shotbanner.jpeg

November 18, 2004

Howzat?

Let's get one thing straight; I don't turn to Oliver Willis for cogent commentary. There was a time I did - the rationale eludes me, lo these two years later, but...

...but...

...oh, the hell with it. I can't kid myself anymore. I read Willis these days purely to try to plumb the depths of the fever swamp.

Check out this bit here, especially the top entry.

I know. The fever swamp will moderate well before 2008. But a guy can dream...

Posted by Mitch at November 18, 2004 05:28 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Willis inspired me.

http://www.rjritchie.com/home.cfm?EntryId=893&showcomments=yes

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at November 18, 2004 09:51 AM

What?

We did win World War II. Wendell Wilkie wasn't at Yalta.

And indeed, until WWII was a fait accompli, the most stringent opposition to it was coming from--yes--the Republican party.

Now, of course, WWII was won by all of us together. But the men at the top were Democrats. Pro-war, pro-American Democrats.

Sorry.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at November 18, 2004 11:04 AM

Pro-war Pro-American Democrats died out years ago.

Sorry.

Posted by: Todd at November 18, 2004 11:54 AM

Yabbut, Willis' little cartoon doesn't say "Roosevelt was the President in Office bla bla bla". It implies that Democrats were the only ones with the cojones to tackle Hitler - as if we'd not have responded to Pearl Harbor with a Republican in office.

Posted by: mitch at November 18, 2004 12:07 PM

Wow, Mitch's post certainly screams irony. All we've heard these past three years is how Gore would not have gone into Afghanistan.

Posted by: jerry at November 18, 2004 05:57 PM

Yabbut! Yabbut!

Awesome.

Posted by: Fnord at November 18, 2004 06:17 PM

I think you guys are missing the point. I think that was meant to be a joke on George Bush, and him taking us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and republicans saying they're the party of national security.

Posted by: MikeR at November 18, 2004 06:19 PM

The same people (Repugs) who still complain bitterly that FDR lied to get us into WWII and still think Pearl Harbor should be investigated (and say Dems are delusional and stuck in conspiracy mode!) want to claim credit for defeating Hitler. If it was up to Repugs we would have had Lindbergh (Nazi supporter) for president (there's a wonderful little book by Philip Roth that shows how lovely that would have been).

FDR was our guy despite Bush's attempt to link himself up with a true hero. Look at the agenda of Bush in his 2nd term to see how much he wants to be like FDR. Not!

Reagan had to content himself with Grenada (didn't have the balls to fight when the marine barracks got bombed in Beirut). Daddy Bush needed Margaret Thatcher's iron ones to help him confront Saddam in GWI. Oh i forgot, he did take down Noriega on his own, wow.

Posted by: meade at November 18, 2004 06:27 PM

Willis' campaign is right on target. Dems have a proud tradition of service and excellence. Why shouldn't we be proud of it?

Why shouldn't I be proud of the words of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama? Nothing Bush has said even matches the beauty, and nothing he's done has matched even the badly spoken words he manages to blurt out.

I am proud to be a Democrat. As Washington under the GOP becomes more the paid lapdog of industry and K Street lobbyists, the Democratic party will be the party to restore credibility to those who call themselves public service.

As the Christian wing of Movement Conservatism pushes the party toward religious intolerance, the Democratic party will be there to demonstrate what the words "freedom of religion" mean.

As the GOP and it's media machine continue to show no toleration to thought other than what is passed down from George, Jim, Grover, and Karl, the Democratic party will be there to show America what free speech, and independent thought really is.

You GOP'ers have had a good ride. You've been successful at twisting our words, distorting our history, and treating our kindness as weakness.

The inherent contradicions of a party built on the intolerance of Dixiecrats, unfettered capitalism a hatred of government, and organized religion gone awry does not have the substantiveness to stand for long.

Posted by: sabbadoo at November 18, 2004 07:24 PM

Meade: Quick: Show me any actual, mainstream conservative who says anything of the sort about FDR.

THe rest of your claims are, I'll be very charitable here, too stupid to dignify with a response.

Posted by: mitch at November 18, 2004 08:14 PM

I'm having a great internal debate here. Unleash the Marine in me, or be civil?

If you dim wit schmucks are so proud of your FDR JFK history, you should be Republicans today. Nothing your party has offered in my lifetime has come close to resembling that. You should be ashamed of being the party of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. You are weak, simple minded tools who wouldn't know leadership or national defense if it kicked you in the ass.

Yammer on all you want about how mature this post is. And how superior you are in your intellectualism, and humanism and all your other isms, but when push comes to shove, and reality smacks you in the face, you have no response. We both know it. You are shells of people and a shell of a party.

And console yourself with the thought that I'm just some dumb Marine who doesn't know how to think for himself. Go ahead and do that if it makes you feel better. That's cool. I'm used to your ignorant patronism. It's the reason you've been winning so many elections lately.

Posted by: Jarhead at November 19, 2004 12:16 AM

"Ignorant patronism" is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Is that like buying stuff from the stupid store?

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 08:05 AM

Jarhead,

We are shells because we hold on to the broken belief that people and generations owe a responsibility to each other.

We are dimwits because we believe that there is a time for war, but preemptive war based on manufactured evidence is wrong.

We are schmucks because those of us who do believe in the Holy Trinity do not see it as a reason to force our beliefs down the throats of others, or between the legs of pregnant women.

I have no response to leaders who twist the rules to accommodate those who are about to be indicted on criminal charges. I have no response to those who ignore science at the expense of a child's education. I have no response to those who reward failures of torture and lying to Congress with Cabinet positions.

Do you?

Posted by: sabbadoo32@hotmail.com at November 19, 2004 08:18 AM

And I have no response to those who feel that being a democrat is something to be proud of in the last 26 years. With few ecxeptions you have offered this country nothing but opposition to Reagan's winning of the cold war, Clintons castration of the military, your presidential candidate opposed the UN sanctioned Gulf War, and nothing but opposition to the fight against islamofacism. After spending the last 30 years opposing military spending you have the gaul to complain about the state of military equipment when we do go to war. Awesome. Yes be proud, be very proud.

Posted by: Jarhead at November 19, 2004 12:03 PM

opposition to Reagan's winning of the cold war,

Um yeah I remember marching at all those protests demanding that the wall be put back up and the immediate cessation of Perestroika. Pst the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it’s own corruption and stupidity, some policies of the Reagan administration may have helped it along sure but I’ve yet to be convinced that this was all planned by Ronald from the get-go.

Clintons castration of the military,

I love this, if you y’know did some research or even basic reading you’d know that Clinton carried on policies started by Reagan and Bush, and they were smart ones. Oh and who’s army swept into Baghdad in three days? That would be the one that Clinton was in charge of for 8 years.

your presidential candidate opposed the UN sanctioned Gulf War,

He sure did, how dare he have an opinion on American policy contrary to your own! Did you know that both Bush Sr. and Colin Powell were against occupying Iraq during that conflict? They opposed the invasion of Iraq just like the UN did! And how many America solider lives did Dick Cheney say Saddam was worth again? He was right back then too.

and nothing but opposition to the fight against islamofacism.

I love that word; tell me Sparky were you riling and railing again Islamofacism before 9-11? Yup I remember all those calls to invade Iraq after the Cole and Embassy bombings.

But it’s true, every democrat speech I’ve ever heard was always about how we mustn’t fight the Islamofacists. And remember how Clinton let bin Laden (the biggest Islamofacist if ‘em all) get away with murdering 3,000 Americans in New York?

Oh wait that wasn’t Clinton at all! He actually came closer to greasing the grease-ball than Bush ever has and if Clinton had invaded Afghanistan back then, oh my gosh you would have blown a fuse while screeching “Wag the Dog!” “Wag the Dog”

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 12:39 PM

"Um yeah I remember marching at all those protests demanding that the wall be put back up and the immediate cessation of Perestroika."

Straw-y strawman. There were plenty of demonstrations and much resistance to Reagan's hard line.

" Pst the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it’s own corruption and stupidity, some policies of the Reagan administration may have helped it along sure but I’ve yet to be convinced that this was all planned by Ronald from the get-go."

Straw-ier strawman. Reagan continued a line of thought that started under Truman and ran through Johnson. Detente - think Carter - was a reversal of that policy. Reagan returned to it with vigor.

As to the "inevitability" of the USSR's fall - nobody told that to the armies of lefty (and centr-y) pundits that throughout the eighties (and even into the early nineties) were saying that Communism was a valid system and that the USSR was here to stay. Strobe Talbott, JK Galbraith, etc, etc...

"I love this, if you y’know did some research or even basic reading you’d know that Clinton carried on policies started by Reagan and Bush, and they were smart ones."

As re technology? True, basically.

As re manpower? Clinton cashed in the peace dividend by reducing the active Army by six divisions during his administration - and the rest of the military by similar margins. He scrimped on training pay - I'll let the commenters who were in the service talk about those days.

"I love that word; tell me Sparky were you riling and railing again Islamofacism before 9-11? Yup I remember all those calls to invade Iraq after the Cole and Embassy bombings."

Straw-iest strawman. Many of us WERE calling for Clinton to take serious action. He didn't.

"But it’s true, every democrat speech I’ve ever heard was always about how we mustn’t fight the Islamofacists. And remember how Clinton let bin Laden (the biggest Islamofacist if ‘em all) get away with murdering 3,000 Americans in New York?"

That's just plain dumb. Bush didn't "let" anyone get away. (Clinton did, twice, but we'll let that slide for now).

Don't come to a gunfight armed with a peashooter.

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 01:36 PM

Anyway, back to why I'm proud to be a Dem. We do have contrary opinions, but we fall in together when it's time to move forward.

We treasure opinion from all sides. To GOP'ers that's a threat. To us, that's a virtue (although I still have no explanation for Al Sharpton).

Where you can easlily find serious talk of secession here and at other conservative sites, Democrats are determined to return this nation to the the ideals of the constitution.

Secession.

Shameful.

Posted by: Sabbadoo at November 19, 2004 02:38 PM

"Um yeah I remember marching at all those protests demanding that the wall be put back up and the immediate cessation of Perestroika."

Fair enough. Poorly worded on my part. More precicely put, opposition to the way he won it, not actually the winng of it.

"I love this, if you y’know did some research or even basic reading you’d know that Clinton carried on policies started by Reagan and Bush, and they were smart ones. Oh and who’s army swept into Baghdad in three days? That would be the one that Clinton was in charge of for 8 years."

No, I love this. I love it when libs try and take credit for a military that won an impressive victory in a war that they protested. Maybe I should inform you that I served in the Clinton military and know first hand how we couldn't fix broken equipment because of slashed budgets. And why the military is "over extended" now due to the massive RIF of the Clinton era. And what about all those great weapons systems that won the this war? How many were developed under the Clinton administration? I guess we should consider ourselves luck that he didn't cut more than he did.

Posted by: Jarhead at November 19, 2004 02:58 PM

I.E. Clinton reducing the military.
Yes, he did reduce it. We didn't need it as much. I would much rather have that money going to balance the budget and fund under funded social programs than to maintain a huge army that wasn't necessary at the time.

Also, being able to cash in on a peace dividend is a good thing. We didn’t have any altercations of the size of Iraq, but we did go to Somalia, and we did go to Bosnia, and in both cases we had allies to do so, so we didn't have to go it alone. Yes, the army is bigger now, so big that the army is starting to call men in their forties back for service. I don't see how this is a good thing.

As far as the USSR falling, i don't really know how much credit Reagan can take. It seemed to me that it collapsed as a result of rife corruption ,inefficiency, and draconian policies designed to protect those in power. Reagan didn't have anything to do with that. Yes, he helped contain them, by say, oh, funding the Iran Iraq war. We are still dealing with the repercussions of funding regimes like Saddam's to try to contain Soviet influence.

Posted by: David at November 19, 2004 03:14 PM

"Also, being able to cash in on a peace dividend is a good thing."

Yes, and I'm for curing cancer too.

"We didn’t have any altercations of the size of Iraq, but we did go to Somalia"

Which Clinton pulled out of at the first sign of blood. And it is a country that over a decade later still has no government. Way to go there.

"we did go to Bosnia"

Yea that worked out well didn't it. Nice short little war where we bombed lots of bridges and the Chinese Embassy. And notice how tranquil that area is today. Good work with that.

"and in both cases we had allies to do so, so we didn't have to go it alone."

Mitch, you really need a rolleyes emoticon here. We have many more allies in Iraq than we did in either of those two fiascos.

"Yes, the army is bigger now, so big that the army is starting to call men in their forties back for service. I don't see how this is a good thing."

Actually, no, the Army is samller now than in 1992 by a large margin.

Posted by: Jarhead at November 19, 2004 11:17 PM

You don't know what a "strawman" arguement is do you?

A strawman is a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

See if I had said "Well so and so said this but it's not true because of this and this" that would be a strawman because so and so didn't say that or another way would be to twist what so and so said or be delibertly obtuse.

I haven't done that.

Here's an example"

...lefty (and centr-y) pundits that throughout the eighties (and even into the early nineties) were saying that Communism was a valid system and that the USSR was here to stay.

Can you produce these lefty pundits? Cuz I can't remember anyone saying "communism is good" (at least anyone with a brain to whom anyone would pay attention to). See that's a strawman.

But what you're doing is a red herring but I don't think you're doing it on purpose so don't sweat it.

Posted by: salvage at November 20, 2004 07:28 AM
hi