Two men enter, one man leaves

It’s just another round of right-wing projection — “We assume our enemies do this terrible thing that we do, and since everyone does it, we really have no choice, do we, so it can’t actually be evil. But they’re so terribly evil for making us do it…”

Does anyone out there happen to know what Democratic malfeasance Hewitt deems so heinous it demonstrated the congenital deceitfulness of the breed?

In re the I-guess-thats-what-he’s-talking-about subject of voter fraud, I can sum it up in three words: “Motor voter bill.”

This is one of those areas where there is a complete, 100% disconnect between the self-identified Left, Middle and Right in this country: the Left and Middle either see M-V as an essentially benign way of increasing citizen participation (particularly minority citizens) in the democratic process or just don’t care much about it at all, whereas the Right see it as a wildly nefarious perpetuation of Boss Tweed-style voter manipulation, 21st-century-style.

Seriously, do a little googling on it. M-V turns otherwise often-reasonable Repubs into frothing loonies in much the way that school voucher plans have the same effect on Lefties, except with the weird difference that everyone knows about the latter, while not too many people outside the right-wing echo chamber pick up on the former.

p.s. +1000 points for “implacable decepticon killers”

Hewitt is the hardest of hardball land-use attorneys in southern California. He has made a fortune fighting against land use regulations on behalf of large land owners. He’s a well-financed bully who’s been very successful finding loopholes and weaknesses in the federal govt’s inadequately funded regulatory system.

Which was why I was surprised about 10 years back, when he was one of the most vocal opponents of The Irvine Company’s “Shady Canyon” development, which was built in Hewitt’s neighborhood. The guy who had never met a developer he didn’t love was suddenly incensed that a long-planned community — one that makes his own look like junk — was going to be built in his precious viewshed. His pro-open space letters were, by the way, quite ineffective.

Anyone who thinks that Hugh’s a “nice guy” or “nonpartisan” is simply uninformed or disingenuous. He’s lame and hypocritical, even by Republican standards, and it’s sad that his views are taken at all seriously.

oh, and his web site is apparently 404 as of this writing. neither john’s link nor google take you to a working page.

Remember the cardinal rule: if Republicans are accusing you of something, it means they are doing it ten times worse.

Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?

“Remember the cardinal rule: if Republicans are accusing you of something, it means they are doing it ten times worse.

“Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?”

Well, just to give you a couple of examples: (1) Republicans often accuse Democrats of bigotry, and (2) Republicans often accuse Democrats of making assertions unsuppported by evidence. ;)

“It seems like there’s a concerted effort by the GOP to describe partisanship—often fairly ordinary partisanship at that—as “hatred” and “bigotry”.”

It might have something to do with the following expressions of normal partisanship: being repeatedly called a misogynist for expressing qualms about late-term abortions, a racist for expressing worries about the long-term effects of affirmative action and a hater of grandmothers for suggesting that Social Security might need some fixing. And those were just by some of the teachers I had in high school and college.

It’s a natural feature of the two-party system – as oppose to proportional representation system with multiple participants – where you’re achieving the same exactly outcome by demonizing the other party as if you were promoting your own.

Of course it’s much easier to demonize the other guy than to credibly blow your own horn, especially when you really don’t have much to brag about. And so, here we are: fighting Democratic psycho killers to save ourselves…

Of course, “politics as Doom” has its own problems as a metaphor.

Yes, but let’s not be too hasty to abandon it, for it has some rhetorical possibilities not immediately evident in other metaphors. The exploding barrels of toxic waste? Military funding of Israel, obviously. The bloated, floating cacodemon? Rush Limbaugh, naturellement. John Kerry is a dead ringer for the revenant, and I think we can all agree that there are few problems in politics that a well-aimed shot from the BFG9000…

Well, that wasn’t normal partisanship. That was inexcusably nasty partisanship, especially from a teacher (Is that hyperbole on your part? If not where the heck did you go to school?) I’d still save “bigotry” stuff like this, however:

The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. … That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.'” – Tom Cobun, republican US Senate candidate from Oklahama, Oklahoma Gazette

And Ed Gillespie defines it even less narrowly than you do, to include “any harsh criticism of the President.” And the host of the highest rated TV news/political commentary program on cable compared Media Matters with the KKK. And praktile’s comment was one of the least impressive examples of “bigotry” I’ve seen in my life.

“Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?”

How about the Republicans accusing Sandy Berger of attempting to politicize the declassification of national security documents? What disgusting hypocrites they all are.

“It might have something to do with the following expressions of normal partisanship: being repeatedly called a misogynist for expressing qualms about late-term abortions…” and “The abortion/subjugation of women linkage is brought up in almost every abortion debate… “

I expect that someone who is motivated only by concern for a near-viable baby (and perhaps the future mental well-being of the woman), would look to reduce the demand for (late) abortion, including some or all:

• Promote birth control. Affordable, covered by insurance.
• Teach sex ed in schools, including birth control, failure rates, less risky practices.
• End the stigma of single parenthood – good, affordable good day care, job training, livable wages. Safe housing.
• Sensible maternity leave, flexible hours or child care when child gets sick. No “mommy track”
• Wider availability of early abortions, all over. Support of practitioners, failure to tolerate bombing and harassment of doctors and patients of such clinics.
• Good, affordable, available care for children with birth defects and severe disabilities – lifetime care in many cases. Respite care for the parents.

Offer some creative solutions to these problems if these are too left-wing for one’s taste – not words about what charities might offer, but concrete commitments – and I will take that person as sincere and not primarily interested in social control. When someone rejects measures to prevent unwanted late-term pregnancies, and refuses to help ensure decent lives for the children once born (their mothers and, yes, fathers), then I figure that person’s main aim is to create a moral underclass to look down upon. Punishing sin, misogyny (or misanthropy generally), the label is less important.

(I don’t accuse anyone here of holding these views, merely showing the logic behind what seemed to SH as rude prejudice.)

Well, Sebastian, its just a counterpart of ‘Saddam-lover’, ‘traitor’, ‘appeaser’,’idiotarian’, ‘America hater’, etc you and others of your ilk have been calling anyone who questioned the veracity or wisdom of Mr Bush’s excellent Iraq advenure.

Do I sound bitter? Sure am.

holsclaw sez: And I won’t ask you to defend Cynthia McKinney’s theory that Bush and the Jews planned (or allowed depending on which day you ask her) 9-11.

Well, that’s the last time I take anything you have to say seriously.

Show me where Cynthia McKinney ever said anything like that. Links to Free Republic don’t count.

“And I won’t ask you to defend Cynthia McKinney’s theory that Bush and the Jews planned (or allowed depending on which day you ask her) 9-11. ” Sebastian’s first statement….note the words “planned” or “allowed”

“I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.” …McKinney’s second paragraph. Is anyone willing to make the case that the Bush administration has not politically profited from 9/11? Is it not beyond doubt that so many friends of Bush have profited from 9/11 as an excuse for the rape of Iraq (and American taxpayers), that, in the usual manner, the Feiths and Libbys will not be rewarded by the Halliburtons upon leaving Government service?

As far as MacKinney’s first paragraph, perhaps ill-phrased, but it will be considered prescient in light of Chapter 8 of the 9/11 commission.

What did they know? Enough to stop it.
When did they know? Early enough to stop it with a bare minimum of effort.
Why did they not warn? Heck, Bush needs his vacation time.
What do they have to hide? Well, considering how hard they fought the commission….well, heck, we all have a pretty good idea of how much there is to hide.

There is enough to hide that there is no way Kerry will become President. Not enough pardons in the world.

I am no fan of McKinney’s. But I doubt she meant that Bush administration officials planned 9/11 in order to make a few bucks off dust masks.

Are you willing to say for certain that Bushco (and you now how this works, for both parties, the rewards come later) have not or will not financially profit from 9/11? Especially if you conflate 9/11 with Afghanistan/Iraq, as they
would have us do?

And although it was not their primary motive, I am willing to guess that potential profits from the Iraq invasion were not utterly absent from Bushco’s minds. And Iraq was on their minds on Sept 11. I wish it were otherwise.

A) A spike in oil prices was predictable 5-10 years ago. The spike has little to do with the war or terrorism, and is caused by increased demand from China etc, but it was predictable. Whoever has control of oil right now is making huge bucks. Insane bucks.

B) I don’t know what to do about the “revolving door” or the connections of people of high achievement with high margin big corporations. I don’t know if anything should be done. What kind of job should a Rumsfeld or Albright or Rice do when they leave gov’t? Flip burgers? But there will always be some conflict of interest.

C) If I told a Greek or Roman that you should not profit off a war they would think me mad. Leaders took their nations to war for personal and social financial gain. Hell, I think even the grunts are getting some nice checks. That we find this horrifying might mean there is something wrong with us. (This will get the CT gang mad at me.)

“kill everyone in the Twin Towers (40,000+ people)”

The level of detail in the denial reminds me of Condi Rice’s “Nobody could have imagined 8 hijackers taking two aiplanes from Boston….etc?”

Sebastian, is it impossible to imagine Bushco would allow a terrorist hijacking that they assumed would cause few or no casualties, if they believed it would facilitate the greater purpose of preventing rogue regimes from getting WMD’s?

Arghhhhh, my denial has nothing to do with the level of detail. I mentioned the 40,000+ intended victims because it is one of the specifics that we are talking about. I think that talking about it as mere “heinous level of cynicism and miscalculation” is what lets some people get away with being foolishly outrageous.

But I think the last few posts make my point about demonization not being confined to Republican tactics quite well.

“But I think the last few posts make my point about demonization not being confined to Republican tactics quite well.”

Yeah, well, if y’all wanna get back on topic or something…

I don’t have a syndicated radio show or book contract, and neither does Cynthia McKinney. If public and paid vitriol is any indicator of private and hidden vitriol, Republicans win hands-down.