Thinking Right

By Mid_South Philosopher

July 18, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I concur with your perspective on the speech police. Equally, I concur with your perception as to the quality of the political rhetoric spewed forth from the candidates in recent elections in our post-modern world.

I believe running for office should be just that…running for the office…not running down one’s opponent. If a candidate cannot tell me “why” I should vote for her or him, but, rather, spends his or her time telling me “why” I should not vote for the opposition, I lose interest.

More and more in all elections, I find myself (just as I did this morning) compelled to vote for the lesser of the ignorant and the evil.

Once, just once, I would like to vote for a candidate who can pronounce the word “fiscal” correctly. How many times have I had to vote for someone who touted that they were “physically” responsible! From the looks of some of them they were physically “irresponsible!

One has to find humor in the idiocy of the process. I bet our “founding grandfather,” Benjamin Franklin, had an idea that we might reach this level of absurdity. It sure would be interesting to hear his perspective on our political society today.

By Minuteman

July 18, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

Wooten’s Premise All observations are unique.

Wooten’s Conclusion (Mala)Props to Spin Cops

My Comment Spin Docs, heal thyselves.

Late Campaign Ad:…. Vote for Ralph Reed. He had me at ‘Tonto’.

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

July 18, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Certainly, the Georgia electorate has a long history of voting for blowhards, liars and demagogues. Look at the human detritus that leads the government of this state, almost as backward and idiotic as the rustics and hillbillies that make up the vast majority of the populace of the 13th state.

You’d be crazy to tell the truth to these idiots - they love to be lied to.

By Van

July 18, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

Not so long ago, I seem to recall poloticians ran on a platform of ideas and ideals that might appeal to a broad segment of the population.

Today, anyone running for office, had better check their own closet. The family skeletons will come out in the campaign.

If you were a matriculant as a youth, be careful someone might use it against you. Remember masticating in public can be harmful to your campaign.

All kidding aside, if we were to have fair and open election, without hate and rancor, trueful ads and politicans that acted like christian gentlemen should act - my head would explode.

By Rednecks - American Al Qaeda

July 18, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Jim, I’m sure that the accusations against Mills probably helped him, given the typical white Georgian’s love of the Klan and white supremacy, so no harm, no foul.

By opieandy

July 18, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

I particularly enjoy newspapers’ self-appointed ‘inherent’ right to tell me who I should vote for. This year’s edition was especially cute with its short phrases supporting the candidate (e.g., “Joe Blow because he’s mature enough to get the job done”).

Why are newspaper endorsements accepted in “journalism” when a standard supposedly exists to present balanced coverage? Why is there an “editorial board” to present the consensus view of the newspaper on certain topics? Why is this level of thought-influencing accepted so readily in society?

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Y’know, the editorials section is just one part of the paper. You don’t have to read it.

And I think it’s appropriate for a newspaper to point out which mudslinging lies are, in fact, lies. That’s part of their duty to inform the public about things that affect their lives.

And attack ads are used, sadly, because they WORK. I have no problem with the media, individual pundits, or anyone else “policing” the exaggerations, spin, and lies to dig up the truth and tell the rest of us what’s really going on.

By JK

July 18, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Today’s letters to the editor rag on Democrats for “pandering” at churches. Please tell me one candidate on the ballot today who has not visited a church in the last seven days! Good grief!

As for truth at election time, if “journalists” would report fairly and factually instead of thinking their opinions should matter to us, there might be less mud-slinging from candidates who realize we actually KNOW something.

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Opieandy, the news side and the opinion side of a newspaper are separate. One does not influence the other. No reporter would ever consult with an opinion writer on how to write a story.

Editorial endorsements are a tradition, but a tradition that some newspapers are beginning to abandon. There are a number of reasons. One is that people have ample opportunity to gather information for themselves, and so are sufficiently informed already — in which case the recommendations of an editorial board are of limited or no value.

Too, a newspaper’s editorial voice either enhances or diminishes the value of endorsements. If the editorial voice is conservative, a conservative is much more likely, I think, to accept the recommendations, reasoning that the people who were doing the interviewing and making the choice reflect my values. If liberal, a liberal voter would be much more likely to concur, I think.

In making endorsements in local and legislative races, the first consideration is competence. An awful lot of people making their first runs for public office have done little to prepare and may never even have attended a meeting of the body they wish to join. There I think endorsements, whether from liberal or conservative opinion pages, can be useful.

With more prominent races involving well-known candidates, they’re less valuable. By the time it comes to endorsing a candidate for President, I think the endorsement says more about where a newspaper’s editorial board is centered than it does about which of the two is the better choice. Which is better depends entirely on your view of where this country should be headed and what its priorities should be. And there, most everybody is sufficiently informed so as to need no guidance.

By Van

July 18, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

Fair enough, I do use the AJC in helping me decide which candidate to vote for, If the AJC like them, I look at the others running for office.

A newpaper so tied to the downtown Atlanta could not have a clue about the rest of the state - as seen on the editorial page.

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Mid_South Philosopher, I too would be intrigued to see what the founding fathers would think of our current process and how candidates are chosen. Jim, I appreciate the overall message of your article, but I think your premise leaves out the surrogate attacks. No, I don’t ever remember Saxby Chambliss attacking Max Cleland’s patriotism, but I sure remember “surrogates” doing it, the same way the SwiftVets did it to John Kerry. Still though, that speech should be protected, I believe. At least the GA politicians seem to prefer slinging their own mud. My favorite of all time was the commercial Skandalakis ran in his failed bid for Lt. Governor showing a big fat guy staggering down a hall at a treatment center, barely able to stand up…supposedly showing Mark Taylor as a crack addict (physical evidence would suggest however that Mark is only addicted to biscuit and gravy.) Hmmm… Republicans, I guess the score now is Reps. 2 (Skandalakis and Schrenko) and Dems. 1 (Campbell). Maybe they can all room together in jail and make a reality show. Georgia Lockdown.

By Dave

July 18, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002637

Jim,

I always loved this article about the Chambliss-Cleland race, which by the way mentions just how correct you were at the time. It still amazes me that the national media thinks that Georgia is backwards because we got rid of Cleland; however, I remind my liberal friends from other parts of the country that the view from the cheap seats is always more distorted than from where Georgians were viewing the race in 2002.

That being said, I am pretty amazed by the tone of some of these commericals that I am seeing on TV. The only commericial that I have not seen so far this year is the famous argument “liar, liar, pants on fire.”

Is this a case of candidates with little money trying to be more outrageous so they get more bang for their buck? Today, we have so many pundits, bloggers and “political insiders” giving campaigns free “earned” media.

By Minuteman

July 18, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Point of order: The Founding Fathers were Uber-Spinners. Google the first few election campaigns of our Fledgling Republic. It’s a myth that the founding fathers were any more moral, patriotic, or wise than Ralph Reed, who happened to have me at ‘Halo’.

Quantum Aside: Einstein proved that all points of view are valid. Perceptions are spun because we exist in an accelerating field of gravity which necessarily contorts space and time, giving observations no reference point whatsoever.

I dont know what I just said.

Nuke Iran!!

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Minuteman - my intrigue with the founding fathers would be solely with their take on “morality and religion” playing as prominent a role as it does now in campaigns. Oh no, they were great at going after one another - watching the History Channel’s Revolution the other night, I never knew that Pennsylvania’s Governor was the one that basically drove Benedict Arnold to treason - all over the fact he wanted to wrest control of the state back from the Military appointed authority (who was Arnold). And he used the media to do it through the papers. No, my question would be solely on the moral and religious campaigning.

By time for the truth

July 18, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

@ INBRED Redneck sickster

I have contacted my old chums in M.I.5 and their deranged nutter snatch squad is now actively seeking your immediate deportation under the far reaching powers of the U.K. Mental Health Act. People who pose a danger to others or themselves are not allowed to remain for extended periods in the U.K and leech of British taxpayers, even whilst being urgently treated in a British hospital for the criminally insane.

You will have a good time pill popping and sucking up all that extra electricity from those nice electrodes at either Rampton or Broadmoor though, whilst your caged extradition back to your home state of Mississipi on a slow moving banana boat is being arranged.

Your hideously unfunny attention seeking act is getting extremely old!! Try jumping under a MARTA bus and some of us will come feed you in the primates ward at Grady!!

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Dave, I think there is something to your suggestion that candidates, and often those without money, are becoming more outrageous. That gets the campaigns talked about and written about, which is always useful and more so in a field as crowded as many of these races are in Georgia.

In addition to that, the over-the-top commercial often penetrates the information overload that comes with political season. If people aren’t paying much attention, the message sticks so that you know you’re disinclined to vote for so-and-so without remembering that the impression first came from an over-the-top, now forgotten, commercial.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Jim, Jim,

You said that the news section and the editorial section do not influence each other. In what newspaper?

The AJC is owned by a wealthy Democrat. The majority of the editorial department are snarling liberals. Luckovich compares our troops to torturous terrorists. He draws the President to look like a monkey time and again. Do you mean that the news department and all other departments don’t know that this is a liberal newspaper that is paying them? Do you think there are “true spirits” at the AJC that will bite the hand that feeds them? I don’t think so. If there are some, they are certainly being overshadowed by the predominant voice. Your illusion as to fair, honest and impartial reporting by newspapers is no longer an opinion held by the public.

By Minuteman

July 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

The only thing lacking in this year’s campaign for Governor/Lt. Governor is a Willie Horton ad.

By Blog Goddess

July 18, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Jim - don’t know if it’s your politics or what - but, you attract a crazier group of squirrels than the cartoonist does. Or, maybe these folks are e-mailing from the laughing academy….

By Minuteman

July 18, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Blog Goddess: Do you have an older sister for me?

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

And a younger one for me??

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

I mean, I think this year’s primary could have been much better (nastier). I mean, why not have a Mark Taylor look alike out with the two head bobbers from Saturday Night Live (What is Love) going from junior prom to junior prom looking for dates… Have a picture of Taylor and Perdue on the screen at their heaviest and say behind it “I can only begin to imagine the money I’ll save Georgia taxpayers in food bills alone over my opponents.”

By Mid-South Philosopher

July 18, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

It was never my intention to suggest that the “founders” of our Republic were “more moral or less political” than politicians of today. They were a da*n sight “smarter,” but they, too, had their faults and flaws.

What they didn’t have in their day that we enjoy today (or, at least, we should enjoy it if we are smart enough to pay attention to it) was “hindsight.” When one considers just what could have happened through the Revolution and the Federalist eras, as opposed to what did occur, it is amazing that those folks got as much right as they did.

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Mid_South, I think they did utilize hindsight - what had occured in England and in other colonies under British rule, and they utilized current views like with what was brewing in France (tremendous unrest). I think a da*n sight smarter is a true understatement - these guys were brilliant thoughtful and thorough. That’s what one would expect from men out of a period called the “Enlightenment”. I wonder what historians will call this period given the leaders we are producing now.

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

As unconvincing as my assertion may be, Dusty, my experience over almost four decades in the newspaper business is that they don’t — that is, the news and opinion sides don’t influence each other.

My personal opinion is that reporters tend to be more liberal than mainstream Georgia. I suspect that’s because many or most entered this business for the same reason that people enter social work, or the ministry or teaching. Partly it’s idealism, a desire to make the world a better place. The danger in that is, however, that once we fix a view of what the “better” world is, we’re drawn to solutions — and more often than not, those solutions are more and bigger government. Why? For the same reason politicians and others are drawn to more government: It’s easier, faster, and because, too, the tendency is to address today’s problems on the basis of yesterday’s realities.

I don’t think most reporters would consider themselves liberal. They’d most likely think of themselves as moderates. But a moderate in midtown is a liberal in Snellville. The point here is that just because I don’t recognize my bias, or would deny it, doesn’t mean that others don’t see my take on an issue as biased.

I think when I read or hear a story about a child in need that doesn’t answer the question “where’s the father and why isn’t he contributing to the solution?” that a biased choice has been made in telling the story. But rarely do I think it a conscious or intentional choice.

Finally, Dusty, I will relate a personal experience of managing in a newsroom some years ago. Reporters are an independent, cantankerous lot. If they thought for an instant that a “wealthy Democrat” or anybody else outside the newsroom was trying to frame a story, or to nudge them in one direction, they’d instantly rebel and go in the opposite. I have never in my life known of an instance where the owners tried what you imply.

By the way, Dusty, that was a really neat poem that you wrote in response to the July 4th column. I’m going to read it at the next family reunion.

By James

July 18, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

The president doesn’t look like a monkey? I like the man, but I have to admit that he does look simian.

By JAMES

July 18, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jim,

This is totally off topic but I would like to know if you could offer some assistance on how a person can get an important issue into the eyes of the public? The rights of fathers going through divorce in Athens, GA are trampled on. There is no such thing as fair and equitable when it comes to the rights and wishes of fathers. From property distribution to alimony to child support it appears as the male starts off behind and the best he can do is hope not to go bankrupt. I could go on but there’s no need. Talking to co-workers isn’t getting the topic much attention. HELP

By Mid-South Philosopher

July 18, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Play that funky music whiteboy:

Point taken about the “hindsight” of the political process in England, France, etc. However, as the founders ventured into the uncharted waters of establishing a “democratic republic” consisting of 13 different political units, it had to be a bit questionable as to the outcome. Franklin, himself, is quoted as answering some lady’s inquiry about the form of government the delegates had designed with the quip, “A republic, madame, if you can keep it.”

Likely our era today will come to be known as the “Age of Absurdity” or the “Era of Egotistical Mediocrity.”

By getalife

July 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Check this out

And you thought Clinton was bad, this guy does it in front of the whole world.

By quick comment

July 18, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Jim, Great column, but I have to disagree with your characterization of the Chambliss ad.

The ad was factually correct and, I do think Cleland was on the wrong side of those issues. When you make an attack ad based on facts thats fine. But that ad crossed a line when it interspersed fact with images of terrorists. This results in insinuations which are not correct. The ad was in fact, intended to do that, and, polls showed it was effective at that. This is wrong. Should it be policed? Heck no. But to characterize the ad without considering the images used in the ad is incomplete analysis.

I also think voters have a right to police ads: They don’t have to vote for candidates who spew filth. No third parties needed—but there is a constitutional way to put an end to this filth, and it starts with you and I.

By jbmlaw

July 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

I live with a world view that everything that happens is provided by the actors for my personal entertainment. Mud-slinging politicians are no different from any of the other clowns in the universe. As the sage Mel Brooks said, through the singing voice of Hitler in The Producers, “the thing you’ve got to know is, ‘everything is show biz.’”

As to the exchange between Dusty and JW, JW could point at the Wall Street Journal as a clear example of his point. Their reporters are pretty-leftist, but the editorial pages are the best in the country. Certainly the “news” side there (to use some of Taranto’s mocking “scare quotes”) has not yet corrupted the editorial side.

By JK

July 18, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Dusty & Getalife, here’s another link. It’s a series of photos showing how the grope went down, in case the one doesn’t give you a good feel for it. She wasn’t feeling it, was she? EWW! No touching! AAACCKK!

By rarringt

July 18, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

The founding fathers were brilliant, but many lacked the courage of their stated convictions. In terms of voting, they disenfranchised everyone who wasn’t a land-owning free white man over the age of 21, which, ironically, would account for most Georgians. The general sentiment was that the average joe possessed neither the knowledge nor intelligence to make decisions affecting the country. That’s why there’s an electoral college, and why only the landed quasi-aristocracy could participate in the business of federal government.

Much of american history deals with the struggle to enfranchise the rest of us. The Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln basically called us out and told us it was time to put the ideas of the founding fathers into actual practice, is widely viewed as the Second Declaration of Independence, and likely the most important speech in the history of the republic.

The founding fathers had great ideas. It’s taken 200 years to start turning them in to a workable system. There are, obviously, still kinks (mainly in the south, but it’s getting better). That said, placing all your faith in the visionaries who capitulated to southern politicians and maintained slavery isn’t the best idea in the world.

By getalife

July 18, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

At least Clinton kept it in the White House.

This guy is a total embarrassment. First Putin comments about Iraqi Democracy. Then spewing the s word and food all over Blair. Then the cowboy diplomocy on Syria and finally sending Rice to the middle east.

This little trip has emboldened our enemies. At least, keep him at the White House.

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Our difference of opinon on the Cleland ad, quick comment, is a reason speech police shouldn’t exist. I thought it was fair then, and would be fair today, to say that we are at war with terrorists — flashing photos on the screen to remind people who and how dangerous those terrorists are — while making the argument that the incumbent is allowing allegiance to organized labor to color his judgment about how best to organize homeland security.

That’s fair in my book. My fear with speech police, whether an organized body or a group of journalists acting as a truth squad, is that they’d attempt to render an “objective” finding about something that’s clearly a matter of opinion.

By Baxter Jones

July 18, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Jim, you’re confusing two different things regarding the Cleland/Chambliss race: one was the ad about the vote on the Homeland Security Department; the other, earlier ad was the one attacking Cleland’s vote on an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty, saying that Cleland was “breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.” THAT ad is the one in which we Democrats, quite rightly, say that Chambliss attacked Cleland’s patriotism. If anyone wants to argue that “breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution” is not an attack on one’s patriotism, they will have to rely on tortured arguments that, “Well, it depends on what the meaning of ‘patriot’ is.”

As for the Chemical Weapons vote in question, Cleland was part of a bipartisan majority which included such noted leftists as Trent Lott and Bill Frist. Did they break their oaths to defend the Constitution?

The vote on the Homeland Security Department is fair game, as you say, but that is not the one in which Cleland was accused of “breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.” But let’s do set the record straight on what happened: a Democrat, Joe Lieberman, proposed the Department of Homeland Security. The Bush Administration opposed it until it became obvious the bill would pass - at which point the Republicans amended the bill almost beyond recognition (including an anti-union “poison pill” to antagonize some Democrats). But that was then; here’s a question for now: Does anyone want to argue that the Department of Homeland Security, as designed and administered by the Bush Administration, is an effective department? Anyone?

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Well, Jim, you certainly know how to “pour oil on the water”, don’t you? Your uncle deserves better tributes than I can write but thank you for the kind words.

Obviously, you know more about newsroom and reporters than I do. Having a Democratic “owner” might not frame articles but certainly one would be unconscious to not know the “atmosphere” of the place.

Let me give you an examples of the joint between editorials and the overall reputation of a newspaper. Lehrer News Hour tries for balance and sometimes gets newspaper editors to reflect opposite political views. Cynthia Tucker has been on their program in the past. I think she represents the “liberal newspaper”, not just her personal opinion. She certainly did not suggest anything conservative as a representative of the AJC.

But keep on thinking right. I am glad you are “holding the fort”.

By time for the truth

July 18, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

@ getabrain

Bush simply said what needed saying. Factually he was spot on, and there’s nothing wrong with being blunt/terse!! Remember how long winded the vainglorious AlBore and the perjurer in chief Sick Willie were!! Your petulant puerile carping is quite pathetic but nontheless quite amusing. Keep it coming!!

Nice to see your ignorant bigotry about “cowboys” is still continuing. I really do love you elitist liberal peasants!!

Putin is little better than a USSR commie -doubtless this stems from his proud KGB background. His autocratic abuse of power is incredible, and the sort of thing the ACLU fascists would screech about if Bush did - but because he sneers, albeit dishonestly, at Bush, you lefties love the new kind of dictator.

As for your moronic snidey about Bush ‘spraying food” etc - this simply reveals just how desperate you pinko wankers are getting in your compulsion to keep sneering at Bush.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

JAMES,

The President look like the sturdy, reliable westerner. Kinda the John Wayne look. Trustworthy.

Now Luckovich looks like the Joker. Are we supposed to take him seriously? Or laugh when he compares our troops to torturers? No way.

By Play that funky music whiteboy

July 18, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Time for the Truth: I can’t stand our current President, but I have to say that people are really “reaching” with this one. He didn’t say anything untrue - and although Tony Blair could have looked at him and said, “Duh, George” for stating the obvious, I’ve got no problem with it. At least it shows he has some clue about the situation and who is involved. As far as the “grope” in question - he was just applying some of that Bush magic… God knows to land a woman like Laura he’s got to know something.

By Can't Stop Laughing

July 18, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

The President look like the sturdy, reliable westerner. Kinda the John Wayne look. Trustworthy.

HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA! Yeah, he MUST be a good guy, if he “looks like” John Wayne. HAHAHA! Got any more pearls of wisdom, there sparky? HAHAHA! Stop it, please! It hurts!

By Harold

July 18, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Harold has a DVR. As such, Harold has not seen a single campaign commercial.

Harold does not listen to commerical radio. As such, Harold ahs not heard a single campaign commercial.

Harold has FireFox web browser with AdBlock, so Harold has not seen any internet campaign advertisements either.

Now, who said what about whom, and why does it matter?

Harold has no idea. Soon enough as these technologies are adopted by everyone, neither will anyone else.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Getalife & JK,

Obviously you “gentlemen” have never helped a lady with her chair. If your minds were not in the gutter, you would know that Bush was helping the German stateswoman as she completed dinner. She held up her hands to let him know she was not yet ready to leave. Try to acquire a few manners and you might learn something about the niceties of life.

ALSO, Bush did not spew any food in a private conversation with Blair. Most people honor the privacy of a private conversation (the ‘speakers’ were supposed to be off). But not in the war on Bush. Anything goes. Why don’t you try dumping lies on our enemies for a change?

By time for the truth

July 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Funky

I actually dont care if folks dislike/like Bush. Legitimate criticism is one thing, what is truly pathetic though is the unremitting, irrational,unhinged Bush hate and the hypocritical elitist sneers. I dont agree with everything he says/does either.

There’s no politician any where in the world who would be the exceptional, visionary world leader I would :) Or you would :)

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

ummm… Dusty — what sort of “lies” would like people to tell about our enemies? wouldn’t it be better to tell the truth?

As to Bush and his comment — who cares? at least he was paying attention (maybe?)

finally, on the speech police — does anyone believe anything they hear in a political ad? Both sides stretch the truth as much a possible and frequently flat out lie. If Taylor called Cox a woman, I’d doubt Taylor’s word for it. If Cox called Taylor a man, that would remain to be seen as far as I am concerned. Do you think the pols realize we don’t believe them anymore? or am I the only one so full of doubt?

By getalife

July 18, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Oh Dusty,

That is the worst spin on W I have ever read.

Have you no shame?

You are a female advocating Presidential groping.

time for the truth,

Too bad Blair showed at the G8, he is W’s poodle. I would have told W I would talk to him later after he pigged out. How about W’s manners. Pretty disgusting, mate.

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

oops! I left out a word in my post… it should read:

Dusty — what sort of “lies” would you like people to tell about our enemies? wouldn’t it be better to tell the truth?

By J. Abramoff

July 18, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Dusty, don’t you have somewhere else to be? Like down at the polls casting your vote for Ralph Reed.

By getalife

July 18, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

With voters like Dusty, I would not be surprised to see Reed win.

By annie

July 18, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

People: do you not realize how pathetic you are to be spending all day on this blog?

go …. out …. and…. get…. JOBS.

NOW.

By getabrain, hahaha

July 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Hell, they got you pegged over here too.

The surest way for Reed to be victorious is to have the AJC endorse his opponent.

Works every time.

We appreciate the help.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Can’t Stop Laughing…

Sorry you got hysterical. Too bad you are one of those laughable liberals. Now stay calm. Look at a picture of Gore. That even stops the hiccups.

Which reminds me for some reason, I need to vote. See ya’ later.

By time for the truth

July 18, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

@ getabrain

WRONG AGAIN!!

Bush’s manners were OK. He was very pushed for time. I note your tone is less shrill this time. Easy enough to hide your shame online aint it :)

By getalife

July 18, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

mate,

Yes, I am ashamed of my leader.

Most Americans agree with me.

Then there are the failed Americans like Dusty.

By Toad

July 18, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Annie, I have a job. But blogging is more fun than working.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Oh Smokey,

Before I go, here are some lies you can dump on the enemy. Tell Osama that our troops can torture people just as well as his ( a Luckovich specialty), tell Osama that Bush looks like a monkey, tell Osama that we will cut’n’run, tell Osama our ship is sinking and the sky is falling, tell Osama how we support the troops while carrying antiwar signs, tell Osama that we are secure (but newspapers will tell him anything they want to know about our country’s security systems.)Oh, and Blair is Bush’s poodle. Plenty of lies out there.

There, Smokey, any more questions?

By Toad

July 18, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Jim, I still don’t buy your defense of Chambliss’s anti-Cleland ad. By superimposing bin Laden’s face on the ad it gave the impression that Cleland was on the side of bin Laden. Are you saying that a senator can’t look out for the interests of his constituents and still oppose terrorism?

By J.Abramoff

July 18, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Dusty, the wizard of oz can give you a brain. Give him a call.

By Toad's Boss

July 18, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Toad, you’re fired.

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty —

Your post said “ALSO, Bush did not spew any food in a private conversation with Blair. Most people honor the privacy of a private conversation (the ‘speakers’ were supposed to be off). But not in the war on Bush. Anything goes. Why don’t you try dumping lies on our enemies for a change?”

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that getalife and JK were lying about Bush…therefore, your post seems to say that they should try lying about Osama (your choice for enemy of the day). yet all the “lies” your second post lists would be about the US….am I missing something?

I seriously think we are better off telling the unvarnished truth about Osama and his gang of torturing, murdering terrorists who sneak around the world undermining stable civilization in the name of their agenda. But maybe I’m wrong.

By Cathy

July 18, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Yeah Dusty, Bush can point at record setting deficits, record trade imbalances, $80 a barrel oil, FEMA, and Iraq to show us just how effective this president has been. You got to hand it to the guy. I thought it was impossible to be worse than Jimmy Carter, but Dumya has definately done it.

By Toad

July 18, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

My boss is too busy shopping for shoes on the internet to fire me. Maybe later.

By getalife

July 18, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry folks,

Dusty thinks you are unpatriotic not to support W groping women in front of the whole world.

Your wasting your time because wingnuts never admit they are wrong. Show them the failed outcome and they will spin it into nothing wrong.

It is like beating your head against the wall and it is useless to debate these failed Americans.

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Toad, but despite the inference you drew from the ad, it was fair campaign speech. Of course a senator can look out for the interests of constituents and oppose terrorism — but it’s fair game for an opponent to argue that he was doing one at the expense of the other. We don’t have to agree on whether he actually was.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Liberals did you hear this? Your great leader Bill Clinton, speaking at a fund-raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday, said “The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die”. You’ve got to be s*** me!!! Talk about SHAMELESS! What do you expect from someone with absolutely NO morals. This BS from the same guy that was smokin’ pot in Mother Russia (but didn’t inhale) and demonstrating against our brave troops in Vietnam? What a joke!!!

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Ugotta — that quote is from 2002, not yesterday. You lose credibility when you post false info.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Seeing through the smoke: You’re absolutely right. I guess I had too much of that “cheap beer” last night. My mistake. BUT even 4 years later…it’s still SHAMELESS.

By getalife

July 18, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Ah, the classic Clinton post.

When things go bad, blame Clinton.

Here is a clue, Clinton is not in power.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Ah, getalife. I see you still haven’t gotaclue YET!!!

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

I dunno Ugotta…. 4 years ago, the US was invading a middle eastern country who had threatened Israel if attacked by the US and who had launched rockets at Israeli cities during the first Gulf War… Clinton was an EX-President and had brokered the land for peace deal involving the Gaza territories, perhaps he felt somewhat responsible for Israel’s potentially dangerous situation.

I’d say, all in all, a reasonable statement to have made at a children’s charity luncheon run by Hadassah-Women’s International Zionist Organization.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Seeing through the smoke: Lose credibility??? Heck, I believe everything I say!

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Ugotta…

Everyone should believe in themselves 100%!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Bill Clinton…”tried marijuana BUT didn’t inhale”, “didn’t have sex with THAT woman”, and “would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die”. Duh-huh!

By getalife

July 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Ugo,

I see you have killed many brain cells since our last discussion.

If you can remember, I said I was Italian to rub it in for our English friend, “time for the lies” about the world cup.

Now, I am off to look for something positive to post about our fearless leaders so I will be gone for awhile.

By seeing through the smoke

July 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

I do have to agree with getalife on at least this: Clinton is not in office and hasn’t been for quite some time. I think Clinton had some good moments and some really horrible moments (“that woman” springs to mind as a horrible moment). I try to remember that I’ll feel differently about Bush when he is no longer is office, too. Right now, there seems to be a whole lot of horrible moments stringing together for Bush & Co. Sort like Clinton’s moment during the whole Lewinsky affair.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Hey, you’re a nice guy getalife and I’m just joshin’…

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

GET OUT THERE AND VOTE !!! I just did and there were ten poll workers and two voters. Get off your duffs and get over there!!!

Smokey, you have some good thoughts but you are totally mixed up about what I posted. DUMP LIBERAL LIES ON THE TERRORISTS——NOT US was the idea. Oh, well, don’t worry about it. Let Getalife GROPE for an idea. He’s got to get one somewhere since he’s kinda mixed up these days and likes to argue.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Seeing though the smoke: Clinton hasn’t been in office for quite time, BUT does Bill Clinton know that? Sometimes I don’t think that either HE or ole “goober” Jimmy Carter know that. As I said yesterday, even though I am conservative, I DO NOT CARE FOR GEORGE W (which stands for WHORE for big business). He is helping his big business friends every way he can and the GREED is almost/could be criminal!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Dusty: getalife said he was going to “look for something POSITIVE to say about our fearless leaders”. God, he could be gone for MONTHS.

By jajagal

July 18, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Jim, I grudgingly admit that you are correct about “policing” the campaign ads. But it sure does become depressing to listen to all the carping and mud slinging. I mean, Good Lord, they even did it during the debates. We (my Sweetie and I) discussed over our morning coffee today how we were almost persuaded to not even bother to vote. However, neither of us feels that is an option so we both went fulfilled our obligation by casting our ballots (for what it was worth).

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

In my previous “life”, I wrote and produced many campaign ads and thousands of business ads. I got to see “the mud slinging” up close in political campaigns. I had an attorney/state representative client from South Georgia that was terrible at slinging mud at his opponents. One campaign year he found himself being challenged by a Methodist Minister and an attractive and respected lady of the community. Asked why he wasn’t doing his normal mud slinging he responded, “Hell, what do you do when you’ve got Jesus Christ on one side and Miss America on the other”.

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Ugotta

Tell us how the campaign slogans went that you wrote for the mudslinging politician. He had a good sense of humor. Maybe Getalife could use some of this guy’s stuff since he, Getalife, slings mud like a mad potter.

Now what did Jim say about the speech police? Ah yes—-speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil and do not “diss” the speech police. Did I get it right?

By clarkslawga

July 18, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Instead of telling Osama things, how about we just catch him? Wasn’t that supposed to be a priority?

I guess we just have better things to do than actually bring the person responsible for 9/11 to justice, what with gays marrying, all those christians to persecute, flags to burn and all that liberal bias to plant into the paper. After all, those are the real issues that we need to spend our time and money on, aren’t they? (And yes I know others would fill the void he leaves, but it would be nice to see him pay for his crimes.)

Sure am glad we straightened things out in Iraq, though.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Dusty: He was quite a character, cursed “like a sailor”, was reelected state representative several times, but I heard that he died a few years ago. My little buddy getalife is simply misguided. He’s still gonna grow up to be a GOOD conservative, like his mentor Ugotta.

By TONTO

July 18, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Vote for Ralph Reed. He had me at ‘Keno’.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

clarkslawga: It’s such a wonderful day in the neighborhood. Why do you want to be ugly? How many times do we have to tell you. Dusty, liberals never get it. They always have this negative argument that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on………..

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

By In Search Of A Good Wingnut

July 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Hey Wooten: We need your help big time over at cartoon boy’s blog. They don’t know what they’re doing over there. Today they banned bolding and italics, yesterday it was post length. It’s almost like some liberal is in charge and they’re having a nervous breakdown, er….oh…..nevermind.

Really though, maybe you could give them some pointers, maybe start a class “successful blog operations 101” or something like that?

While you’re at it, talk to the Urinal Grand Pooh Bahs, see if you can get them to upgrade from that 486 DX2 server that runs all the blogs. Or at least put some memory in it.

Or maybe it’s a censorship campaign we got going over there, huh, is it real hush hush? MoveOn been calling alot lately? They not happy with some of the recent discussions? They putting their foot down?

When we getting a new cartoonist?

By Dusty

July 18, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

UGotta B. Kidding,

You gotta be kidding! Getalife grow up? It is a little hard at his age even with his meritorious mentor UGotta. Mentally and politically, yes, yes. Impossibilities are always a challenge. But otherwise, let the AARP handle it.

By clarkslawga

July 18, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

And you guys don’t beat the same drum slowly again and again and again. If you’d take a good look that is precisely the point of my post.

So keep on beating the drum again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again …………………………………………………………..

By clarkslawga

July 18, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again (This is not that hard or creative.)

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I got a good chuckle out of that clarkslawga. Now, tell me in English what you were saying.

By The Stopper

July 18, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

I voted today.

Well, that’s what the Diebold machine told me. Whether it actually counted, I’ll never know.

Thanks, Cathy Cox!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

That’s the problem clarkslawga. You liberal folks dance to a “different drummer”. You just don’t have no rhythm!

By Jim Wooten

July 18, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Hey In Search of…Wingnut, I can’t even control this blog again again again etc., much less that one. Here, though, use of italics and bold is allowed. But only so long as the supply of extra ink and crooked letters holds out.

By clarkslawga

July 18, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

I would agree that my post was cynical at best and patronizing at worst. But the point of it really goes to our oftimes (is that right) inability to communicate across our political differences. I am very unhappy that our focus moved off of Bin Laden before the mission was accomplished, I don’t give one wit EITHER WAY about the “social issues” that we seem to spend so much time on, (Hence the snide words about gay marriage, media bias, etc.) and I think we made a mess in Iraq and have some sort of built in inability to admit that we screwed the pooch there.

Am I unhappy with the White House and Congress. Hell yes. Is that based on a political party affiliation. Absolutely not. Why does my ire seem to be leveled just at the R’s. Because they are in power and that power is close to absolute so they have the power and responsibility to do better, to demand more accountability, to make better choices for the good of the country, not to fire up their base

On the other hand, if this were a bunch of Democrats I would be just as upset and yelling just as loud. (I know I know, I’m a crazy lib, a loon, a moonbat, whatever.)

My issue is not with politics. It’s with what I see as incomptent execution. If this makes me an out of touch lib then that’s fine. I think it just makes me an American with an opinion. That and 50 cents will get you coffee at Waffle House. (OK you might need more money)

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

clarkslawga: Even a smart a** conservative like me can agree with much of what you just said. I would love to see our troops catch or kill Osama. I would love to see the mess, and I agree it’s a mess, cleaned up in Iraq. I agree that too much time is spent on lesser important things. But our military IS capable of multi-tasking. After all we fought 2 major wars in World War II AND WON! I think that our military today is fully capable of handling both jobs if the politicians will get their butts out of their way and let them DO THEIR JOBS. And yes we do need to demand more accountability from our politicians and demand that these politicians put the country first, before their parties as they’re now doing. And Jim, I loved your reply to wingnut.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 18, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

And clarkslawga, are you REALLY a lawyer? ‘Cause if’n you are, I’m gonna be real careful what I say. You folks sue folks.