats vis-a-vis bush (inter-dem comments ala kerry-v-edwards don't count). so how 'bout it? are you all just dem bobbleheads? anybody man enough to start a thread critical of kerry?

 

What? I've criticized Clinton for his perjury among other things. I've criticized both Edwards and Kerry for their votes on the war, and patriot act. I have plenty to criticize them about.

 

See the thread Powerful Issue for the Democrats- It starts off with a critique of the Democratic party as a whole.

 

basso, don't be silly. I've criticized Kerry plenty. (Does calling him a scumbag count, for example?) And I don't think there's a single poster of note on this board who's really championed him as anything other than a mechanism for beating Bush. IIRC he wasn't the enthusiastic first choice of anyone here, while we've had many such backers of Dean, Edwards and Clark. But the fact remains, the party is united behind whomever is the nominee. This is unprecedented in recent party history. Even Clinton didn't enjoy this kind of univeral support within the party. All the way through the 92 convention (and I know -- I was there) there was a substantial ABC movement, including a significant number of Draft Cuomo types. Barring a major scandal you will not see that this year. By contrast, this year primary exit polls show that around 79% of Democrats think Kerry would be a good nominee regardless of who they voted for and Edwards is close behind on that question.

Democrats aren't demonstrating uncharacteristic, near universal support for Kerry and/or Edwards because they're perfect or even terribly well liked and they aren't doing it because they're bobbleheads (oh, the irony!). They're doing it because there is an unprecedented, unmistakeable agreement among Democrats that Bush is an incredibly dangerous, incredibly destructive president and we will happily break with party tradition to unite in the important cause of beating him. And it's not just Democrats. Considerably less than half of the country identifies as Democrats and yet Kerry leads Bush by twelve points. And though you may have criticized Bush on some issues (I can't remember which, but I'll take your word), you continue to parrot the party line on issues that even mainstream Republicans no longer confidently defend. If you want to know why Democrats and others aren't more vocal in their criticism of Kerry, the answer is simple: Bush.

This election will be one thing more than any other. It will be a referendum on Bush and his policies. And that is why, regardless of various warts, the Democratic nominee will win. I gotta tell you, it's great to be in the political company of the majority of Americans. It was getting lonely (and really frigging scary) there for a while. But happy days are here again. Well, for most of us. My condolences to those of you on the lunatic fringe right. Some of your closest ideological friends will be voting with us this time around. That's gotta hurt.

 

This is about the dumbest thing I've seen here...

 

Holy Zogby, Batman! (you never told me where the moniker came from...)you found a poll that has Bush trailing 10 months before the election! well, as we all know, polls are just snapshots of the public's mood at any given moment, and right now, while interesting, they have no bearing on what will occur in november. wait until after the post-convention bounce for both parties, alond about Oct 1. if bush still has 12 points to make up, you may have a point. btw, whose brilliant idea was it to schedule the democrats' convention in july, before the summer olympics. think the public's going to have something else on its mind for the rest of the summer?

Moreover, as i know you're aware, the polular vote, while interesting, means nothing with the electoral college. there are somme interesting thought here on where that contest stands. the writer has construed things so they're most negative to Bush, and he still gets 300 ECV. ignore the partisan "21 reasons" and concentrate on the methodology and conclusions.

as far as parroting the party line, if there're so many "prominent republicans' criticising it, how can it be the party line any longer? my positions are based on principle, and even if W repudiated the war tomorrow i would still feel it was the right thing to do. so of us are still able to think for ourselves and don't need W, Kerry, the NYTimes or the editorial board of the WSJ to tell us what to think. it must be a bummer for you to realize that even with all your pursuasive powers there remain people who look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. principles are just that, and shouldn't be mocked simply because it feels good to be snarky!

 

basso: I totally agree about the polls. I just think it's wild that you keep presenting 'evidence' that Bush's failed policies are working contrary to virtually every single news story. (Was the media always wrong back when they refused to criticize Bush?) As of today, at least, finally, most of America does not agree with you. And many people who previously supported various Bush positions (most especially the war) thought better of it when more evidence came to light (on the war and on the economy). What blows my mind about your position is that you seem to be absolutely non-plussed by every single piece of evidence that doesn't support your steadily refuted position on the war. No matter how many ways Bush winds up wrong you just keep saying he's right. There are principles and then there's just weird stubbornness. MacBeth doesn't call you guys the Ostrich Brigade for nothing. Even so, props to you for sticking around when the only other people still speaking for your side are giddyup (the stubbornest of them all, but still a decent enough guy) and the hilarious trio of bama (who wants to crush countries who might someday want to harm us even if they can't and whose idea of wit is to repeatedly tell people they can't tell their heads from their asses - good one! next he'll be calling us doodoo heads.), Nomar (who believes that 9/11 gives us license to wipe out an entire religion) and Trader Poof. It can't be easy.

bama: Wow. I mean just wow. You keep on surprising me. What color is the sky in your world? Wow. Just speechless.

 

What a steaming pile of cr*p!
Do you even read threads? Or do you just skim until you see something you agree with or something so utterly outlandish that you think you can pick it apart. I was an early Clark supporter, basso-profundo, and have had very little to say about Kerry at all, except for things that were critical, but that I would vote for him or anyone else who was the Democratic nominee in order to kick Bush out on his ***.

You have been given columns and comments from prominent Republicans, some today, that you just ignore because it doesn't fit your narrow little mindset. You are so intent on being "right" about Bush that you blind yourself, deliberately, to any other point of view from your own party. It's pretty pathetic, really.

Well, no one can accuse you of "flip-flopping", basso. You will continue to sing the praises of your guy, like a crewman on the Titanic who's looking around in disbelief as she goes down, muttering that she's unsinkable. Go right ahead. But at least do me the courtesy of reading my posts if you are going to attribute something to them. Then, just maybe, you'll be accurate.

 

Reply with some substance. Why is it dumb? Do you agree that John Kerry has flip flopped ? If he has, how so? Explain how while George Bush's policy for pre-emptive war might seem extreme and caused soldiers to lose their lives, you think it is the right decision in order to form true democracy in the middle east..... or something. I've seen your replies in other threads, and they are exactly this one. You've proven that you like George Bush , now give people some reasons as to why, man.

 

I love it when bamaslammer talks about "fringe nutjobs" and "whackos"; that's the point when I have trouble deciding whether he is the dumbest or most brilliant person in the universe.

 

Not to pick on you RM95 (because you don't start most of the threads-- it's just that your comment provides the perfect launching off point), but why is this kind of qualification not required/provided for all the liberal critiques?

 

Because the original title of the thread (I think? or was it alway NR even?) was "Even New Republic bashes Kerry's flip-flopping", implying that even alleged media liberals (of course, most people right of Ayn Rand are liberals to BS) are beating up on Kerry.

Nothing could be further from the truth; Sullivan is a dyed in the wool bush covered it republican.

 

Yes. Centrist as compared to Lenin. That would put me in the middle. Geometry rules.

 

"We need a Pearl Light cleanup on RM95's keyboard"

 

uhm, no, if you read his blog you'll see he's extremely critical of bush. might it surprise you to discover they have divergent views on homosexual marriage?

 

thank you for your unusually thoughtful and measured comments. if you'll read my post thoroughly you'll note i said i wasn't referring to intra-lib disputes, but rather kerry,edwards, clark, etc. vis-a-vis their republican opponent, or just in their own right. despite your comments, and batman's, i still haven't see it. if i'm wrong, i'd be delighted to be enlightend. link?

 

Yes, basso has a valid point. I can't believe none of you ostrich libs have spoken up about Kerry's disastrous fiscal policies and his hamfisted intelligence operation, which failed to detect the re-armament of Rhode Island.

No, you'll talk all day long about what's wrong with Bush's foreign policy, but when did any of y ou haters talk about Vermont's foreign policy while Dean was the frontrunner? I"ll tell you, tensions with Prince Edward Islands really took a turn for the worse when old Deano took the reins, and his maple syrup tariffs -- pure political pandering. Disgusting

 

andrew's blog had this link to this cute Flash movie