H&C: Steele v. Dukakis: Showing Up To A Fight Unarmed
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, who lost decisively to Ben Cardin in 2006 despite every effort to distance himself as a Republican, guest hosted on Hannity & Colmes and was bested by none other than former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. For Steele, labels are all important--again a fascinating turn for someone who didn't mention that he was a Republican anywhere on his campaign website in 2006. He congratulates the Democrats (let's not call it the Democratic Party, Mike) for "learning their lesson" and being more conservative since 1994. Um, crazy Fox partisan pundit say what? He asks Michael Dukakis how that gibes with having Barack Obama -- the most liberal Senator, natch-- as the titular head of the party. Dukakis makes the only response you can to such hackery:
STEELE: But let me ask you this, Governor: I'm really intrigued by this idea that all of the sudden labels don't matter, because you know, the left didn't seem to have a problem throwing around "right wing conservatives," you know, "conservatives" as a pejorative term, you know, taking out of context the quotes of Republican leaders and you know, painting images of them and labeling them as racists, you know, turning back the clock on civil rights. So why, all of the sudden, doesn't that matter? Why don't these labels matter all of the sudden when you got a way left-of-center candidate leading the Democratic Party?
DUKAKIS: Who is a "way left-of-center candidate"?
STEELE: Uh, Mr. Obama.
DUKAKIS: Oh, I think you're delusional. I think you're delusional.
It's FOXNews, of course they're delusional.
Full transcripts below the fold:
STEELE: I really appreciate what I’ve seen from the Democrats over the past six or so years. They’ve really learned their lesson from 1994. They have found what I call ‘Trojan horses’ Democrats who are, you know, almost like conservatives, in many respects, and you look at Virginia and Pennsylvania, the elections they’ve had there. How does this new Democratic approach square with Barack Obama’s certainly more liberal—and as considered the most liberal member in the Senate—how does that line up? How does the Blue Dogs work with the…you know, a dog like Obama, the lead dog like Obama?
DUKAKIS: Michael, you can’t get off that label.
STEELE: Well, I think it’s important. Labels mean things.
DUKAKIS: But wait a second, look at the country’s fiscal condition today. When Bill Clinton left office, we’re on our way to the elimination of the national debt. Remember?
STEELE: I do.
DUKAKIS: Now we have a national debt that is double what it was when George Bush took office and it’s going to be our kids and grandkids that will have to pay it off. What is conservative about that? Now Obama is a guy who believes you gotta pay your bills. I happen to believe you gotta pay your bills.
STEELE: Yeah, but he wants to pay…he wants to pay everybody else’s bills with my money!
DUKAKIS: I think that’s a rather conservative position. But don’t tell me…of course, it’s our money, but it’s also our Social Security, it’s also our roads, it’s also our …
STEELE: No, it’s my money. It’s not our money, it’s my money.
DUKAKIS: Well, it’s your money, but it’s also your country and it’s your kids and your grandkids.
STEELE: That’s right.
DUKAKIS: And everything I’ve seen about McCain’s approach to this suggests that if anything, he’s going to increase the national debt. Now what’s conservative about that?
STEELE: There’s a lot…there’s a lot…there’s a lot there that’s conservative…but …
DUKAKIS: So I think we need to get off the labels, take a good hard look at what these candidates are really talking about. If we do that, Obama’s going to win this election, because the overwhelming majority of the American people are with Obama when it comes to his approach to this, not McCain.
STEELE: But let me ask you this, Governor: I’m really intrigued by this idea that all of the sudden labels don’t matter, because you know, the left didn’t seem to have a problem throwing around “right wing conservatives,” you know, “conservatives” as a pejorative term, you know, taking out of context the quotes of Republican leaders and you know, painting images of them and labeling them as racists, you know, turning back the clock on civil rights. So why, all of the sudden, doesn’t that matter? Why don’t these labels matter all of the sudden when you got a way left-of-center candidate leading the Democratic Party?
DUKAKIS: Who is a “way left-of-center candidate”?
STEELE: Uh, Mr. Obama.
DUKAKIS: Oh, I think you’re delusional. I think you’re delusional.
STEELE: The most…well then, let me ask you, why is he identified as the most liberal member of the United States Senate?
COLMES: By one group…
STEELE: By one group? Well, there are 92% who aren’t as liberal as he is…
[crosstalk]
DUKAKIS: This is the one guy I know running for the presidency who strongly opposed this stupid war…That was a liberal…
STEELE: Yeah well, we could have that discussion later…
DUKAKIS: No, no. I don’t know what to say. Ask the American people what they think about this war. But he was somebody who strongly opposed it. That was a very conservative response to what I think was a very dumb decision. Wasn’t it?
STEELE: I appreciate that, Governor, we got to move on to some other stuff. Good to have you with us.
Delusional by definition.
The Republicans have spent a lot of time and money demonizing the left. They will call any opponent to the left of Ghengis Khan a left/liberal. Why? Because they've created a psychological reflex reaction in their base, and it doesn't matter how true it is. What matters is only that it works on them.
No. He is a right winger. If he were liberal, he wouldn't have received any serious consideration in the media to start with.
I always considered Steele sort of an empty suit, and you can see here that he gets his ass handed to him because he's too stupid to understand the facts. Anytime these guys are up against someone who can see past the spin they're in trouble.
I love old Dukakis, good to see him out and about and shredding away. When he was Governor, he's ride the subway to work with his two state cops. The best years of my life were when he ran the state in the 80's. It has gone deeper down the tubes ever since and Patrick will be half hamstrung by the mess.
You got owned! Where was that guy in '88? Where was tht fire when they talked about raping his wife or where was that fire when they ran the Willie Horton ad? I know that running for President puts you in a straight jacket, but we have to learn that Democrats win....
...when we attack the other sides strengths
...when we are lose enough to attack the suppositions of the other side.
Atilla the Trollop, Spied Upon @ 3:
amen,,, and Steele is a jerk, and terrible at TV.
Correction: 'Double-Stuffed Delusional'
[Deleted. Off topic, unabashed blogwhoring-Sitemonitor]
Just curious, if anyone can correct me on here, but wouldn't an avowed 'socialist', Sen Bernie Sanders of VT, be more 'liberal' than pretty much anyone, including Sen Barack Obama? Wouldn't the label, 'socialist' anything, by definition, be more 'liberal' than anyone who's a Democrat? If that's true, then Mssrs. Steele and his ilk, can shove it with their 'most liberal Senator' shtick. I'm just saying...
Thanks for being with us but we gotta move on to some other stuff where we won't actually get a public bitch-slapping by a man who we call a wimp....
Anytime Fox News robots get their backside handed to them they have have to move on to the next segment, wonder why?
No!
This was NOT an example of Dukakis doing ANYthing but once AGAIN NOT defending liberalism. Denying it, sure...but will he call them on their assumption that it is something that is BAD??? I didn't hear it! In fact, at the end when he said that being against the war was CONSERVATIVE?!?!?!!? WTF?!?!?
How can anyone here think that they just saw something good? It was Dukakis who was the one who GAVE conservatives their 'in' back in '88 when he refused to defend what liberal meant. He ceded territory and we have yet to recover and here he is doing it AGAIN and we progressives are sitting here saying "woo hoo, go Dukakis"?????? So bad was Dukakis' flubbing of this that even idiot movie directors were able to show what SHOULD have been said when being "attacked" for being "liberal": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRVbWMvi7c
Chris Rich @ 5:
That is very cool. I have great memories of Cleveland under Kucinich in the 70's. The corporations HATED him.
Unfortunately, the last thing that Obama will ever be, either in appearance in reality, is a left of center candidate. This is evidenced by his press conference today, where he has now declared that he reserves the right to alter the number of brigades that he wishes to withdraw under his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal of troops from Iraq, claiming that this is contingent upon conditions on the ground. Not exactly the speech that the troops were hoping for from this alleged agent of hope, since they realize that the more time that they are in Iraq, the greater the possibility that they will return stateside severely burned, blinded, brain damaged, missing their arms and legs, paralyzed from the neck down and suffering from the effects from PTSD.
Proud2bHumble @ 8:
But not environmentally progressive. He's just not green.
When did pundits start talking like stoned out adolescents...you know...you know...you know...?
Steele was describing republicans in that . All the spin.
it's all bullshit, Glad to see Dukakis stick to his guns and call them on it.
9 Paddy Says: [Deleted. Off topic, unabashed blogwhoring-Sitemonitor]
What is abashed blogwhoring like?
I guess I can see why Steele lost his election. Is he really that stupid?
Epinnoia @ 2:
On our Ship of State the republiscums think everything inboard of the starboard rail is liberal, which makes their position all wet.
Captain Obama’s Bitter Half Husein Kangaroo @ 20:
I live in Maryland, and yes, he really is that stupid.
Baghdad Bob had more credibility on his worst day than that moron Steele has on a good day if there is such a thing for this tool.
Those Oreo shots to the head in Baltimore were too much.
Steele's as in over his head here as he was against Cardin. Dukakis remains a really good guy who got a raw deal.
Atilla the Trollop, Spied Upon @ 3:
Well..."Right winger"?? Not all that.
But...Obama definitely isn't what he sold himself as to the base.
According to Keith Poole of UCSD (No liberal, he.) Obama and Clinton are in about the same place politically.
11th and 20th respectively in the Senate and 88th and 188th overall in the Congress.
When being made a fool
and stuck for a response,
end the discussion!
These Repub simpletons are ought to be dumped!
Peter G @ 16:
...cuz he's way out in right field, which is the wrong field...gotta be in left field to be affective...but he is a dip with very milky logic...any greening would just lead to more junk consumerism.
Steele is usually a pretty rational guy, but yeah, he was being delusional by following Hannity's talking points on this issue. This idea that Obama is the most liberal Senator when the Wall Street Journal is calling him Bush's Third term is insane. We're into July and they still haven't figured out how to attack Obama yet.
ysbaddaden @ 19:
"I'm embassased to say this, but my blog is the bestest in the whole world. Please stop by and visit." :-)
Mister Anderson @ 29:
When has Steele ever been rational? He's a moron.
OldDave @ 30:
That usually works on me. Just sayin.
Notice that there is a lot of "some say" and "has been labeled as" going on there?
"People claim that Obama is the most liberal senator"
Amazing what one can peddle when all one needs is opinion.
I loved Gov. Dukakis. A very kind, thoughtful man. I got involved with his campaign a bit through a friend when he was running for president, and because of that, I got to go to the WTC in Boston for election night. It was wild. I was sad when Gov. Dukakis lost. I recently read an interview with him -- can't remember where. He said that he blamed himself for the trouble this country is in. Why? Because if he responded to Bush Sr. and defended himself (i.e., the Willie Horton scare ad, among other things), maybe he would have won, and, therefore, no Bush Sr., so no Bush Jr. I was stunned, touched, I don't know what, by this comment. All I know was he did a good job as governor, and he is a good and honest man. It was our loss.
Bartleby @ 13:
But Obama isn't liberal, and doesn't want to be defined as one anymore than he wants to be defined as conservative. He comes to the field with the old philosophy of, 'I believe in what I believe in, and I come to conclusions without consulting handbooks on how to toe party lines.'
I like how Steele makes reference to the Blue Dog Democrats when he talks about the Democrats "learning their lesson" and becoming more conservative. The Blue Dogs are not Democrats at all. They are the result of Republican attempts to stack the deck by slithering into office passing themselves off as Democratic candidates. They have voted in lockstep with Bush and the Republicans on nearly every issue.
If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that it's a Golden Retriever.
"It's not our money; it's my money!"
Uh, no. Obama's plan isn't to tax you and nobody else, Steele. Stop acting like a spoiled rich brat.
Meat - I should have mentioned - and I did in a previous post (I do it as often as I can) - that Obama is guilty of the same thing as Dukakis. I DO believe Obama is liberal. At least, more liberal than the Republicans, obviously... But you're right... acting as if his beliefs are separate from established ideological norms... bugs the crap out of me. Even if it MIGHT be a way to win an election....
Speaking of Dukakis, why do the good ones get away? Makes me think of the country we could have had.
Erroll @ 15:
I just don't understand what's wrong with him saying he's willing to let the conditions on the ground factor into his decision, especially when he says that so far none of the evidence he's been presented with has caused him to believe that he'll have to alter his current proposal. Unlike Bush, who actually has access to all of the information from the field and ignores any he disagrees with, Obama is not in a position to get all of that information at the moment. After his meetings this summer, he'll have access to some more information and may find out something that he doesn't already know that will lead him to change course. That's just being honest. For all we know, he might find that he can safely pull them out quicker than his original plan. Can we please stop acting like he said today that he's fine with keeping our troops over there for 100 years? He wants out, but he wants the withdrawal to be as safe and effective as possible. We all want our troops home safely and this mess to end, and there's really no good way to pull out of Iraq without problems, so we need to make sure we make the best of a terrible situation and limit loss of life both to our troops and to Iraqis. It's a complicated issue that can't be neatly summed up in a sound bite or two.
no steele it's your guy you voted for and support that has put us in this mess BUSH....fiscally responsible my ass
oh steele nice imitation of hannity. dollar has drop 40% since he became president.....give it a rest with your tabloid crap
BEST LINE OF THE CHAT:
OWNED. Dukakis took apart everything Steele said in short, simple, pointed terms even the knuckle dragging FOX audience could understand.
Steele came off looking like the greedy little punk he is. "My money, Mine!" Priceless.
Brings to mind another item that isn't talked about too much...intelligence. In the last 50 years or probably more the voters have been afraid of of intelligent candidates, as if they were going to put something over on them. Stevenson, Humphrey, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and many others have probably come across as too smart to be a regular guy. (Carter finished where at Anapolis vs. McCain?, but he did beat the likable Ford--exception.)
Great, so we end up with "likable" low intellect types who need others around them to do their thinking for them. They read prepared speeches, but can't handle free form press conferences, or Q&As. We who become cynical start wondering WHO is running the country....Kissenger, Nancy Reagan, Cheney.....? Who's going to run McCain's administration, Romney, Joe L., Condi? Heaven help us!
He says that "conservative" has been used in a perjorative fashion by "liberals" and goes on to call Obama "the most liberal member of the Senate" as if there is somehow something wrong with such a thing, if it were true.
He's the token black conservative, and not very convincding I might add
dada @ 39:
Exactly. Well said.
well, whenever i use “right wing conservatives” or “conservatives” or "Republican" in quotation marks as such, i'm referring to "the so-called ____ "... as in, today's "cons" and "repubs" are not really that; they sure aren't of my dad's (RIP) variety, not the eisenhower republicans...
i was preoccupied with my little children, in the 80s, trying to teach them otherwise, when greed and selfishness became so permissible, so fashionable...
it's really ugly.
and i blame rush... and now he is the ultimate "poster child"... ugly.
Thrillhouse @ 40:
The problem, which should be obvious, is that Obama is not a true antiwar candidate. His withdrawal plan is not immediate but phased [if he does not change his mind again] over a 16 month period. Are you aware that he wishes to leave close to 100,000 troops even after his phased withdrawal finally takes place? Are you cognizant of the fact that he wishes to leave the more than 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq after his phased withdrawal finally takes place? Please explain how keeping all those American forces either in Iraq or the nearby region is supposed to somehow win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Would you be thrilled if foreign troops were stationed in Mexico or Canada? Or do you believe that because the Iraqis are not American and that Iraq is simply a colony of the United States, that their views do not count? And no, the puppet government of Iraq does not qualify as representing the views of the Iraqi people.
You state that "he wants the withdrawal to be as safe and as effective as possible." You are doing what conservatives and neoliberals are fond of doing and that is assuming that there will be violence directed at U.S. forces when they [finally] leave Iraq. As independent journalist Nir Rosen, who has spent much time in the region, has pointed out, when that finally does occur, who would the resistance fighters resist? It apparently can never be pointed out enough that it is the bellicose presence of the United States military that is inflaming the insurgency. It can be argued, quite persuasively I believe, that the Iraqis want the United States to leave their country as quickly and as rapidly as possible. Obama's phased withdrawal over a 16 month period hardly qualifies as a speedy withdrawal of troops from that slaughterhouse in Iraq. Leaving those soldiers to used as cannon fodder does not strike me as the best way of supporting them.
But let me ask you this, Governor: I’m really intrigued by this idea that all of the sudden labels don’t matter, because you know, the left didn’t seem to have a problem throwing around “right wing conservatives,” you know, “conservatives” as a pejorative term, you know, taking out of context the quotes of Republican leaders and you know, painting images of them and labeling them as racists, you know, turning back the clock on civil rights. So why, all of the sudden, doesn’t that matter? Why don’t these labels matter all of the sudden when you got a way left-of-center candidate leading the Democratic Party?
But let me ask you this, Lt Governor Steele: I’m really intrigued by this idea that all of the sudden labels don’t matter, because you know, the right didn’t seem to have a problem throwing around “far left, extreme left, cut and run liberals, tax and spend liberals, moonbats, leftists, libs”, you know, “liberals” as a pejorative term, you know, taking out of context the quotes of Democrat leaders and you know, painting images of them and labeling them as fascists, you know? So why, all of the sudden, doesn’t that matter? Why don’t these labels matter all of the sudden when you got a way right-of-center candidate leading the Republican Party?
Which one sounds more like the way things have been for the last ten years?
most of the iraqi's want u.s. troops out no argument there
obama's intention as commander in chief to give the u.s. commanders a new mission to get troops out of iraq.
will he consult with them to determine the best case scenario to withdrawl troops.......i'm going to go with yes
troops are withdrawing presently if i understand correctly the extra troops brought in for surge
now i need to find if you're indeed absolutely correct about contractor troops staying at 100k and u.s. combat troops staying in iraq at 100k
say what you want... bush is making this virtually impossible in some respect....to get out that is
to me if Blackwater contracts with the oil companies let them stay. they are a public company as long as we don't pay for them
i've always been against the war/occupation....this has been in the works for yrs. between u.s.,u.k. and israel
Not only is Steele one of the DUMBEST mofos I've ever seen, but he can't interview worth a shit. A REAL journalist would have sources to back up their "facts." A REAL journalist would reserve judgment in effort to preserve unadulterated reporting. A REAL journalist would let the guests speak without interrupting. But this IS Fox News, where REAL journalists are losers.
Leave it to Steele and FOX to continue to repeat debunked lies from a crappy magazine. The National Journal is hardly what people would call a balanced magazine. They're notoriously partisan.
Whenever some Rightwing hack repeats the "most Liberal Senator" nonsense, the reply should just be two words: "Ted Kennedy."
"You think Obama is more Liberal than Ted Kennedy?"
Steele just got turned into,melted Steele.
the whole thing just bites.
but i always liked dukakis. he fought pretty well for amtrak. and he made steele look like a putz.
Erroll @ 48:
Cool, somebody read my post. Since I've got a chance, I'll respond to your questions as best as I can. I am aware that he wants to leave some troops behind, although I was not aware of his plan to leave behind an equal number of mercenaries (Thank you for using that word instead of "independent military contractors" or some such nonsense). As for the hearts and minds of Iraqis, we lost those a long time ago, and I doubt we could hope to gain them in my lifetime after the terror we've wrought. I hope that Obama decides to listen to the people and the sovereign government of Iraq and take out all of our troops. Since it is their country, their views supersede mine, yours, and our government's (I agree that it has been clear for years that U.S. presence is not wanted there). I'm not quite sure what to make of your question about foreign troops in Mexico or Canada, but as a general rule I don't like governments stationing troops in other countries without the genuine support of the host nation's government and citizenry.
As for your second point, I'm sorry if I was unclear that I have both the safety of our troops and all Iraqis in mind when considering a withdrawal and I fear that innocent Iraqi citizens will continue to bear the brunt of the violence with or without us. Iraq is a mess with multiple groups fighting for multiple reasons, shifting alliances, and many shades of gray. There was an excellent article on this history of the changing alliances and what it means for the future of Iraq in the May/June 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs ("The Price of the Surge: How U.S. strategy is Hastening Iraq's Demise" by Steven Simon). Even once we are out, there is bound to be fighting since I doubt Iraqis will wish to be ruled by the corrupt, ineffective puppet government that we have installed (I agree with you that it is one and even that government wants us gone). Again, Simon goes into far more detail about our current round of paying other people to fight our battles for us. Also, as Simon goes on to point out in the aforementioned article, you can only withdrawal troops and equipment so quickly due to simple transportation and logistical concerns. I recommend the article as it is quite germane to the current discussion.
I hope I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for responding to my comment.
I really need to learn to keep these posts shorter or get my own darn blog.
Now of course Obama will freak out over being called "way left of center" and move even farther to the right, because we just can't have a Democratic candidate that is any way associated with those dirty liberal hippies.
Steele.
Now there's a perfect name for a Neocon.
Of course Steele is delusional. He's a black Republican.
Steele is downright funny. Nothing he says makes any sense ... and he's just looking for talking points to be meaningful. Awesome. I've never thought Dukakis had anything going for him ... but he made Steele look like an idiot.
Conservatives are conseratives first and Americans last.
They are mentally sick!
Dukakis is wrong.........It is conservative to run up the national debt and destroy the military!!!!
Its liberal to pay down on the national debt and to have a strong and respected military!!!
What is wrong with these Democrats? They don't know how to be the opposition!!
These Fox News robots can't come up with anything other than the stupid talking points. By whose definition is Obama the most liberal in the senate? What a bunch of dumb sheep.
Mugsy @ 53:
So what if he is? Its better than being conservative like Reagan, Bush I or Bush II.
Another four years of conservatism will be the death of our constitution.
Its time for a Liberal/Progressive White House to clean up this mess!!
Captain Obama’s Bitter Half Husein Kangaroo @ 20:
Yes he is!
He is proof that black Americans vote ideas and not race!!
I love the line they use to describe Obama as the most liberal senator. First, it makes no sense at all if you ever heard of Senator Sanders or Senator Boxer. Second, republicans will keep saying their talking points that are lies until someone in the media starts calling them on it. And Democrats have to jump on them when they try.
Oh that was sweet, Dukakis Spankenstein'd Steele's delusion.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
One side tells me Obama is the "most liberal" senator...
And that same side tells me he's a centrist...
While that same side suggests he's far to the right of McBush...
All the while, that same side tells me how they know, they know it all...
... But do they really, at all?
.
Steele's blockheadedness here makes Dukakis look great! Maybe we should think about running him for president. He's sure better than these pathetic right-wingers.
The answer of Why he wants to pay with my money? is: because YOUR president took us into this war. So only rigth wing nuts should pay for this crayzzines.Because the blood is in your hands and a small sacrifice is not too much to ask.Not that you are going to give your life or your childrens life.Please shut up and go away!!!
Thrillhouse at #56
To work backwards, you reference Steven Simon in Foreign Affairs as saying that "you can only withdraw troops and equipment so quickly due to simple transportation and logistical concerns." Neither I nor anyone else on the true left has said that U.S. troops can be brought back to this country in a few days. But it certainly can be done a hell of a lot quicker than Obama's phased [not immediate] withdrawal plan which is stretched out over a 16 month period. And even that plan, he is now saying, is open to revision.
I am puzzled regarding your puzzlement about my hypothetical example of foreign troops being placed in Mexico or Canada. The point that I thought that I had made was that if that were to be done, the citizens of this country would be quite uneasy would foreign soldiers on their borders and would want them removed from the outskirts of the United States as quickly as possible. In a similar fashion, if Obama were to go ahead with his idiotic plan of leaving close to 100,000 troops either in Iraq or, to use Murtha's term, over the horizon, in countries like Kuwait or Qatar [along with American mercenaries], there would be tremendous resentment among the Iraqis since they would realize, justifiably, that Obama could then order those troops back into Iraq, where they could inflict more death and destruction upon the Iraqi people.
Since you admit that the hearts and minds of the Iraqis "were lost a long time ago" it makes absolutely no sense at all for the United states military to remain in Iraq [especially over an incredible 16 month period], when one realizes that, as I tried to point out at comment #48, it is the belligerent presence of the United States military that is the cause of so much of the vio0lence in Iraq. If there were foreign soldiers walking down your street wearing battle fatigues and especially carrying assault rifles, would you not want them out of there as quickly as possible? Since you seem to be a fairly rational person, do you not believe that is what the Iraqi people want also? There will always be resentment and hatred by the Iraqis toward American soldiers and Obama's obtuse plan to take them out in 16 months will not make the Iraqis look more favorably upon the [alleged] agent of hope and change.
"My money, my money"....
Cheney is also spending "your money" paying Haliburton...Is that acceptable?
The only thing that got me is when Dukakis said how obama voted no to going into iraq, saying how this was a conservative vote. Since when is not going to war a consertive thing. Being against war is neither conservitive nor liberal in my opinion.
I like the rhetorical trick that Dukakis used to turn the conservative ideology on Conservatives. It works on FOX, but it wouldn't work on Air America, or Olbermann.
I agree that political labels are the result of a lazy and lapdog media, and should be kicked around some. But lately I feel, especially from the Obama campaign, that Left-wing has become a dirty word to be held at arms length. One of the reasons I appreciate Crooks and Liars is because I'm basically left-wing along with many voters I know.
Is the Demos on TV trying to screw the Repub brand some more by confusing the pundits? Or, are the Demos on TV afraid of the Repub swift-boat tactics of being labeled a Liberal? Or, is Obama really a closet Centrist afraid of being labeled Conservative and Liberal?
Lately, I feel like a mistress. I am made love to when I'm needed, but I'm publicly disavowed in order to keep appearances.
Eroll @ 72
I'm glad to see you replied to my post as I was looking forward to it. I'm sorry I didn't grasp your hypothetical question about troops in Mexico and Canada, and now that I see what you were saying, I agree (as I hope my previous comments would lead you to believe). I also agree that the overwhelming number of Iraqis want us out as quickly as possible. In fact, I'd say we are in too much agreement to argue over this any longer. My only remaining question is how long you believe an immediate withdrawal should take since we agree it cannot happen overnight. Since I have no background in military logistics, I will defer to those who do, although I assume it would take roughly as long as it took to get all of the troops and equipment there in the first place. Also, thank you for calling me fairly rational. That's probably the nicest compliment I've gotten online.
Steele is so uncomfortable in that seat stuttering ''why Q1'' then go onto ''Why Q2'' then go to ''Why Q3''
how can this man be on TV?... oh it's Fox News that's why
Steele got OWNED. No wonder this chump lost the MD election...
Comments are closed on this entry