You know what they say when in the argument, someone references Hitler and the Nazis...

Speaking of... there are only two people that I usually here comparing Goebbels and liberals.

The first is Michael Savage. And the second is Bill O'Reilly. Fun group to align ones self with.

Here is one last thing about the photo and incident that I haven't seen mentioned on Captain's Quarters or here. If indeed some young thug ripped up a man's three-year-old daughters sign... I don't know a father who would not have taken a swing at the guy. Maybe I am just completely nuts... or my dad was just overly aggressive in defense of his family... but I haven't read anything about a fight breaking out between them. I am sure there are other intangibles... his daughter being with him... possibly a group of labor people outnumbering him... or maybe he just isn't that type of guy...but it still surprises me how many people on Ed's blog disagree with the fishiness of this story. My dad would have set me down... and punched the guy in the face in he did not immediatly apologize to me.

Align oneself with who? Savage and O'Reilly? In case you haven't noticed, the common feeling around here is that Savage should take up a vow of silence, and O'Reilly is vastly overrated.

I doubt my dad would have ever punched anyone if they did that to me. We would have left, got another sign, let the press know a union kid (or whatever) harassed a kid, write the union...whatever. Ripping a sign is just immature, clocking a guy is assult.

Of course, we would have never been there to start with. I think anti-Kerry at Kerry (or anti-Bush at Bush) rallies are silly. He who makes the most noise doesn't win, he just loses his voice first.

"there are only two people that I usually here comparing Goebbels and liberals."

There are a lot more than two people commenting on the liberals' tendency to endlessly repeat tropes regardless of their veracity - read Goebbels' "Big Lie" clause. Many unsavory characters - Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc - have commented on this facet of government/public relations. I think that in re some of the regular tropes - "Swiftvets Lied!", "Iraq's a QUAGmire!", "The Economy's In the Tank!", "Bush was selected, not elected!", "Bush was AWOL!" - the comparison is perfectly valid. A big lie, repeated until (to some people) it becomes indistinguishable from reality.

Carson,

I'm sorry you felt like people in Brainerd would vandalize your car if it had a rainbow sticker; that's really stupid and petty.

I also think it's okay to voice one's frustration about the endless "debate" rehashing tired, stale talking points and the general political climate. I think it's okay to voice frustration with the petty vandalism that strikes urban conservatives (and, for that matter, people who want to put rainbow stickers on their cars.)

I think an interesting issue is "Why do lefties/righties constantly throw their talking points in each others faces?"

Mitch can recite virtually all of the lefty talking points by rote (see above) -- in fact, I bet Mitch could have an entire insincere left/right debate with just himself (ala John Kerry!) -- Memo to Mitch: Try this for five minutes during the NARN broadcast ... or not. :-)

But I come back to why? It isn't that we're not hearing what organizations like MoveOn are saying -- in fact, most of the conservatives I know are subscribed to their email list (I am!) -- but I find (many of) the arguments there so utterly unpersuasive that they're rejected out of hand.

In a lot of ways, the dogmatic retrenching or retreating into talking points stops productive meaningful communication among people who disagree and I think that's a real shame.

Of course, on some things there's no possible way to come to a consensus on an issue. If you're anti-war, you're anti-war. I can't think of any possible rationale or argument that would convince an opponent of war that it's occassionally necessary. But then I don't have Karl Rove's evil genius for deception and misdirection...

"I bet Mitch could have an entire insincere left/right debate with just himself (ala John Kerry!) -- Memo to Mitch: Try this for five minutes during the NARN broadcast ... or not. :-)"

We did it on the Prager show last Monday - sort of. We asked questions of John Kerry - and answered them. More or less...

Mark- I hope you realize I actually was serious about the rainbow sticker/dfl sticker comparison. There was a hint of sarcasm, but serious none the less. I hope you don't think I was trying to make fun of your not wanting to have a Bush sticker, but more so demonstrate that both sides of the political fence often feel that kind of pressure.

Mitch- you can go ahead and call us lefties propagandists all you like, but I think even you (an ardent supporter) has to admit that his administration has mastered the art of controlling the debate using German propoganda techniques. Lets move beyond just the "big lie" stuff, the signs, the backgrounds, controlling where and how he is photographed, controlling and preparing questions from media... it really goes on and on. So if you really want to label us a propogandists... fine. Considering ad professionals consider the Bush team masters... it can only be a compliment being in the same league.

Mark- sorry... meant Bush sticker. I agree, this vandalism nonsense needs to stop, and when it happens we should complain about it. But can we please do it in a way that makes more sense. No more "face of the DFL" stuff. I am very glad Mitch made a correction, and I respect him more because of it.

Both sides have hatchet men, liars, and charlatans. But only one of the presidential candidates has an operative who claimed John McCain had an illegitimate black child.

Mitch, before you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself.

Mitch -- thanks for this statement.

Now put yourself in a non-radical left-leaner's shoes and look at what some of the right and some of the administration has said (some repeatedly), and I think you will agree that the frustration you feel is also very likely felt by many of us of that persuasion.

Jeff S.

I've repeatedly agreed! However, the fact is that there are plenty of people who actually *are* in those shoes, and are perfectly able to voice that frustration. I have my beat to cover.

Jeff F: Nah. It'll be you guys apologizing.

It may take a while - we're still waiting for the MN DFL to apologize for their support of and links to Stalin seventy years ago. But history is going to prove conservatives right about this.

It almost always does.

Can't wait for historians to start examining the Bush presidency.

At least Bush doesn't seem so desperately afraid of how he will be viewed by historians. I spent 8 years in the 90's going from one fouled up Operation to the next because public opinion was the key to our international strategy. There was a palpable feeling of anxiousness to 'make history' no matter what the cost.
My prediciton....Bush is seen by the anti-Bush countries (France, Iran, N. Korea) as a monster, Bush is seen by the Brits, Aussies, Israelis and 'gasp' Iraqis as a great man. As for the rest of the world...."isn't he the one who lost to Clinton after winning desert storm?"

Well good for you, Mitch for having it in you to retract the story....but not without huffiness. As far as bad behavior during campaigns - there are thugs in both parties.

You really sound like a whiner on this topic - you're perfectly able to debate and win your points - so why resort to whining about those big bad liberals being mean?