Patterico's Pontifications

5/24/2008

Accidental Honesty from a Democrat

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am



Democrats sort of stretched the facts?

No. I refuse to believe it.

50 Responses to “Accidental Honesty from a Democrat”

  1. the obscure polack in the link speaks only for himself.

    assistant devil's advocate (865cd9)

  2. ada….he may only speak for himself, but no way is he smart enough to have thought of it himself, otherwise, he’d be smart enough to have shut up..

    So, you’re wrong….

    reff (e20e4c)

  3. And the fact of the matter is that they promised it, they knew they couldn’t deliver and they didn’t try to. There’s no new revelation here.

    Pablo (99243e)

  4. lol, well, the fact is the dems have painted themselves into a corner in the war on terror and, if you believe joe lieberman, all for partisan gain. eventually, this is going to catch up with the dem party, its just a matter of time.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  5. I love it when defenders of diversity, multi-culturalism, and compassion, use derogatory terms towards those on the same side of the aisle.
    The “p” word, ada?
    You should be ashamed, but I know you’re not.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  6. And so what reason does the elite media have to ever abandon them? I know, everything is Bush’s fault. Dem Congress and gas prices are through the roof. Dems don’t want any oil exploration in US or off-shore and yet the Chinese are drilling in the Caribbean. War in Afghnistan is ok because Iraq sucks. If no war in Iraq, Afghanistan war would be deemed wrong too. Obamatard talks of invading Pakistan. Bring me the head of Osam bin laden. Big whoop-like that will change anything.

    We hear talk of a dem tidal wave in November giving them larger majorities and a Marxist POTUS- raise taxes, spend big time on entitlements like socialized health care and withdraw from war on terror. If it happens the american voter okayed it and it another clueless asshat. What really is “free” from the government. Sheeple of the world unite. Libs feck up and are never held accountable- look at Bobby Byrd in W.Va., Pelosi, Ried and Murtha. Great leaders for sure. Play politics while Rome burns, morons.

    madmax333 (c54144)

  7. Patterico:

    Are we to believe that you believe that Republicans never stretch the facts? If not, the title of your post is silly.

    madmax333:

    They Democrats may be playing politics while Rome burns, but it was Republicans that lit the first match.

    Leviticus (b50b64)

  8. #7 actually has a point, mccain said he got the message and promised to work on securing the border and now he’s stabbing conservatives in the back by talking comprehensive amnesty again.

    chas (12a229)

  9. Just remember that old axiom about moving lips.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  10. Just remember that old axiom about moving lips.

    Also remember the maxim that democrat politicians can never say what they really think prior to an election, because then nobody would vote for them.

    There are of course exceptions to every rule and people like Maxine Waters and now Obama with his fixation on negotiation (legitimization) with enemies let their masks slip.

    Equal misery rather than equal opportunity for all.

    daleyrocks (7b62a8)

  11. Are we to believe that you believe that Republicans never stretch the facts? If not, the title of your post is silly.

    The title of this post makes perfect sense. We know about how Democrats lied to us because one of them was accidentally honest about it.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  12. You mean to tell me the demacrooks are acuialy telling the truth for once? or is it the fact its a election year and they just want to retail control

    krazy kagu (a47a9f)

  13. Dog. Bites. Man.

    Al (b624ac)

  14. Patterico:

    So what? You’re going to point it out every time a politician lies/stretches the truth? You don’t have the bandwidth.

    The title of this post is silly. You know as well as I that politics is a dirty business, and that one side breaks the rules as much as the other. To feign some ideological moral superiority is disingenuous.

    Leviticus (fe6d1b)

  15. That’s the point, Leviticus, it was the Democrats feigning.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. And it wasn’t just one; they feigned in collusion. One slipped up and admitted it.

    Paul (de3f43)

  17. Sounds like someone needs a blog of their own on which they can write about the things that interest them.

    Pablo (99243e)

  18. Levitivcus,

    “The title of this post is silly. You know as well as I that politics is a dirty business, and that one side breaks the rules as much as the other. To feign some ideological moral superiority is disingenuous.”

    Your quoted paragraph is not intellectually consistent. Let us stipulate the truth of the meat of your argument, that politics are dirty. One side or the other may break the rules more than another, it would take a long time trying to prove it one way or another. I have my suspicions which way it would break but for the moment let us concede 50/50.

    The title of the post “Accidental Dishonesty” is not silly, it is sarcastic. “Accidental Honesty” would be accurate and in itself honest. But back to your quality of rational thinking. Whether or not both sides break rules in an equal fashion as a generality has little bearing on a specific instance.

    That the Democratic Party would seek to undercut the effectiveness of a national wartime effort, to diminish the accomplishments of our fellow citizens engaged in combat, to place said combatants in greater danger by giving moral support to the enemy is bad enough. To do it with knowing dishonesty and malice to undercut a political opponent and gain power is immoral.

    Pointing out the obvious immorality of a rival political party that is acting in an immoral fashion is not feigning moral superiority, it is calling a spade a spade. I do not believe you to be a bad person. Indeed I believe you to have good indentations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sadly you place a greater burden upon, and limit the chances of, an effective solution

    Amused Observer (fa6614)

  19. “The title of the post “Accidental Dishonesty” is not silly, it is sarcastic.”

    – Amusing (sic) Observer

    You might want to check the title of the post again.

    “I believe you to have good indentations.”

    – Amusing (sic) Observer

    Thanks. I’m quite fond of them.

    Leviticus (261c17)

  20. “That’s the point, Leviticus, it was the Democrats feigning.”

    – SPQR

    Sure, and they’re weasels for doing so.
    But don’t pretend that the Democrats are the only politicians that betray the interests of their constitutents, or lie about doing so. That’s my only point. I mean, where has immigration reform gone in the past couple years? You could make the same argument about that contentious issue as you could make about this one.

    “Sounds like someone needs a blog of their own on which they can write about the things that interest them.”

    -Pablo

    Why? Because I disagree with the tone of a post? This is a great site not only because of the general quality of the observations of the host (and his guest-posters) but because that same host fosters an atmosphere that encourages dissent and honest discussion. I don’t find this post to be in keeping with that established spirit; it’s an unnecessary (and somewhat hypocritical) partisan jab.

    Leviticus (261c17)

  21. But don’t pretend that the Democrats are the only politicians that betray the interests of their constitutents, or lie about doing so.

    Okay, Leviticus, name an election where there was collusion on the part of Republicans in presenting a lie of that magnitude simply to get elected. Name one instance where, say, 50 or more Republicans cooperated in organized, on-the-same-page lying simply to win an election.

    Simply naming one Republican doesn’t count. Levi-type fantasies don’t either.

    And while you’re at it, answer this: why does Patterico have to include a disclaimer that “both sides do it” to use that post title? You think the diarists at Daily Kos include any such disclaimers that “both sides do it” when they publish their posts?

    Paul (de3f43)

  22. “Okay, Leviticus, name an election where there was collusion on the part of Republicans in presenting a lie of that magnitude simply to get elected. Name one instance where, say, 50 or more Republicans cooperated in organized, on-the-same-page lying simply to win an election.”

    – Paul

    Are you kidding me? In 2004, one of the Republican party’s primary campaign tenets was a “Defense of Marriage” amendment/gay-marriage ban. What have they done on that since then? Are you going to pretend that that wasn’t just a ploy to garner votes?

    You whine about Democrats lying about getting us out of a war and forget all about the Republicans who lied to get us into one (for much the same reasons, I’d imagine – political benefit).

    “And while you’re at it, answer this: why does Patterico have to include a disclaimer that “both sides do it” to use that post title? You think the diarists at Daily Kos include any such disclaimers that “both sides do it” when they publish their posts?”

    – Paul

    Fuck Daily Kos. The place is a mental cesspool where mindless acolytes go to engage in an ideological circle-jerk. That’s not the kind of company you ought to strive to keep. This place is better than that, exponentially so, and we all ought to act accordingly.

    Leviticus (db589d)

  23. Leviticus, I do not think the GOP lies to this scale. They sold themselves as ending the murder of our troops by the horrors of war, and then did nothing. That’s more than quibbling on pork.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  24. forget all about the Republicans who lied to get us into one

    There’s nothing to substantiate that. Never has been. That is a dishonest statement in its own right.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  25. Are you kidding me? In 2004, one of the Republican party’s primary campaign tenets was a “Defense of Marriage” amendment/gay-marriage ban.

    Since it was put up for a vote and most Republicans voted for it, where was the deception? Anyone who campaigned on it and voted for it and wasn’t being deceptive. Who said they were for it and didn’t vote for it?

    Plus, trying to get it passed and failing doesn’t hurt anything. The constant talking down of the war effort was probably very damaging.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  26. Not only did the Democrats lie about their intentions regarding the war, but the Democrats used the war for partisan purposes.

    A recent study by two Harvard economists shows that public dissent in the United States has caused increased attacks against civilians and American soldiers in Iraq, so for the purposes of obtaining partisan advantage, the Democrats in Congress found nothing wrong with putting American servicemen and Iraqi civilians in danger. And now, they joke about it.

    This is shameful.

    Neo (cba5df)

  27. This place is better than that, exponentially so, and we all ought to act accordingly.

    of all the people to insist Patterico.com subscribe to a higher standard than dailykos….

    chas (12a229)

  28. Are you kidding me? In 2004, one of the Republican party’s primary campaign tenets was a “Defense of Marriage” amendment/gay-marriage ban. What have they done on that since then? Are you going to pretend that that wasn’t just a ploy to garner votes?

    DOMA Legislative Action: 2003, 2004 and 2005/2006. I’d say that was more than a “ploy” to garner votes.

    forget all about the Republicans who lied to get us into one

    I’ll assume you mean Iraq.

    Ever read UN Resolution 1441? (Note: the link is to a PDF document)

    This place is better than that, exponentially so, and we all ought to act accordingly.

    Then how come you didn’t bring up Equal Opportunity Criticism (both sides do it) whenever Patrick criticizes a Republican? Hmnn?

    Paul (de3f43)

  29. “I believe you to have good indentations.”

    LOL, you can’t do better than my spelling mistakes as a defense? Dissent is acceptable and can be judged on its own merits. It is not much of a stretch to bring up the idea of giving aid and comfort to the enemy with regards to knowingly and actively committing fraud to undermine our war efforts. The Soviets had a term for well meaning folks filled with good intentions, it begins with useful.

    Amused Observer (b4e422)

  30. “Since it was put up for a vote and most Republicans voted for it, where was the deception? Anyone who campaigned on it and voted for it and wasn’t being deceptive. Who said they were for it and didn’t vote for it?

    Plus, trying to get it passed and failing doesn’t hurt anything. The constant talking down of the war effort was probably very damaging.”

    – Gerald A

    The Democrats have done the same thing with the war, passed bills that would set timelines to get us out of Iraq. Bush has vetoed those bills, and the Dems don’t have enough votes to override his vetoes.

    …Which isn’t meant to let them off the hook, because they could shut the government down until he concedes the point, and they don’t. But still, if one is deception, so is the other.

    “Then how come you didn’t bring up Equal Opportunity Criticism (both sides do it) whenever Patrick criticizes a Republican? Hmnn?”

    – Paul

    I’m not sure what you mean. Is “Equal Opportunity Criticism” an actual thing, or is it a term you just coined (it’s an honest question)?

    For what it’s worth, I’m pretty good about criticizing misconduct on both sides of the aisle. At least I think I am.

    Leviticus (2a3d0d)

  31. “Then how come you didn’t bring up Equal Opportunity Criticism (both sides do it) whenever Patrick criticizes a Republican? Hmnn?”

    – Paul

    Ok. I just reread that and got it.

    I can’t think of a time when Patterico has made an offhand, blanket indictment of Republicans (as a party) of the sort he just made about Democrats. If he did make such an indictment, I hope that I would have the presence of mind to criticize it in a like manner. Even if I didn’t, I’m sure you guys would.

    Leviticus (2a3d0d)

  32. Except, Lev, the GOP doesn’t run on huge platforms on a single issue it refuses to actually take action on!

    The democrats, as a body, have been shown here to be extremely dishonest, and all attempts to portray the GOP as equals as some kind of smokescreen to cover the DNC’s lies up are falling way short. You even claim that old canard ‘Bush lied’. You couldn’t be any less serious.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  33. I can’t think of a time when Patterico has made an offhand, blanket indictment of Republicans (as a party) of the sort he just made about Democrats.

    Leviticus, this is a rap on Congressional Democrats, not anyone with a D after their name.

    Pablo (99243e)

  34. The Democrats have done the same thing with the war, passed bills that would set timelines to get us out of Iraq. Bush has vetoed those bills, and the Dems don’t have enough votes to override his vetoes.

    …Which isn’t meant to let them off the hook, because they could shut the government down until he concedes the point, and they don’t. But still, if one is deception, so is the other.

    Really? If one is deception, so is the other?

    Not quite. Let’s examine the linked story, shall we?

    In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.

    “Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,” he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”

    Then there’s this:

    “In an August 2007 town meeting, I shared the frustration of my constituents that the war in Iraq continued,” he said. “I expressed my belief that some Democrats in 2006 overestimated the ability of a single house of Congress to end the war, particularly in the face of an intransigent President and Senate Republicans who are committed to continuing the war.”

    So did Republicans make promises they knew they couldn’t keep, inabilities that would be obvious to any ‘good student of government?’

    I can’t think of a time when Patterico has made an offhand, blanket indictment of Republicans (as a party) of the sort he just made about Democrats.

    Problem is, Leviticus, this isn’t an cavalier accusation. There’s a video at the link to back up this assessment.

    And the other side, I point out, has had no trouble making offhand blanket indictments about Republicans based on loose interpetations of the comments of one lone Republican.

    Paul (de3f43)

  35. The Democrats have done the same thing with the war, passed bills that would set timelines to get us out of Iraq. Bush has vetoed those bills, and the Dems don’t have enough votes to override his vetoes.

    …Which isn’t meant to let them off the hook, because they could shut the government down until he concedes the point, and they don’t. But still, if one is deception, so is the other.

    That’s just illustrates the difference between supporting the Marriage Amendment and claiming “The troops will be home in 6 months” or whatever. There is no deception in the first case. It was obviously a difficult thing if shutting down the government was necessary. Nobody guaranteed the Marriage Amendment would pass. They just said they were for it.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  36. There was no need to shut down the government. They could have simply refused to fund the war. They have that power and they refused to use it. They could have done what they said they’d do and they didn’t.

    Pablo (99243e)

  37. And when Bush vetoed their timetables, they passed new bills without them. They didn’t have to do that and they did.

    Pablo (99243e)

  38. You’re going to point it out every time a politician lies/stretches the truth? You don’t have the bandwidth. […] politics is a dirty business, […] one side breaks the rules as much as the other. To feign some ideological moral superiority is disingenuous.

    This is an amazing and accurate summary of the Obama camp:

    1) Advertise for votes
    2) Cry foul at opposition
    3) Play Victim
    4) Repeat

    Vermont Neighbor (2464ca)

  39. “Leviticus, this is a rap on Congressional Democrats, not anyone with a D after their name.”

    – Pablo

    I don’t find that argument particularly compelling. Although I’m no fan of the Democratic party, a blanket indictment of all Congressional Democrats is as unfair and unfounded as a blanket indictment of “anyone with a D after their name”… or at least it’s unfair and unfounded in the same vein, if not to the same degree. I’m sure (and you’ll probably agree) that a portion of the Democratic Congress was engaged in an emphatic, genuine attempt to end the war at the behest of their constituents, even as another portion of the party tickled the anti-war ear of the people to secure their election (or reelection). I have a problem with Patterico lumping the two groups together, and acting as though they represent the same politics.

    It’s not as punchy as a post title if you qualify it, though. I will say that.

    And I still don’t see how there’s a difference between saying “If I’m elected, I’ll fight to amend the Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage!” and saying “If I’m elected, I’ll fight to end the war!” In each case, politicians pander to a constituency, and proceed to fail to deliver.

    Leviticus (16f375)

  40. “And when Bush vetoed their timetables, they passed new bills without them. They didn’t have to do that and they did.”

    – Pablo

    That is absolutely true, and it handicaps any argument that “we just couldn’t end the war, because Big Bad Bush vetoed us!”
    A contemptible argument, to say the least.

    Leviticus (16f375)

  41. And I still don’t see how there’s a difference between saying “If I’m elected, I’ll fight to amend the Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage!” and saying “If I’m elected, I’ll fight to end the war!” In each case, politicians pander to a constituency, and proceed to fail to deliver.

    Sigh.

    Once again:

    In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.

    “Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,”
    he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”

    And again:

    In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.

    “Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,”
    he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”

    Once more, in case you missed the first two times:

    In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.

    “Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,”
    he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”

    Paul (de3f43)

  42. It is kinda hilarious, Leviticus, how much this post seems to bug you … and how difficult you’ve found it to actually contradict anything actually written in it.

    It is almost as if some article of your faith is being challenged …

    hehe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. “It is almost as if some article of your faith is being challenged …”

    – SPQR

    Don’t be dense. I despise the Democratic party as much as the Republican party. If you payed attention to the collective tone of my comments you’d know that by now.

    ““Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,”

    – Kanjorski

    You guys keep latching onto this quote like it means something sinister. Here’s an obvious alternative: Democratic politicians aren’t good students of government. Is that so hard to believe, given their general ineptitude over the past several years? Or do you take the word of one man (i.e. Kanjorski) as gospel when it comes to speaking for the motives of an entire party? If I find one Republican who says that the Bush administration lied to get us into a war, will you (should you) treat that as gospel in the same manner? Of course not.

    I kinda wish Patterico would weigh in on this… maybe he’s busy.

    Anyway, I’m going to be on vacation for about a week in a half. I’ll try to check in if I get a chance, but I might not (get a chance).
    Just letting everyone know. I wouldn’t want you guys to think I was cutting and running.

    Leviticus (11e4ab)

  44. You guys keep latching onto this quote like it means something sinister.

    Sigh.

    Leviticus, you still don’t get the difference.

    The congressional Dems knew in advance they couldn’t get it done (timetables), knew in advance no matter what they wouldn’t have the votes, and yet ran on “troops absolutely, positively will be home in 6 months” anyway.

    Republicans running on DOMA said they would fight for DOMA, not guarantee its passage.

    Have a great time on your vacation!

    Paul (de3f43)

  45. I’m still waiting for the troops to “come home by Christmas” from Kosovo.
    Thanks, Bubba!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  46. Drew, do you realize that was over ten years ago?

    Paul (de3f43)

  47. Yes, and your point is?

    He promised!

    Don’t Dems keep their promises?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  48. Paul, the troops are still in Kosovo. The 133rd from Iowa is deployed there NOW!

    I wish the left wasn’t so filled with such stupid liars.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  49. Paul, the troops are still in Kosovo.

    I know that, PCD. I never miss a chance to point that out every time somebody compains about how ong the troops have been in Iraq.

    Paul (de3f43)

  50. “The congressional Dems knew in advance they couldn’t get it done (timetables), knew in advance no matter what they wouldn’t have the votes, and yet ran on “troops absolutely, positively will be home in 6 months” anyway.”

    – Paul

    Sigh.

    Paul, you still don’t get my point. My point is that you don’t know whether or not the democrats “knew in advance they couldn’t get it done”, because you don’t know whether or not the Democrats are “good students of government”. Maybe they did know that, and are, and are liars; maybe they didn’t, and aren’t,and are morons.

    “troops absolutely, positively will be home in 6 months”

    – Paul(?)

    They said that? Really? I doubt it – link please. If they did, that was quite stupid (or quite dishonest) of them.

    Leviticus (22eefa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3466 secs.