Bad Pub for SLU

[ACE]

I'll take Liddy over Ayers any day of the week.......

I must've missed it when Todd Palin bombed the capitol......

You must be proud Rich. The association between Liddy ws much stronger than Ayers connection to Obama...

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

For those who are unaware, Liddy helped plan the Watergate break-in that would cost Nixon his presidency and landed Liddy a four-year jail sentence.

But Liddy's career of inflammatory statements and actions exceed his Watergate actions.

Liddy, on Vitenam:

"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."

Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF agents during a radio show:

"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."

Liddy, on the impact Adolf Hitler had on him as a child:

When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."

[moytoy12]

Wrong party. In any case I wish I could tell you who will play the Reagan role.....

Umm...yeah, i know it's the wrong party. But the analogy is the same. The sweet isn't as sweet without the sour, or something like that.

[moytoy12]

Where did I say that? It took Reagan to put the nixon years to rest and to put Ford out of everyone's mind. Put a better candidate up than Mccain and we may be having a different discussion. Mccain was as bad a candidate as Kerry was (and that is saying something)

You really think the candidate was wrong? I don't think the issue was with the candidate, but the horrible campaign and the tarnished image of the right (and the idiotic choice of Palin).

[Billiken Rich]

The right isn't counter-punching with anything of substance. Taking shots at tertiary issues doesn't help this country. Yes, the left is guilty of the same thing and I don't support that either. As it stands, the right should be worried about its own brand instead of trying to blemish the left (and obama in particular). It does nothing for you and I.

What evidence do you have of obama's overreaching to this point? I don't think his transition necessarily supports that view.

Again counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic.

I do not have evidence of overreaching at present. I do believe that it will haunt Obama though. In general the liberal democrat party intellegencia cannot help itself. Hopefully Obama will realise his limitations......

[Billiken Rich]

You must be proud Rich. The association between Liddy ws much stronger than Ayers connection to Obama...

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

For those who are unaware, Liddy helped plan the Watergate break-in that would cost Nixon his presidency and landed Liddy a four-year jail sentence.

But Liddy's career of inflammatory statements and actions exceed his Watergate actions.

Liddy, on Vitenam:

"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."

Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF agents during a radio show:

"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."

Liddy, on the impact Adolf Hitler had on him as a child:

When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."

Liddy was a criminal. Ayers was a criminal who did no time. Mccain did not kickoff his compain in Liddy's house.

I'll not defend Liddy except to say 1. We were at war, 2. Reno and Clinton were also at fault in the Waco tragedy, 3. Hitler, while the devil incarnate, managed to convince a modern republic to unleash hell on earth with the acquiescence of the people of Germany. He was a public speaker to rival Obama.

[Billiken Rich]

You really think the candidate was wrong? I don't think the issue was with the candidate, but the horrible campaign and the tarnished image of the right (and the idiotic choice of Palin).

All of the above but Mccain was the topper.

How many age jokes can a candidate survive? Answer: Not that many

[Pistol]

All of the above but Mccain was the topper.

How many age jokes can a candidate survive? Answer: Not that many

Was the problem the multitude of jokes or his actual age? He seemed to be aging before our eyes as the campaign wore on. Didn't help to have the likes of Palin waiting in the wings.

I feel terrible for what happened to McCain in SC in 2000 (you can't claim that speaking without substance is a tactic exclusive to Dems), and the country would be much better off with him in office for the past eight years than Bush. However, his time passed and his own party is largely to blame.

[ACE]

Liddy was a criminal. Ayers was a criminal who did no time. Mccain did not kickoff his compain in Liddy's house.

I'll not defend Liddy except to say 1. We were at war, 2. Reno and Clinton were also at fault in the Waco tragedy, 3. Hitler, while the devil incarnate, managed to convince a modern republic to unleash hell on earth with the acquiescence of the people of Germany. He was a public speaker to rival Obama.

Yeah, I figured you would like Liddy, who by the way donated thousands of dollars over the years to McCain. Look I don't like Liddy or Ayers, but the point is the media REALLY went easy on the McCain/Liddy connection, while talking a LOT about Obama/Ayers. And even easier on the fact that Todd Palin was active in an America hating secessionist group. Can you imagine the kind of attention a Democratic candidate would have gotten if their spouse was involved with such a group?

Reno and Clinton were at fault at Waco, so that justifies Liddy encouraging a firefight with our own ATF agents? Stay classy.

[moytoy12]

Again counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic.

I do not have evidence of overreaching at present. I do believe that it will haunt Obama though. In general the liberal democrat party intellegencia cannot help itself. Hopefully Obama will realise his limitations......

I'm not defending the dems who do it, but at the present, it's the republicans and they seem to be clinging to it like they do guns and religion .

[moytoy12]

Can you imagine the kind of attention a Democratic candidate would have gotten if their spouse was involved with such a group?

Heck, Michelle Obama got it for one off-color remark.

[Billiken Rich]

Was the problem the multitude of jokes or his actual age? He seemed to be aging before our eyes as the campaign wore on. Didn't help to have the likes of Palin waiting in the wings.

I feel terrible for what happened to McCain in SC in 2000 (you can't claim that speaking without substance is a tactic exclusive to Dems), and the country would be much better off with him in office for the past eight years than Bush. However, his time passed and his own party is largely to blame.

I never said that Dems are the ONLY ones guilty of attacking without substance.

I really believe that Obama's margin of victory came from those comparing a crotchety old dude to a vibrant young buck. Shades of Dole vs Clinton.......

[moytoy12]

I never said that Dems are the ONLY ones guilty of attacking without substance.

I really believe that Obama's margin of victory came from those comparing a crotchety old dude to a vibrant young buck. Shades of Dole vs Clinton.......

Agree partially. The campaign had no focus, the republicans had no political capital and palin unnerved a lot of non-obama folks.

[Billiken Rich]

Yeah, I figured you would like Liddy, who by the way donated thousands of dollars over the years to McCain. Look I don't like Liddy or Ayers, but the point is the media REALLY went easy on the McCain/Liddy connection, while talking a LOT about Obama/Ayers. And even easier on the fact that Todd Palin was active in an America hating secessionist group. Can you imagine the kind of attention a Democratic candidate would have gotten if their spouse was involved with such a group?

Reno and Clinton were at fault at Waco, so that justifies Liddy encouraging a firefight with our own ATF agents? Stay classy.

Perhaps you could flesh that relationship out more? Appearing on a radio show doesn't exactly show Mccain endorsing the watergate breakin. (Before you say it I never said Obama was cool with the capital bombing)

Waco Should've never happened. I'm sure you thought Bush overstepped on wire tapping???? Killing the Branch Davidians didn't bother you too? You stay classy bub.

[Billiken Rich]

I hear what you're saying Ace and understand it to be tongue-in-cheek, but I think the best thing is for the Republican party to do an overhaul and come out with some solid policy platforms. I think the country will be better off with competition between well-thought-out positions. Doubt we ever get to that point as both sides like to use the news, such as today's news, in a game of oneupmanship.

Maybe we need longer house terms staggered like the senate. The sad fact is that the next campaign starts before the first one has been certified.....

[moytoy12]

Maybe we need longer house terms staggered like the senate. The sad fact is that the next campaign starts before the first on has been certified.....

That point is well taken.

[Pistol]

I never said that Dems are the ONLY ones guilty of attacking without substance.

I really believe that Obama's margin of victory came from those comparing a crotchety old dude to a vibrant young buck. Shades of Dole vs Clinton.......

You said this a few posts back: "counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic." When Republicans do it, are they guilty of trademark infringement? Can we be honest and just say that arguing without substance is a characteristic of politics in general?

There are way too many variables in the campaign to put the margin of victory on one thing (e.g. record number of black voters, young people, shift in Hispanic vote, vice presidential nominees, several 2004 red states turning blue, Obama's online campaigning, economic environment, and so on and so on). If the Republicans don't want it to be a battle between a crotchety old dude and vibrant young buck then they probably shouldn't have run crotchety old dudes against vibrant young bucks. It's pretty hard to look at Dole or McCain (didn't they learn?!) and paint them as anything but crotchety old dudes, well over a generation removed from their opponents. No media spin did that; it's a function of age and personality.

[Tonka]

You said this a few posts back: "counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic." When Republicans do it, are they guilty of trademark infringement? Can we be honest and just say that arguing without substance is a characteristic of politics in general?

There are way too many variables in the campaign to put the margin of victory on one thing (e.g. record number of black voters, young people, shift in Hispanic vote, vice presidential nominees, several 2004 red states turning blue, Obama's online campaigning, economic environment, and so on and so on). If the Republicans don't want it to be a battle between a crotchety old dude and vibrant young buck then they probably shouldn't have run crotchety old dudes against vibrant young bucks. It's pretty hard to look at Dole or McCain (didn't they learn?!) and paint them as anything but crotchety old dudes, well over a generation removed from their opponents. No media spin did that; it's a function of age and personality.

A real question here - how do the Democrats ever lose a campaign in today's age? I honestly wonder that.

The media self admits that they lean to the left. I think I read that 75% of the media swings to the left. Studies of colleges and universities show that 80% of them teach left thinking views. People today seem pretty self-absorbed and put morals second when voting. Those are just a few of the variables that make me wonder how a Democrat can lose in today's world. However, the voting is still relatively split down the middle. I know the Electoral college far outweighed Obama but the popular vote was pretty split. Just curious to your thoughts?

[Postcard]

A real question here - how do the Democrats ever lose a campaign in today's age? I honestly wonder that.

The media self admits that they lean to the left. I think I read that 75% of the media swings to the left. Studies of colleges and universities show that 80% of them teach left thinking views. People today seem pretty self-absorbed and put morals second when voting. Those are just a few of the variables that make me wonder how a Democrat can lose in today's world. However, the voting is still relatively split down the middle. I know the Electoral college far outweighed Obama but the popular vote was pretty split. Just curious to your thoughts?

The populat vote was split?

[ACE]

Perhaps you could flesh that relationship out more? Appearing on a radio show doesn't exactly show Mccain endorsing the watergate breakin. (Before you say it I never said Obama was cool with the capital bombing)

Waco Should've never happened. I'm sure you thought Bush overstepped on wire tapping???? Killing the Branch Davidians didn't bother you too? You stay classy bub.

There was a little more to it... In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Liddy's comments about shooting our own American ATF agents apparently don't bother you.

[Billiken Rich]

You said this a few posts back: "counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic." When Republicans do it, are they guilty of trademark infringement? Can we be honest and just say that arguing without substance is a characteristic of politics in general?

There are way too many variables in the campaign to put the margin of victory on one thing (e.g. record number of black voters, young people, shift in Hispanic vote, vice presidential nominees, several 2004 red states turning blue, Obama's online campaigning, economic environment, and so on and so on). If the Republicans don't want it to be a battle between a crotchety old dude and vibrant young buck then they probably shouldn't have run crotchety old dudes against vibrant young bucks. It's pretty hard to look at Dole or McCain (didn't they learn?!) and paint them as anything but crotchety old dudes, well over a generation removed from their opponents. No media spin did that; it's a function of age and personality.

Trademarked did make it sound like I was blaming only the dems. You are 100% correct that arguing without substance is a characteristic of politics in general.

I never said jokes about Mcain and Dole's ages weren't justified. Dole should've given up after his Brooklyn Dodgers gaff. All I am saying is that one bad candidate doesn't mean a party should strike the tents and go home forever. The death of the Republican party will not be caused by a weak candidate like Mccain as the Kerry campaign didn't kill the democrat party.

[Tonka]

The populat vote was split?

Yes, relatively split. 66 million to 58 million. Seems relatively split to me.

[Billiken Rich]

There was a little more to it... In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Liddy's comments about shooting our own American ATF agents apparently don't bother you.

That's it? $5000 and a ten year old fundraiser? I can see your fundraiser and 5 grand and raise you the Annenburg Challenge board.....

Liddy's comments about the AFT were and are repugnant as were Clinton's and Reno's actions regarding the tragedy.

[SShoe]

A real question here - how do the Democrats ever lose a campaign in today's age? I honestly wonder that.

The media self admits that they lean to the left. I think I read that 75% of the media swings to the left. Studies of colleges and universities show that 80% of them teach left thinking views. People today seem pretty self-absorbed and put morals second when voting. Those are just a few of the variables that make me wonder how a Democrat can lose in today's world. However, the voting is still relatively split down the middle. I know the Electoral college far outweighed Obama but the popular vote was pretty split. Just curious to your thoughts?

-According to 2003 Census data, only 27 percent of adults over the age of 25 have college degrees.

-According to a 2004 article on Journalism.org, only 54 percent of adults read the newspaper each week.

Just as the "left-leaning" media outlets and higher education venues often teach liberal view points, conservatives often dominate radio talk shows and many cable news outlets.

[Pistol]

A real question here - how do the Democrats ever lose a campaign in today's age? I honestly wonder that.

The media self admits that they lean to the left. I think I read that 75% of the media swings to the left. Studies of colleges and universities show that 80% of them teach left thinking views. People today seem pretty self-absorbed and put morals second when voting. Those are just a few of the variables that make me wonder how a Democrat can lose in today's world. However, the voting is still relatively split down the middle. I know the Electoral college far outweighed Obama but the popular vote was pretty split. Just curious to your thoughts?

Good question.

I wonder the same thing. I think some of it has to do with the party's own mismanagement and infighting in recent years, but a lot of it also has to do with the various voting blocs the Republicans have been able to build over the past 25 or so years. Those particular groups seem more unified in their ideals and more consistent in voter turnout than any easily-identifiable left-leaning groups.

As far as the more moderate Republicans who help them stay even, I think it comes down to a matter of taxes. People in the top x% don't want to have a 39.6% tax rate instead of a 35.0% tax rate, which is hard to argue with. I have a tougher time reconciling while so many moderates vote Republican despite the fact that they are nowhere near the brackets that receive tax cuts, and likely are in brackets that receive tax breaks from Democrats. This might just be a group willing to take their lumps on principle, what they would probably classify as 'Socialist' or 'redistribution of wealth.'

As for the media, there is no denying that individual members of the media are predominantly liberal in their political views. That's why they get into journalism- young, idealistic, want to change the world. It makes sense. However, they generally work for large, right-leaning corporations (as large corporations are wont to be) who are willing to let their journalists stay satisfied by subtly inserting their viewpoints while enjoying corporate tax breaks from Republicans. There are more liberal major news vehicles out there, but they are way more moderate and subtle in their political views that the right-leaning ones, which seem to be a more recent development.

In education, that's probably another reflection of a field that young liberals pursue. As far as I can tell, educators have always been liberal unless not allowed to by their institutions or governments. The correlation between the most educated states voting Democrat and the least educated states voting Republican has been very strong in recent elections. I would disagree with you that voters "put morals second" when voting and contend that a lot of voters put their own versions of morals first, which does not discount the fact that many voters are self-absorbed- you treat these two as mutually exclusive, and they are certainly not.

[Billiken Rich]

-According to 2003 Census data, only 27 percent of adults over the age of 25 have college degrees.

-According to a 2004 article on Journalism.org, only 54 percent of adults read the newspaper each week.

Just as the "left-leaning" media outlets and higher education venues often teach liberal view points, conservatives often dominate radio talk shows and many cable news outlets.

I think you've got it. The left has papers, broadcast tv including pbs/npr, and most cable news. The right has Fox and talk radio.

In the past the broadcast networks and papers were THE power in information. They still carry the most weight but have been diluted by the "pick what you want to hear" cable networks and websites/blogs.

PS I'd guess that 54% paper reader stat probably is based on getting a copy not looking online. I've never paid for the post and read it quite often.....