Redstate

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Get Rich Slowly

He's just so wrapped up in hyperpartisanship, and is so convinced that concepts such as patriotism and loyalty are a sham, that he doesn't think anyone actually would want to fight terrorism if the other party were in power.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I've been wanting to use that quote for some time now, just needed a dumb enough post to tag it to. I finally succeeded.

Get Rich Slowly

You, sir, are a man of culture and refinement. One of the most underappreciated movies in the past decade. Well played.

That’s a much better hypothetical and much more reasonable.

It would be really nice to start with the basics (psst…There called facts). Clinton’s Justice Department spent most of the time building walls so intelligence could not be shared. Their posture utilized a enforcement approach to terrorism. They never asked for anything resembling the Patriot Act since it was against their judicial modus operandi. So go sell this stuff somewhere else.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

No, the Clinton Justice Department did not ask for any kind of reform of the Intel bureacracy.

Lets look at the 1996 Counter-Terrorism bill, HR 3593, though. In this bill Clinton asked for most of the surveillance powers that later made it into the PATRIOT ACT. The Bill that finally reached Clinton's desk had been stripped of most of its surveillance provisions by the GOP-controlled Congress. So I will repeat my questions: Was Congress on the side of the terrorists when they took out the surveillance provisions?

You will have to do better than that around here. Last time I checked Shuster, Hyde and Duncan were Republican’s. The bill was passed without the wiretapping provisions due to “legal” concerns (incidentally courtesy of the same civil liberties organizations against the Patriot Act and big hint, they don’t get checks from Republicans). By the way, many of these points were previously codified in 18 USC around 1986, hence the easy passage (minus the so called controversial aspects opposed by Clinton’s legal team).

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Point on the sponsors gracefully conceded.

I will also re-state things in a less inflammatory manner: When, in the 1990s, right of center groups (usually Second Amendment organizations) opposed increasing the power of the State, the Left often painted them as being little better than the terrorist organizations these provisions were putatively designed to fight.

To use a better example than my (somewhat angry) opening shot, most people here don't think that Ron Paul's vote against PATRIOT made him a tool of Al Qaeda.

When one claims that to oppose USA PATRIOT or warrantless wiretapping indicates at best a lack of will to protect America and at worst Ba'athist/Al Qaeda sympathies, it's a descent in the same rabid partisanship as the Lamont/Ba'ath Democrats who foam at the mouth with rage when a GOP government gets powers they'd be happy to grant a Democrat.

You are combining two logical fallacies here: the strawman and the non sequitur. Hint: two wrongs don't make a right.

Your non sequitur - also in blogging terms a threadjack - is to jump from one statement to a further one, that does not logically follow. Harold Ford is being criticised here for speaking in favour in his adverts of provisions which he voted against in Congress. You are jumping from this to a debate about whether he was wrong to vote against them in Congress. Perhaps this is a good debate to have, but it deserves its own thread. *If* he was right to vote against them he is wrong to use his support for them in his campaign. *If* he is right to use his support for them in his campaign, then he was wrong to vote against them. It is difficult to see how he is in the right here.

Your strawman - this is where you set up a feeble argument which seems to be similar to your opponent's in order to knock it down - is the claim that anyone who opposes the Patriot Act is a tool of al Qaeda. No-one suggested that.

What people in this thread are suggesting is that opposing the specific provisions cited in this advert is a misjudgement, and one that potentially benefits al Qaeda. That seems to be Harold Ford's position too. So what's the problem?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Read my posts. I am not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of Ford's votes.

I *am* criticizing the premise that to oppose PATRIOT and warrantless wiretaps means that Ford is unserious about defending the U.S. against terrorism and winning in Iraq, a premise which is pretty clear in the initial post.

The original post says that Ford voted against PATRIOT and opposes warrantless wiretapping, and thus is shown by his record to be a "cut and run surrendercrat." "Cut and run surrendercrat" pretty obviously means "(at best unwitting) tool of Al Qaeda."

Broken down simply, the first post could be written as such:

Premise: Ford opposes PATRIOT and warrantless wiretaps.
Premise: To oppose PATRIOT and warrantless wiretaps is to be unserious about the defense of American and victory in Iraq.
Conclusion: Ford is unserious about defending America and victory in Iraq.

The original poster is taking the second premise to be axiomatic and I am saying that it is absolutely not by showing that people who are not unserious about defending America oppose the sort of provisions found in PATRIOT and warrantless wiretaps. The existence of such people invalidates the second premise and thus the conclusion.

You have highlighted one phrase and invented your own meaning for it, then you have deliberately distorted your own meaning into a parody of itself.

You have also ignored the main thrust of the OP.

= The real summary of the OP is thus:

= Harold Ford claims to support the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in his commercials.

= His votes show that he did not do so when given the chance.

= Harold Ford is a hypocrite and dishonest.

The way you run from these arguments is contemptible. Inventing your own description of the OP which ignores almost all its content is as dishonest as is Harold Ford.

However, it is possible to demonstrate that Harold Ford is unserious about defending America. His own behaviour demonstrates it. It is Harold Ford's own commercial which claims that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission were essential to the defence of the USA. Either he believes this, in which case he voted against proposals he believed to be essential for purely partisan reasons; or he does not, in which case his commercial is nothing but a cynical attempt to claim credit for policies he opposes, and mocks the seriousness of national security.

By focussing on one intemperate phrase you run like a frightened rabbit from the main point. You do this because you know that Harold Ford's behaviour, as described in this post, is utterly contemptible and cannot be defended in any climate of intellectual honesty.

I should stress, I have not personally checked the Congressional voting record, but I note that you do not challenge the premises of the OP. You merely ignore them.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

If the OP had simply said that Ford's own reactions to the 9/11 comission indicate that he doesn't take his ad seriously, I wouldn't even have started this thread. In fact, if that had been the beginning and end of the original post, there would have been a solid argument.

Instead, in attempting to bolster what was originally a strong argument, the OP trots out Ford's stance on PATRIOT and opposition to warrantless wiretaps as further pieces of evidence that Ford is a "cut and run surrendercrat." It's thus rather obvious that the OP regards those two positions as a substantial part of the clear cut case for Ford being unserious about fighting terrorism.

And what would be a more benign meaning to "cut and run surrendercrat" than the one I have apparently given it without any justification? I'm curious.

from a reasonable reading of the phrase to an unreasonable one within a single post.

The OP has adequately demonstrated that Ford is unserious about national security. He is either unsure of his own position, or deliberately misrepresents it for electoral gain.

But to equate being unserious about an issue with being a tool of al Qaeda is one hell of a jump. One implies that Ford has nothing useful to add to the debate, and is willing to mock the seriousness of the issue for partisan gain. The second that he is working for the other side.

I am sure you can see the difference between doing nothing in the GWOT and actively working on the terrorists' behalf.

So, yes, you are distorting what the OP said in this post, in order to have a paper tiger to knock down.

And, yes, you are continuing to ignore the substantiv points of the OP, including 95% of what was said.

I should stress, I don't speak for the OP. I don't know what the OP's views on Harold Ford are. I do know that THIS post does not say Harold Ford is working for al Qaeda. It reveals the man's hypocrisy, lack of integrity, and willingness to put partisan political games ahead of serious contributions to America's defence.

You might even get around to responding to these serious points if you like.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Like I mentioned earlier, the point that to endorse the 9/11 comission in spite of having opposed it's recommendations indicates a lack of seriousness is a perfectly sound argument. How many times do I have to say so?

I'm not addressing the sound argument, I'm addressing how the OP subtracts from an initially sound argument by gratuitously throwing in the issue of PATRIOT and warrantless wiretaps (and Mexico) as evidence of Ford's lack of commitment to protecting America.

To sum up. I will more than happily state that to not endorse and then endorse the 9/11 comission indicates hypocrisy and lack of seriousness on the issue. But I will also vehemently state that "Opposed to PATRIOT and Warrantless wiretaps = advocate of retreat and surrender" is *not axiomatic*.

And as for the whole issue of definition, calling someone an advocate of retreat and surrender is far, far worse than saying that someone is unserious and advocates doing nothing in the GWOT.

So you have conceded that more than 90% of the OP was perfectly sound.

It is just that in listing the contradictory positions that Harold Ford has taken on GWOT, you think the OP should have missed some out.

I hope you won't mind if I think this is an odd basis to post an objection. You seem to be saying it is wrong to list a whole series of points against Harold Ford, because SOME of them also apply to other people, whom you would claim are serious about defending America. And, in any case, the OP should have stopped because the main point had already been demonstrated to your satisfaction.

On the question of whether being unserious about national security is the same as advocating surrender, make up your mind. You had previously said that being unserious about national security is the same as working for the other side, an even more serious allegation which the OP did not make.

Finally (and I hope this is final), nowhere in the OP does it say that opposing the Patriot Act makes someone a surrendercrat. The phrase is used to describe ONE person, and is based on the totality of his positions. You may not agree with this. I wouldn't use the word myself. But to distort what the OP says in such a blatant manner in order to imply that it could equally be applied elsewhere shows a lack of integrity and manners.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

But Ron Paul is pretty much a tool in general

We have many rivers to cross as a party in terms of working out the internal problems, but losing because of dispiritedness or some misplaced desire to punish ourselves isn't an option. There are Conservatives here on RedState that I disagree with but folks, this is no time to get dispirted and self-consuming. The Donks aren't apologzing for the terrible wrong they've perpetrated inre: Valerie Plame. And they won't apologize, just as they haven't yet recognized they lost the last election. Handing the government over to these people just because in the short term things having gone exactly as you've wished is an awful strategy. I don't believe in the "Republicans need an out in the wilderness moment" theory. What we all need to do is realize that this is a multigenerational, demographically-complex, long-term movement that will have its disappointing moments: but that isn't any reason to throw in the towel.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

the promo? Who else thinks Gatorade is paying the guy? ;) I know, I know, he's trying to make a point. All I could think about was "Man, I haven't had a Gatorade fruit punch in a while, that sounds great, WOAH he has bug eyes. Did it get cold in here?" Great promotional work, indeed.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

He comes across with a very strong used car salesman vibe. He has always bothered me for that reason.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson