Interesting Analysis of Loss of Support for Iraq War

[GePap]

No. I undertsand it just fine. But Rhetoric means something only if it gets out. If no one reported Roves comments, then no one outside that room would have heard them, and thus they have no meaning.

That having been a political event in which one republican is speaking in front of true believers, what's the point of reporting his statements? Who cares?

Now, comments made in public, like Durbin's, are a bit more open, but even then, mock outrage is moronic.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Interesting Analysis of Loss of Support for Iraq War

Originally posted by MrFun



You might want to take this statement back after reading the article linked below.

Scapegoating Concerned Democrats

well Mr. Fun, I agree with you that Rove should apologize for his statement.

But then Im one of those who LIKES civility in political discourse. Some people think civility is a cover for dishonesty, and that rudeness somehow leads us to a higher level of existence.

And this stuff ALWAYS gets out. The true beleivers pick it up, pass it on, and it contaminates discourse.

[GePap]

What discourse? there is no discourse in this country, only people seeking to shout out the other side.

Discourse requires intelligent debate, which entails people assuming they might be wrong at the start, and a willingess to allow well crafted arguements to change their minds.

We don't have that anymore in this country.

Find me one radio or TV show were intelliegent policy debate actually occurs?

[MrFun]

LoTM, if I find such scapegoating by any politicians offending, I will likely post it. You have a problem with that?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Find me one radio or TV show were intelliegent policy debate actually occurs?

Damn, youre trying to trick me into supporting PBS while its under fire, arent you? Jim Lehrer show. Diane Rehm on NPR (esp when she has Dave Brooks AND EJ Dionne on the same show). Washington Week.

I dont watch cable, so cant say about that.

And of course in RL, and in some places on the net. Tacitus.org on a good day. Belgravia Dispatch. Yglesias. Gandleman.

Oh, and The New Republic, of course.

[lord of the mark]

there you have it. I think ive decided to support continued funding for PBS. Your single question helped me make up my mind. Discourse lives.

[MrFun]

long live civil discourse

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap
So the whole of Washington currently is involved in
mock outrage week?

Our next new national holiday?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap
No. I undertsand it just fine. But Rhetoric means something only if it gets out. If no one reported Roves comments, then no one outside that room would have heard them, and thus they have no meaning.

That having been a political event in which one republican is speaking in front of true believers, what's the point of reporting his statements? Who cares?

Now, comments made in public, like Durbin's, are a bit more open, but even then, mock outrage is moronic.

Just another thought -- what you do not know, can hurt you. Wouldn't that apply in this case? Better to publicize the hateful comments so that others can counter such offending statements?

[Agathon]

It's funny how people want to associate the anti-war protests with "anarchists" and "communists". Although many of the same people were involved, the anti-war marches were peaceful and there was very little confrontation with the police (most of the cops I spoke to [and thanked for their excellent job in some cases – yes we should praise them when they do the right thing] said that they'd be marching if they weren't working).

The anti-war marches were swelled by ordinary people of no particular political persuasion. On the big marches in Toronto, many people brought along their families, and there were many elderly people. The portrayal of marchers as radicals was solely due to the media. CityTV in Toronto was particularly prone to this.

Perhaps the reason that many people dislike communists and anarchists is that they've been brainwashed into not understanding that they are themselves communists or anarchists at heart.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by GePap
What discourse? there is no discourse in this country, only people seeking to shout out the other side.

Discourse requires intelligent debate, which entails people assuming they might be wrong at the start, and a willingess to allow well crafted arguements to change their minds.

We don't have that anymore in this country.

Find me one radio or TV show were intelliegent policy debate actually occurs?

The Daily Show?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Interesting Analysis of Loss of Support for Iraq War

Originally posted by MrFun



You might want to take this statement back after reading the article linked below.

Scapegoating Concerned Democrats

That just confirms what the article says: absent a real, organized opposition, the Bushies are trying to invent one (Durbin, Amnesty International) -- but it's not playing with anyone outside their tight-and-shrinking circle of true believers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Bosh
The Daily Show?

You. Can't. Be. Serious!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't give a **** what Karl Rove says to a bunch of republican donors, anymore than I thought what Durbin said was in any way wrong.

Ah, but this is outrage of the Republican's own making.

Rove has said just as inflammatory stuff in donor meetings before. The Democrats ignored it.

But thanks to the Durbin affair, they've been looking for payback. They got it quite quickly, thanks to Rove. I sincerely doubt Rove's comments would have been noted or made headlines if the GOP hadn't made the stink over Durbin.

So turnabout is fair play!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
So, just when are the American people supposed to tell victory? Its been two years of sunny optism from the admin. met only by an ever upward creeping body count.

As opposed to a dropping body count?