« To the golf cart Robin | Main | Pennsylvania Democrat Declares "who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" »

The Liberal-Conservative War

Comments on this and many other blogs make clear that a war continues between people of liberal and conservative nature. The way that partisans have treated the last two presidents elected, demonstrate how harsh the judgment and rhetoric has become. Bill Clinton was blamed for all manner of offenses by conservatives, and later liberals, for his presumed liberal policies and on the other hand for 'betraying' liberals by working with republicans on some issues. George W. Bush, on the other hand, received even more vitriol for being conservative, or for not being a 'real' conservative. The extremists on either end were displeased with both presidents; they demanded a polarity which would have been impractical and unreasonable, yet they poisoned the reputations of both men out of spite. From what I can see, there has never really been a purely 'liberal' or 'conservative' President elected yet; Kennedy championed many liberal causes, yet was fiscally and militarily far more conservative than today's liberals would tolerate. And Reagan, the definitive icon for modern conservatives, cooperated with liberals far more often than many on the Right are willing to admit, especially with regard to immigration and environmental issues.

This is not to say there is a moral equivalency between liberals and conservatives. There are many ethical and logical reasons to choose one standard over the other, and I will not go into that here, except to acknowledge that the decision is often made by serious, intelligent people who intend to follow the best possible moral course in their political foundation. Yet historically, liberals and conservatives have often been able to find common ground, and to reach mutually acceptable compromises. The modern version of each group is far less willing to even look for such accommodation, preferring to destroy the loaf rather than let the other side have even a slice, let alone half.

Some people will look at the 2008 election, as a mandate for liberal policies. I disagree, for the same reason that liberals argued that the 2004 election was not a mandate for conservative policies. As a conservative, I naturally believe that in general conservative polices are better for the country than liberal policies, and I would even go so far as to suggest that in an unbiased environment, voters will prefer a solid conservative candidate to a solid liberal. However, I recognize that moods and environments change, and that the nation in general prefers someone they consider more 'centered', that word changing from year to year in meaning as well as specific policy, but usually meaning that the public does not like hard shifts towards any perceived extreme.

As much as I prefer conservative policies and candidates to liberal goals, I concede that a balance of some sort is necessary. This comes from history again, where we can see that unipolar moral systems tend to devolve to individual and systemic corruption, as there is no effective check to the party or leader in power. There needs to be a counter-balance to extremist tendencies, whether or not we like the direction in general that the leadership wants to pursue. It is distinctly unhealthy, however, for disagreement in policy to become vitriolic hatred, for a different perspective to be condemned simply for expression.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (47)

Light at the end of the tun... (Below threshold)

Light at the end of the tunnel? I already have a sign that Obama is a 1 term president.

Twice before, I have gotten the oppratunity to photograph the president. With Obama, it will be July/Aug 2010.

The only other presidents I have gotten to photograph? Carter and Bush, Sr.

Good post, Mr. Drummond.</p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Good post, Mr. Drummond.

I agree, good post.<p... (Below threshold)

I agree, good post.

FWIW, I was always of the opinion that extreme partisanship blossomed in the 80's, lead by the senior embarrassment from Ma. Ted Kennedy (D) during the Bork nomination, when he said:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

I totally agreee DJ. It wou... (Below threshold)

I totally agreee DJ. It would be nice. But it won't happen. Too much hate from one extreme to another. Obama's supporters went into Palin's friends divorce documents, Joe the Plumber's civil rights abused by the state of Ohio, The diminishing of Palin, the McCain is old and will probably die of cancer. These types of things go way beyond the pale. How can you trust an administration that would go to those depths? It is not politics as usual, it is win at any cost no matter how many people you destroy, hurt or wound. ww

"I would even go so far as ... (Below threshold)

"I would even go so far as to suggest that in an unbiased environment, voters will prefer a solid conservative candidate to a solid liberal."

That, of course, is based on your definitions of
"solid conservative" and "solid liberal".

Do you know of any individuals that are in, or nearly in, either category?

Although I agree that the l... (Below threshold)

Although I agree that the last two presidencies have been characterized by a great deal of vitriol, I think there is a qualitative difference in the criticisms of the two presidents. The false equivalence between critics of each continues to bother me. Despite claims of "Bush derangement syndrome" from conservative bloggers, I think the criticisms of Bush's policies have been focused on the policies themself; whereas the criticisms of Clinton ranged from how he should or shouldn't treat his wife to his sex-life to his diet. From the liberals there were criticisms of Clinton for his "welfare reform" and for NAFTA, not personal issues. True, there were some conservatives during Clinton who complained of military misadventures in Somalia (Bush 41's legacy) and the former Yugoslavia, but those criticisms ring hollow in light of Bush 41 and 43s' endeavors.

Perhaps there were some liberal critics of Bush who complained about his faux-cowboy or fratboy style, but for the most part, criticism was based on his expanding executive power, human rights abuses, starting an unnecessary war, and utter incompetence. To be fair, conservative criticism of Bush was also usually based on policy.

I think liberal criticism of Bork and Palin also focused on policy and credentials, although I do remember some fringe attacks on Palin regarding the strange story of her latest child's birth and her accent. I think discussion of Palin's daughter's pregnancy was always presented in the context of how Palin's sex-education policy was a terrible idea.

Perhaps I have liberal colored glasses, but I can't see a reasonable argument that liberal criticisms of McCain and Palin were remotely comparable to attacks that Obama was a muslim or "palled around with terrorists" etc.

Billy, are you for real? NB... (Below threshold)

Billy, are you for real? NBC News ran an ad with a close up of McCains cancer scar and had a person saying he will probably die of cancer while in office. That is not fringe, that is main stream my good friend.

Daily Kos is your new main stream and they requently have degrading and demeaning stories about republicans AND their families.

You have a democratically controlled state government conducting illegal background checks on one of its citizens because he questioned Obama. Is that not mainstream. I can, of course go on and on. You liberals love on thing only and that is you love to hate. ww

WW: Too much hate from o... (Below threshold)

WW: Too much hate from one extreme to another.

Fine... but then you proceed to glibly list things that you believe Obama's supporters did without mentioning anything that McCain's offical campaign people--his running mate included--said to try and prevent Obama from becoming President. Do you think calling McCain old and questioning a septuagenarian-who-would-be-President's health is as bad as implying that Obama somehow condones domestic terrorism? When you think about this, bear in mind that McCain is old, and does have melanoma, and wouldn't give full disclosure of his medical records; whereas Obama never has condoned any sort of terrorism, implicitly or explicitly.

And Palin ought to have been diminished. She demonstrated herself to be embarrassingly unfit for the Executive branch. Conservative intellectuals agree, whereas conservative populists disagree. Intellectuals will be the ones to lead the party out of the wilderness, because frankly populism is a barren wasteland when it comes to formulating fresh ideas and strategies.

While a frank exchange of ideas and subsequent debate is something worth striving towards, democracy is inherently noisy and politics are bound to be messy. Do you think the big political parties were any nicer to each other 150 years ago?

You liberals love on thi... (Below threshold)

You liberals love on thing only and that is you love to hate.

Could somebody other than the clown who wrote that please tell me why anybody who would say something so incredibly stupid deserves to be spoken to with an iota of respect, a mutual interest in robust political debate and disagreement notwithstanding?

And then there's some like ... (Below threshold)

And then there's some like me, a former conservative and Republican turned liberal Democrat, who has never lost cross board respect for all regardless of their views.

Hyper, your pseudo intellec... (Below threshold)

Hyper, your pseudo intellectual snooty nose is showing.

Have you seen the liberals on the news lately? Prop 8? Rosie? Begala? No, you are right. They are driven by love and intellecual discourse for the good of society. Right.

I have been around liberals for some time going back to the 1960's. I am not talking democrats, I am talking leftist liberals. They absolutely hated the military. Not just the mission, the fact that tax dollars are spent on a military. They still do today. They hate any dissenting voice. They want to silence it.

The right has its kooks like Savage and Liddy, but by far the left outnumbers them.

Also, you think it is fine to run a political ad saying that McCain had cancer and will probably die of it in office? Now do you want to talk stupid?

In my opinion, which unlike you, I think I have a right to, you are the one showing the least amount of honesty in this debate.

Only intellectuals should run for office. That is your litmus test. GW Bush, Harvard, MBA, flew jets, was a chimp to you guys. A buffoon. A cartoon character. The sum total is no conservative can ever pass your qualifications. In your world, we just don't have the right. Thank God you live in Canada. ww

I don't mean to get into a ... (Below threshold)

I don't mean to get into a pissing contest, dragging the comments away from the original post, but I didn't see the ad to which you are referring. I did see a couple people on face the nation or some other news-talk show talk about actuarial charts and data about the odds of a 72 year-old with previous melanoma dying. Again, it might be my bias, but that sounds like reasonable political discourse.'

And I don't know any "liberals" who "love to hate".

By the way, WW, you wrote, ... (Below threshold)

By the way, WW, you wrote, "You have a democratically controlled state government conducting illegal background checks on one of its citizens because he questioned Obama."

There is another thread for this business, but I don't think anyone has established any role for the Democratic party or the governors office being involved in checking the background of Joe the Deadbeat Dad, er Plumber's Helper.

Billy, NBC ran an election ... (Below threshold)

Billy, NBC ran an election ad for Obama stating McCain would die in office and also showing a close up of his scar in the worst possible light. All other media outlets refused such an ad but NBC ran it for two days.

Your comment about Joe proves my point about the lefts faux outrage. Conservatives cannot snoop, liberals can. Got it. ww

And what evidence do you ha... (Below threshold)

And what evidence do you have, Billy, that he was a 'deadbeat dad'? That he was checked doesn't prove anything - and raises a LOT of interesting questions as to the reasons just WHY he was checked, especially since they're not quite meshing.

The funny thing is - if the left hadn't immediately tried to discredit Joe, that question he DARED ask Obama wouldn't have nearly had the longevity as a news item.

And, oddly enough, I've never seen anywhere that you had to have a spotless record to approach a presidential candidate when the candidate came into your neighborhood shilling for votes - especially when that neighborhood was apparently chosen at random (putting to rest the idea that Joe was a Repub plant) and then Obama said he'd answer quesitons posed by the people there.

Should Joe have fled the scene? Been silent? Not dared to approach without a totally clean background?

For those not wishing to ac... (Below threshold)

For those not wishing to actually, you know, click on the link...

Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn't know she just had checked on "Joe the Plumber," who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain's example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about "Joe" for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are "thrust into the public spotlight," amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. "I've never done that before, I don't know of anybody in my office who does that and I don't remember anyone ever doing that," she said today.
Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland and Jones-Kelley, both supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, have denied political motives in checking on Wurzelbacher. The Toledo-area resident later endorsed McCain. State officials say any information on "Joe" is confidential and was not released.
Today, Strickland press secretary Keith Dailey said neither the governor's office nor Job and Family Services officials could comment due to an ongoing investigation by Ohio's inspector general.
Republican legislators have called the checks suspicious and Jones-Kelley's reason for them flimsy. They are demanding to know whether state computers were accessed in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wurzelbacher.
Jones-Kelley has revealed that her agency also checked to see if Wurzelbacher was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes. "Joe the Plumber" has said he is not involved in a child-support case.
Jones-Kelly went to the state IG on this - sure doesn't sound like it was a 'normal' thing to me!

I have a feeling this post ... (Below threshold)
Andrew X:

I have a feeling this post is a response to the rather passionate response to your "Setting the Bar" post yesterday.

As a participant there, let me just throw in:

a) Both Clinton and Bush W. governed far more to the center than they were ever given credit for by the idealogues. Obama might even do the same.

b) The "balance of some sort" that you mention is very much akin to the Yin and Yang, and as any student of Chinese philosophy knows, both Yin and Yang are essential components.

c) I am a conservative who was never happy with how Bill Clinton was treated, and I could not pull myself onto the impeachment bandwagon. I think what Clinton did was lame, idiotic, and worth throwing him (or his party)out of office by election as punishment, but the price of impeachment and its associated political warfare far outstripped the transgression. I stand by that, and wonder if the thermostat today would be turned down somewhat were it not for that.

(I actually wonder, in this neverending cultural war, if impeachment is out categorically and unequivecably. I don't care if we find a family in Obama's freezer, dressed for the Thanksgiving table. Impeachment would immediately be a "racist, fascist act", and millions of Americans would rally behind that and stay there. Obama ain't going anywhere until 2012. No matter what. End of discussion.)

So I am a conservative, but I think the system (peace be upon the Founders) pushes Presidents to the center, and it is a crime against truth to pretend that is not so. And most refusal to acknowledge that is about the joy of hatred more than anything else.

Fine... but then y... (Below threshold)
Fine... but then you proceed to glibly list things that you believe Obama's supporters did without mentioning anything that McCain's offical campaign people--his running mate included--said to try and prevent Obama from becoming President.

Of course this lame objection completely ignores the oceans of mud that were thrown by the completely-in-the-tank-for-Obama MSM at McCain and especially at Palin, and the way they tended to bury and ignore stories not favorable to their preferred candidate.

JLawson, I hadn't checked o... (Below threshold)

JLawson, I hadn't checked on the link, and I had an http tag failure with the last message. I don't know of any back child support payments owed by Joe Wurzelbehocker, and I don't much care.

Sure, he has a right to ask a presidential candidate a question, but he was also misrepresenting his objectivity (he was in the bag for McCain from the beginning). His question was also short on facts and long on hyperbole. Obama's tax plan is based on personal income tax, not small business tax. And even if Joe is so stupid as to transfer all profit from his hypothetical plumbing business to himself in the form of personal income tax, he'd have a hard time breaking the 250,000$ mark. So, Joe was misrepresenting himself, and muddying the water about the tax plan, but you are right that he has a right to talk.

And he should not be investigated on the whim of a bureaucrat for his political positions. All I was saying is that the governors office and the Democratic party have not been proven (or even alleged, I think) to be involved in the decision to look into his records. So, claiming that, "You have a democratically controlled state government conducting illegal background checks on one of its citizens because he questioned Obama," is a stretch. I think Helen Jones-Kelley should lose her job, but there's no evidence of a conspiracy.

Oregonmuse, such vicious mu... (Below threshold)

Oregonmuse, such vicious mud slinging attacks on McCain and Palin as....?

but there's no evidence ... (Below threshold)

but there's no evidence of a conspiracy.

Nope. There never is.

Just remember, Billy. This ... (Below threshold)

Just remember, Billy. This nasty little turd will end up in a box personally delivered to you in your lifetime. Let's see if you think it stinks then. I hope you have the honesty to be consistent.

A democratic governor suspe... (Below threshold)

A democratic governor suspends a democratic clerk for illegally checking on Joe and violating his civil rights. No, no political motive there. If the roles were reversed, the left would call for prison time. A federal panel will investigate.

Oh Yeah! If you are voting for McCain, and Obama comes down your street, don't ask him a question. It isn't right. Correct Billy? ww

jeez, you would think that ... (Below threshold)

jeez, you would think that looking at joe the plumbers records was like outing a CIA agent (for exposing bu$h intel as fraud) or something

*palin 2012*

Billy, most small businesse... (Below threshold)

Billy, most small businesses are subs or sole proprietorships, so the business tax liability is synonymous with the personal. Are you this fact-challenged on everything else you spout?

Let me guess, tomh: Not a s... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Let me guess, tomh: Not a small business owner yourself?
If you are, you need a new tax accountant.

jeez, you would think th... (Below threshold)

jeez, you would think that looking at joe the plumbers records was like outing a CIA agent (for exposing bu$h intel as fraud) or something

*palin 2012*

I think this is a fine example the kind of low-level dialogue and discourse that DJ is writing about in his post.

Do I want to get into a finger-pointing contest of who partakes in this kind of vitriol more, liberals or conservatives? Well, I can only offer my perspective on the matter. As a former, dyed-in-the-wool S.F. Bay Area liberal who grew up espousing that Reagan was the anti-Christ and demonizing all things Republican, I can say that liberals partake it in with greater ease and comfort than do conservatives. This is not to say conservatives don't the do the same, they do. It is the degree of vitriol to which one group partakes or wallows in the 'shitty shorthand', catch-all phrases, low-hanging bitter rhetorical fruit, mean-spirited and sometimes nasty narrative etc. more than the other.

In that regard, the majority of the blame for the present socio-political divide ('war' seems a bit harsh) in this country between liberals and conservatives lies on the doorstep of the liberal establishment--thanks in large part to their behavior over the last 8 years toward (obviously) Bush and any of his supporters. It was disgusting, unreasonable, immature and contradictory to long-held liberal beliefs of reason, compassion, listening and understanding and so on. It actually made GOP attacks on Clinton seem tame. (Example: Which is worse: Slick Willie or BusHitler?) For me, it was eye-opening. What I partook in during the Reagan years came full-circle with the Bush years...only far, far worse and this was more widespread and more widely accepted as being reasonable in liberal circles. If Obama promises hope and change I hope this is the one thing he can change about his party.

Now there's an old saying in business that goes "Don't come to me with your problems; come to me with your solutions." Here's my solution: each police your side's vitriol and rhetoric. You know what's right and wrong to say. Example: Some GOPer says 'He's (Obama) not my president.' My response: 'Can it. Do you want to sound like a liberal? No? Good. Then knock it off. He's your President." And liberals can do the same as they see fit (example: the McCain/actuary tables thing).

I think that's a good starting point for everyone.

Anyway, this isn't even 1/52nd of what I'd like to say on the subject, but I've really got to get back to work.

If the roles were revers... (Below threshold)

If the roles were reversed, the left would call for prison time. A federal panel will investigate.

The roles are reversed, willie, and came with none of that. Still having problems with that whole "truth" and "awareness" thing, huh?

Evidence-based political so... (Below threshold)

Evidence-based political solutions would be ideal. As with evidence-based medicine, evidence based politics would promote policies that have been proven to work. Many years ago, physicans bled patients for every ailment imaginable. They bled for pneumonia and fevers, back pain and rheumatism, headaches and melancholia. It was a time honored tradition until someone pointed out that it doesn't work. Politics today are still as backward and ignorant as medicine was 300 years ago. Politicians don't care if their policies don't work, they only care about getting votes in the easiest way possible. So although Marxism and socialism have been proven to be failures over and over again, leftist keep going back for more. Conservative American principles are time tested and have been proven to be successful beyond what anyone dared to imagine when they were first implemented. Conservatives do no one a favor by compromising on those principles.

peter - yeah, dont go calli... (Below threshold)

peter - yeah, dont go calling that "vitriol" as if you can so easily dismiss a very relevant point. tell me what is vitriolic about the below........

the bu$h administration DID out a CIA agent, all of them working very closely together as the records clearly show. she was married to a guy who dared to publicly state that the evidence he was tasked with checking out didnt check out, while bu$h kept using it

in the meantime some low-level govt employee in ohio accesses some records and right-wing not only screams bloody murder, they make outlandishly unsubstantiated accusations, namely:
- that joe the plumber was inappropriately exposed as not at all what he portrayed himself to be (was not about to buy the business; its not a > $250k business; hes not a licensed plumber; hell, his name isnt even joe)
- that it was partisan retribution, even though joe didnt endorse anyone until weeks later
- that the mainstream media was engaging in partisan politics by checking into him, somehow working in concert with the obama campaign

mccain is the one that decided a spotlight should be shone onto good ol joe. if joe the plumber wanted to ask obama a question, he could at least have represented SOMETHING truthfully, ya know?

oh well. the neoconservative movement that brought so many problems to america is almost dead now, to be finished off soon, and america will only benefit from its absence

The war between Liberal and... (Below threshold)

The war between Liberal and Conservative has gone on for quite some time, and will continue to go on for quite some time. It has been a conflict between foresight vs. shortsightedness, between acceptance vs. bigotry, between progress vs. the status quo, between altruism vs. self-interest, and between rationality vs. superstition.

Over the course of centuries, the liberals are, of course, winning: the world more liberal now than a century ago, more liberal a century ago than 2 centuries ago, etc., etc. Just consider all that we happily accept today that would have infuriated the ancestors of the conservatives. Just as an example, the country's about to embark (next year) on the removal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discrimination in the military, and after this is done, the country won't ever be going back.

Often over history The Right has moved toward the left hardly even being aware of it. Today's American conservatives express love for the legendary "founding fathers," who were the RADICALS of their time, fighting the Tories (those loyal to Britain's King, those not favoring "change," the word "Tory" still a synonym for "conservative" in Britain and Canada but no longer in the U.S.). The Left, never content as long as humanity confronts major problems, goes further leftward still, so look for America's health care coverage becoming more universal in the next few years, and once advanced industrialized countries establish universal health care programs, they never return to how things used to be, do they, conservatives?

While liberalism has generally whipped conservativism across the centuries, there is, alas, no guarantee that it will continue to do so. Ultimately, natural selection will pick the winner for those not yet alive. The next several decades will be most telling, as the human population is expected to increase by a tremendous magnitude never before observed. If as the world goes through such population growth natural selection still continues to favor cooperation and altruism, then liberalism will continue to win. If though new constraints upon resources would come to mean that natural selection now favors greed and self-interest, then conservatism shall emerge victorious.

So, we shall see what happens!

You know, peabody, you are ... (Below threshold)

You know, peabody, you are just spouting liberal propaganda BS.

It doesn't matter WHO Joe the Plummer is--or--if he told the "truth" as you libs see it.

He asked Obama a question and Obama answered it.

The point is the answer that Obama gave. That is where the only focus should be in terms of the libs. However, true to form when a liberal gives and answer that they take some heat for the left enters into the politics of destruction in order to minimize the mistake or outrageous answer the politician gave.

Spew all you want, but the public is quite aware of what was asked and answered.

Also notice that there was no reporting as to whether the verison employees were conservatives planning to leak his phone calls or simply liberals too curious to be ethical. And notice THEY lost their jobs...even though no information went public that I'm aware of....unlike all those on the left that unethically and illegally went into Joe the Plummers records and then took the information to the press.

I'm a nurse. If I go into someones medical records that I do not have a direct need to know I will be fired. Too bad liberals only think the same way if it is conservatives who do something wrong.

pea[brain]3000 - "peter... (Below threshold)

pea[brain]3000 - "peter - yeah, dont go calling that "vitriol" as if you can so easily dismiss a very relevant point. tell me what is vitriolic about the below........"

How about your continued use of "$" that substitutes for the "S" in Bush?

That certainly seems to fit one definition of Vitriol: "something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism."

more from pea[brain] - "mccain is the one that decided a spotlight should be shone onto good ol joe. if joe the plumber wanted to ask obama a question, he could at least have represented SOMETHING truthfully, ya know?

And that excuses what? That your so-called "low-level govt employee" had a right to do what they did?

However, before you spin that away, please explain what was in Joe's precise quote that day was a "lie?" What did he "misrepresent?"

And BTW... you do KNOW his legal middle name is Joseph right?

Which if you hadn't noticed makes calling him "Joe" not only correct but legal.

ok sue, so you want to igno... (Below threshold)

ok sue, so you want to ignore all the neoconservative madness surrounding joe the plumber and focus on what they said to each other

well you dont really, judging by the rest of your post, but ok, what was said? i think i know where youre going. you want to say that obama is some pinko commie socialist who wants to put everyone on welfare. not quite. the obama platform from day one has said that businesses in the bracket earning $250k would go from a 36% tax rate to 39%... or as the loony neocons call it: totalitarian USSR!! LOL

marc - if the $ in bu$h dri... (Below threshold)

marc - if the $ in bu$h drives you so insane then i think its your own personal problem. of all people on this board, you have zero business attempting to lecture anyone about vitriol. after all, its really all you have to offer so i hope you are just trying out a little ironic humor there

read my post again about what joe misrepresented. since you didnt get it, the dig on how he uses his middle name wasnt serious. its just kind of funny since his whole question was a misrepresentation from top to bottom, as was his statement that he doesnt want obama to raise his taxes when he will be getting a break under obama that he WOULDNT be under mccain. he had some other dumb things to say when faux news turned the camera on him. sorry, but joe the plumber isnt very bright. thats not vitriol, its just an unfortunate fact

and now you are saying that im excusing the ohio govt employees for their actions. i never did, and im sure you know it. well, neocons love red herrings.. thats not vitriol, its common fact

pea - "ok sue, so you w... (Below threshold)

pea - "ok sue, so you want to ignore all the neoconservative madness surrounding joe the plumber and focus on what they said to each other"

And why shouldn't she?

Remind me again who it was that said this: "if joe the plumber wanted to ask obama a question, he could at least have represented SOMETHING truthfully, ya know?"

Wasn't that you pea? Didn't you call into question something said on that specific day?

You're a piece of work pea[brain]3000, you point in a "direction" then whine and stomp your feet when someone follows your lead.

jeez marc - hahahaha you ar... (Below threshold)

jeez marc - hahahaha you are off the charts. you didnt even read my post to her i guess since i asked that question and then answered it

i mean, is this really the best you can do?

neoconservatism is a disease!

*palin 2012*

pea[brain] - "and now y... (Below threshold)

pea[brain] - "and now you are saying that im excusing the ohio govt employees for their actions. i never did"

Really? Where was that said Can you quote it?

What WAS said was the following:

"And that excuses what? That your so-called "low-level govt employee" had a right to do what they did?"

I understand punctuation isn't one of your string suits but still, it's fairly obvious to even the most lame that both sentences written contained a thingy called a question mark at the end of them.

marc - i cant take you seri... (Below threshold)

marc - i cant take you seriously. your arguments have descended into some kind of word-parsing rant that doesnt even make sense. go chill out and come back IF and when you can manage a real debate


*palin 2012*

Irony - peabody telling ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Irony - peabody telling ANYONE else that they are acting irrationally and need to chill before posting again.

Peabody, you chose a funny ... (Below threshold)

Peabody, you chose a funny thread to indulge your Tourette's syndrome.

Billy, Billy, Billy. You c... (Below threshold)

Billy, Billy, Billy. You claim not to know if Joe owes back child support, but it sure is fun to call him a dead-beat dad without any facts, isn't it? We've learned everything else about Joe. If he owed back child support, we'd have heard about it, believe me.

Then you go on about his "misrepresentation of objectivity". Who he was already leaning toward for president has nothing to do with it. It was a perfectly good question about a possible near future scenario for him. Joe didn't "muddy the water" about the tax plan. Obama did. He didn't deny it or explain anything. He said "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone."

"And even if Joe is so stupid as to transfer all profit from his hypothetical plumbing business to himself in the form of personal income tax, he'd have a hard time breaking the 250,000$ mark."

And you know this how?

While you get all pedantic about whether the governor's office or the Democratic Party played a direct role in the illegal searches into Joe's background you forget - the fish almost always stinks from the head down. This is just a guess, but I'm willing to bet that the request for a search on Joe came from elsewhere.

Oyster, they whacko libs kn... (Below threshold)

Oyster, they whacko libs know this, they are trying to distract from the salient point which is, the democratic leadership of Ohio violated Joe's civil rights. Time will prove this. And Joe will not only be vindicated, but very wealthy. Good for him. ww

Suck it, conservatives. You... (Below threshold)

Suck it, conservatives. You lost.

Liberals rule, conservatives drool!

Liberals rule, conservat... (Below threshold)

Liberals rule, conservatives drool!

Yet more maturity from the ruling class.

Clay, Max just proves the p... (Below threshold)

Clay, Max just proves the point. ww

Ah c'mon Clay, remember tha... (Below threshold)

Ah c'mon Clay, remember that documentary about King Ralph? Maturity is for the Brits!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy