Are Dems really as bad as Repubs? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #1 09-30-2006, 09:14 AM

Politicians of all stripes engage in exaggeration to make their points, but are they "all the same" as some people like to say? To those on the right, Dems seem worse. To those on the left, including me, Repubs seem worse. Those perceptions arise, at least in part, from each person's own biases, but I have a hard time accepting that the Repubs aren't worse. For example, Dennis Hastert says that many Dems in Congress are traitors. He did not use that precise word, but I don't see any other meaning to his words. I will post his comments in a second, but I would have to say that his comments are objectively false and he has to know it. Can anyone think of any Democrats of similar prominence to the Speaker of the House who have made similar comments about Republicans?

Here's what Hastert said (from http://thinkprogress.org):

Quote:

ASMAN: More on terrorism, though, Speaker Hastert. The president has taken his gloves off, using some pretty tough language with the democrats with regards to security. And you certainly have. You said terrorists would be coddled if we followed the Democrats’ game plan. Do you think the Democrats are coddling terrorists?

HASTERT: I think what they do is, they are so bent on protecting criminals and going through the process and not expediting these people who really want to take our lives, to murder us, and you know, we’ve seen it time and time again. We just saw it just now with the ms-13 gangs, trying to stop them from coming into the country and the liberal Democrats in the Senate blocked it.

ASMAN: But again “coddling terrorists.” You say democrats are doing that. That’s really tough language.

HASTERT: I’m saying what they’re doing is they’re not allowing us to prosecute these people. They’re not allowing us to — the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world, and they want to put them and release them out in the public eventually.

Matt L · #2 09-30-2006, 09:18 AM

Typical posturing.

This happens whenever any of them talk about the current hot-button issues. For example, look at the Democrat position on concealed carry permits; then look at reality.

aklim · #3 09-30-2006, 10:15 AM

Yes. They are all the same.

GermanStar · #4 09-30-2006, 10:52 AM

Soft language and moderate, well-reasoned views do not lend themselves to the promotion of fascism. In the long run, I suppose it will all balance out, but at this point in time, Repubs are definitely worse.

Carleton Hughes · #5 09-30-2006, 10:55 AM

"career politicians" are generally all corrupt and inflated with ego and entitlement,most of them combine the ethics of a grifter with the morals of an alley-cat,screw'em all I say. Time's ripe for a good social revolution,never happen though,people have too many material diversions and not enough hardship to wish for a change. Don't like the mid-east crisis?just change the channel and you are instantly disconnected from unpleasantness.....there's always HGTV,how much more pleasant to replace those old velvet curtains with sheers than to attempt to fathom why innocent people are dying daily in Iraq.

PerkHouse · #6 09-30-2006, 11:45 AM

Democrats... Republicans... just different sides of the same coin.

MS Fowler · #7 09-30-2006, 12:10 PM

Carleton,
Is it possible that you and I agree? amazing.
This country was set up for citizen-legislators; not career politicans.
The founders would scarcely recognize it.
Sad.

I re-watched "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" a few weeks ago. I would be the Jimmy Stewart character--I would be the one expecting the government to actually work as intended. I would also be talking it over with Ab Lincoln's statue as I packed my bags to leave.

aklim · #8 09-30-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

"career politicians" are generally all corrupt and inflated with ego and entitlement,most of them combine the ethics of a grifter with the morals of an alley-cat,screw'em all I say. Time's ripe for a good social revolution,never happen though,people have too many material diversions and not enough hardship to wish for a change. Don't like the mid-east crisis?just change the channel and you are instantly disconnected from unpleasantness.....there's always HGTV,how much more pleasant to replace those old velvet curtains with sheers than to attempt to fathom why innocent people are dying daily in Iraq.

Fine, lets have a revolution. What next? More revolutions after a couple months? Who will you put in there that is uncorruptable? A computer?

kamil · #9 09-30-2006, 03:33 PM

Democrats are idiots. At this point they should actually change their party name to "SOCIALISTS." It would probably suit them a lot better.

Carleton Hughes · #10 09-30-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Fine, lets have a revolution. What next? More revolutions after a couple months? Who will you put in there that is uncorruptable? A computer?

Hell no,once you place a person/persons in a position of power human nature generally wins out and there's your corruption.

I'm far too thick headed to have any answers save that career politicians are a club or confraternity with it's own language,rules and codes of conduct{don't get caught}anyone ever hear of term limits and DON'T VOTE FOR LAWYERS??

Someone above cited Karl Rove as somebody who first divined what the public thinks,au contrair mon frere,politicians of any stamp have had machiavellian advisers for thousands of years who's job was to gauge public opinion.

MS Fowler · #11 09-30-2006, 05:43 PM

To address your question, I used to think that repubs held a clear moral advantage, but the wolrd has turned so much that it is no longer clear. The resignation, today of the Fla rep for sex-related charges doesn't help.

Hatterasguy · #12 09-30-2006, 06:53 PM

The Dems are far worst, some of the moderate ones are ok. I mean I'm sure they eat little kids but still they are not to bad.

The super liberals are the spawn of satin, very scary creatures. They come out of there hybrid cars with anti Bush stickers and cause all sorts of trouble.

Now the Rep's are mostly pretty good, I mean no party is perfect we may have a bad member. Not sure on that though.

Really when it comes down to it you are always better of with a Rep in office over a Dem.

cmac2012 · #13 10-01-2006, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The Dems are far worst, some of the moderate ones are ok. I mean I'm sure they eat little kids but still they are not to bad.

The super liberals are the spawn of satin, very scary creatures. They come out of there hybrid cars with anti Bush stickers and cause all sorts of trouble.

Now the Rep's are mostly pretty good, I mean no party is perfect we may have a bad member. Not sure on that though.

Really when it comes down to it you are always better of with a Rep in office over a Dem.

You're young yet. The scales will fall from your eyes eventually.

aklim · #14 10-01-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The Dems are far worst, some of the moderate ones are ok. I mean I'm sure they eat little kids but still they are not to bad.

The super liberals are the spawn of satin, very scary creatures. They come out of there hybrid cars with anti Bush stickers and cause all sorts of trouble.

Now the Rep's are mostly pretty good, I mean no party is perfect we may have a bad member. Not sure on that though.

Really when it comes down to it you are always better of with a Rep in office over a Dem.

well, yes and no. I look at it as having a left person in office and then a right
person to balance it out followed by a left.

PC Dave · #15 10-01-2006, 05:46 AM

The party that's in power is in more of a position to proactively take things too far, and rarely refrains from making use of that opportunity. The Republicans are in the unusual (for them) position of controlling the presidency and both houses of congress, with particularly weak (Bush, Hastert, Frist), venal (Rove, DeLay) and surprisingly incompetent (Rumsfeld) characters in positions they really shouldn't be. Tired accusations of fascist intentions aside (yawn..), the pendulum's swung too far in one direction, and these things have a tendency to self-correct through public irritation.

I personally don't think Clinton was an especially bad president, but he and his team produced any number of actions and statements that pissed off major portions of the public as much as Bush does today. The web + 24 hour cable news constantly looking to stir up s--t wasn't in place in the early '90s, so it's not as easy to dig up incidents, but Rostenkowski going to jail, the Clinton runway haircut while LAX shut down, firing the White House travel staff, etc., come to mind easily enough. Those were more innocent days, though (post Berlin Wall, pre-911), so it seems in retrospect to be petty squabbling and "politics as usual" while the same games today are considered unprecedented, earth-shattering, and threatening the future of the republic. They're not. One major difference, the quality and gravitas of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole in opposition was striking compared to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a couple of old-style party hacks - the Democrats' choice of those two plus Dean to run the show makes me think they'll blow a historic opportunity for a '94 level re-alignment this fall.

It'll shake out soon enough anyway, and we'll have some new set of administration boogey-men to piss off half the country.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode