Redstate

Quite honestly, it is rather refreshing to see a Democrat grow some spine and come up with some strong statements about Republicans.

"how it is that a party so dedicated to the proposition that "Bush! Is! Dumb!" (though avoiding the resulting questions of how dumb Bush can keep beating them at the polls) can wink and nod as its Senate Leader makes one boneheaded statement after another"

Easy, the Republican party has been by far the most aggressive and melodramatic party in terms of its campaign, and that demeanor appeals to people as a sign of strength. The Bush campaign was able to paint Kerry from a war hero to a war criminal, to being the preferred presidential candidate of Osama bin Laden, one who destroy traditional family values and most importantly, an indecisive flip-flopper (which the Democrats kind of proved their point by running a too polite campaign). People liked those strong statements, that is why they voted for "dumb Bush." (I guess it didn't work in my state of IL, where Alan Keyes, professional drama queen, got trounced by the mature appearing Barack Obama and despite a massive smear campaign, Phil Crane still lost to Melissa Bean)

Certainly statements like Reid's "back to the Civil War days," certainly hold as much water as statements pounded into the mind of the impressionable voters of the nation about John Kerry. Am I advocating that I agree with Harry Reid's views? No. The Democrats are trying to reinvent themselves as a party which sticks to its values and has a backbone to defend itself. Reid said himself at a Utah democrat (democrats in Utah? Who knew?) dinner that "...minority party leaders need to be more aggressive, challenging conservative characterizations of liberals as purveyors of abortion, gay marriage and secularism."

It is about time that the Democrats start calling Republicans bluffs as the Republicans have been doing for a while...it should make things a little more interesting...perhaps if that balances each other out...perhaps we will talk about issues rather than play with the emotions of the populous.

to being the preferred presidential candidate of Osama bin Laden

OK, now it can be told. It was Karl Rove who persuaded Osama to come out of his cave and make that TV commercial where he promised that blue-voting states would be spared, but the red states would feel the mighty wrath of Allah.

That Rove is a genius.

the infamous cj says: "Democrats are trying to reinvent themselves as a party which sticks to its values and has a backbone to defend itself"

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says: "The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."

Persuasive defense, there.

The only point i can really take from CJ's argument is his call to politicians to stop toying with the public's emotions. Nothing gets far on the wings of personal attacks. We have seen politics essentially turn into a no-holds-barred mud-wrestle. Differences have never been quite as acrimonious as now.

I saw this evidenced in a Democratic cartoon showing a number of prominent Republicans (and a Christian) all gathered in a toilet bowl. Collectively, they were saying "my way or the high way." A Democratic donkey was next to the toilet with a cane, preparing to flush the toilet as he said, "fine with me."

Now it is interesting that this should come from the kind and compassionate left. While Republicans were never famous for the Democratic virtues of Understanding, Kindness, and Compassion, liberals never tire of selling themselves as such. If they were really all these things, they wouldn't be using the vitriol that they're splashing on Bush and "his minions."

If they simply don't understand, its because they either aren't trying or because the conservative world-view is too far removed from their own. If the latter is the case, it would seem that our two parties are beyond compromise. If the former is the case, it would seem that Democrats are simply trying to eliminate Republican competition by painting them as uncompromising - thus unfit for recognition as a legimate political party.

At any rate, a little less vitriol from both sides would make reasoned discussion a bit easier. As it stands, the parties are on the edge of civil war.

"The only point i can really take from CJ's argument is his call to politicians to stop toying with the public's emotions. Nothing gets far on the wings of personal attacks. We have seen politics essentially turn into a no-holds-barred mud-wrestle. Differences have never been quite as acrimonious as now."

Bingo my friend.

"Now it is interesting that this should come from the kind and compassionate left."

Indeed, its perhaps the permissive liberal attitude which makes them so easily picked on. However, if you are going to keep throwing mud at a kind person, that person will get mad and finally start fighting back with anger of their own. It just appears that the Democratic party just got tired of having mud thrown at them..and now want to fight the Republicans back.

"At any rate, a little less vitriol from both sides would make reasoned discussion a bit easier. As it stands, the parties are on the edge of civil war."

Indeed, that would be nice, to make civil discussion instead of civil war. But at least the Democrats are now standing up to the Republicans...although sadly it is just petty insults and melodrama from both sides.  

I think the proper action when your opponent is destroying himself is to get out of the way and let him proceed.

Robert Novak tells us that

Democratic National Committee (DNC) fund raising under the chairmanship of Howard Dean shows a disappointing $16.7 million raised in the first quarter of 2005, compared with $34 million reported by the Republicans.

Pelosi is not only a strident, unattractive figure, she's sprouting ethics problems faster than Tom DeLay.

And now Harry Reid turns out to have a tin ear for the stuff that comes out of his own mouth.

Does it get any better than this?

Hey how about calling a religious leader the anti-christ! That shows backbone!  

How about saying a black woman wants to bring back slavery (before the civil war)!  Woooo...

Yes, thank goodness the Democrats are finally matching Republican invective!

No.

Not Andrew.

I read an article by Orsin Scot Card (Orson?).. the guy who wrote Ender's Game.. that showed some of the practical ways that the other side tries to put GOP pols in no-win situations.  As I remember some good ones include:

always include the phrase "who has still not resigned" or ".. been suspended" after the name in question.  always expand a specific miscue into a general statement.  always describe 'his' views as controversial--

viola:

"Harry Reid, who still has not resigned, repeated his controversial charge that at least some [one is some, right?] black women favor a return to antebellum America"  

"In another partisan speech, embattled Democrat Leader Reid, who has yet to resign, repeated his controversial claim that veteran US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas [nb. always use the full title of the target's target, never the title of the target unless the word 'embattled' is included] was unable to write well enough to be a member of that court.  Reid, who has faced calls from across the nation (just because it is from one party doesn't mean it isn't national!) to resign for several weeks now, quoted Justice Scalia in an abortive attempt to justify his scathing critique of America's African-american Justice."

I do not believe that Frist has the votes in light of recent comments by some Republicans.

Anyone have any concrete news?

Can you link to me comments by President Bush or the RNC leader since 2000 has said anything close to Dean's "evil, braindead, or corrupt" comments or Reid's "bad people" or calling Justice Thomas "an embarassment."

I keep hearing that these comments are in response to Republican "mud-slinging."  Can you please be the first to show me the original Republican leader's mud-slinging because I must have missed it when it happened.

but I think you already knew that.  Neither side is sure.  Dems have started talking less harshly and stopped mentioning "shutting down" government.  Frist has not already implemented the vote.  So my guess is that both are in limbo.  We'll see.

"... challenging conservative characterizations of liberals as purveyors of abortion, gay marriage and secularism."

You forgot tax hikes and gun control. Besides ... why is this unfair? Are "liberals" not in favor of abortion, gay marriage and "secularism"?

why is this unfair?

It's unfair because it only lists liberal policies which are unpopular. But in addition to the ones mentioned so far, you have to admit that liberals have also been at the forefront of turning over U.S. sovereignty to international courts and the UN, placing health care under the control of the folks who run Amtrak and the Post Office, and making sure that children know all about 'fisting' before they leave the 7th grade. Everyone wants these things, and only liberals offer them.

choice of 2000 as a cutoff and your limitation to RNC leader and President Bush for quoutes knowing full well that if we went back to the Clinton years we could find plenty of mudslinging by the Republicans.  And of course President Bush and the RNC chair stay above the fray, but just some recent quoutes by Republican members of Congress comparing judges to the Ku Klux Klan and calling for the impeachment of Justice Kennedy because he does his own research on the internet (gasp) are things I can think of off the top of my head.

"...minority party leaders need to be more aggressive, challenging conservative characterizations of liberals as purveyors of abortion, gay marriage and secularism."

<no further text>

calling for the impeachment of Justice Kennedy

is not mudslinging.