Jonah Goldberg Is Bad At Apologizing
Jonah Goldberg Is Bad At Apologizing
Jonah Goldberg has written an “apology” for being “too glib” earlier post about Cindy Sheehan and Nazis. Here’s an excerpt:
I don’t think agreeing with Sheehan on the need to pull out of Iraq makes you akin to Nazis or racists in any meaningful or significant way.
That’s reassuring. Goldberg goes on to make further comparisons between Sheehan and white supremacists:
But, I think Sheehan’s PR operation — including her water-carriers in the liberal press — should no [sic] be surprised that they’re attracting a broad Popular Front which includes a lot of disreputable and unpleasent elements. If you leave yourself no room, rhetorically speaking, between yourself and the crazies don’t be surprised if the crazies respond to your rhetoric.
So Goldberg’s argument is that Sheehan isn’t like the Nazis, she just uses the exact same rhetoric. Nice. In a subsequent post, Goldberg reprints a letter from a fan who says Goldberg is being too “defensive about your original reference to Cindy.” Goldberg includes a link to an article on David Horowitz’s website which notes “Cindy Sheehan’s newfound, seemingly mutual love for anti-Semitic, racist, and neo-Nazi extremists.”
Goldberg’s strategy is to feign an apology to insulate himself from criticism. At the same time, he continues to advance his smear against Sheehan.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
As I posted earlier,
Neo Nazi’s are despicable opportunists from the same mold as the Chaney-Rums-Rove cabal. They seize any and every opportunity to push their agenda into the mainstream, pushing their legitimacy upon the public like a heroin dealer seeking new addicts. Jonah Goldberg’s problem is the neo-con cabals track marks upon his own arm.
I might add that these fanatics are part of the Republican base, take them back, we do not want them(I'm sure I speak for Cindy on this too)!
August 28th, 2005 at 6:11 pmMethinks the Jews are nervous these days. Any opportunity to scream "Jew Hater" is a good opportunity...
August 28th, 2005 at 6:12 pmwhoa, this is pretty out of control. if suddenly you've got a peace activist being compared to neo-nazis??? seems crazy to me. they couldn't seem farther apart.
August 28th, 2005 at 6:34 pmOval Office Fatwa:
Henceforward at all events public and private across the USA all Americans will chant "Sieg heil Bush! Sieg heil Bush! Sieg heil Bush!"
August 28th, 2005 at 6:44 pmCrazies? Goldberg speaks like a crazy person about a woman involved in a PEACE movement, then gives a half-assed sort of right-wing-style of apology, which is to say not in a "meaningful or significant way."
August 28th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThis is just too Orwellian - up is down, black is white, history is re-written regularly, the enemy is constantly changing and the people are kept in fear.
There is no excuse for Goldberg's comments, and NPR should publicly denounce his words.
Goldberg obviously suffers from paranoia. Everyone whith whom he disagrees is a Jew-hater, Nazi or Communist.
August 28th, 2005 at 6:47 pmGo easy on Jonah. He has a house, a family and a good career. That's why he won't enlist to fight in Iraq, dontcha know.
Let's respect the fact that he has a good gig, "other priorities" and a line of weasely bullshit that just won't quit. You wouldn't want him to end up like Casey, would ya?
August 28th, 2005 at 6:49 pmMany people have written in, emailed and phoned asking why can't George Bush have any more children. It is now possible to release the answer:
Because his balls are in Baghdad.
—Reich Winger, Uberofficer, Oval Office
August 28th, 2005 at 6:56 pmHe also argues that detractors of the Minutemen who use "Nazi" rhetoric don't suffer the backlash that he did.
August 28th, 2005 at 7:25 pmI think he's using the Coulter tactic of self promotion through meaningless jibber jabber.
Water carriers in the LIBERAL press. As opposed to the word he wanted to type, the leftist press. The Commie Press.
The liberal press -- who is that? Sesame Street?
As opposed to the non-liberal press, like Pravda back in the day.
Leftist press, that's not so hard to figure out. But the continued LIE that liberal = leftist is out of control.
Water carriers for Straussian fascism LOVE to call obvious middle-of-the-roaders like Mrs. Sheehan obviously inapplicable names.
Jonah wouldn't do that if he didn't hate (Jews) antiwar Gold Star mothers.
Ever notice how nobody has dug out her maiden name yet? Probably because it would EXPOSE their hatefulness, and make this anti-Israel bit totally hilarious.
August 28th, 2005 at 7:26 pmDiasgreeing with policy issues is a right that is protected by the Constitution. It is called the "Right to Free Speech". So, unfortunately, Goldberg has the right to express his odious views. The consolation is that we, people disagreeing with Bush's policies, have an equal right to free speech.
This said, isn't Goldberg one of those guys who has "other priorities" when asked why he is not relieving some grunt on his second or third tour in Iraq? You have to give it to the chickenhawks: they have chutzpah!
August 28th, 2005 at 7:30 pmWhy doesn't the NRO Corner allow comments online?
Oh yeah. Never mind.
August 28th, 2005 at 7:30 pmPaul in LA,
Even today on Meet the Press there were four retired generals, one of whom(can't remember) was critical of the Rummy commie remarks and what it represented.
What's her name?
August 28th, 2005 at 7:35 pmShe's Jewish!
August 28th, 2005 at 7:51 pmMe thinks Goldberg, goldstein, or whatever his name is, might be a little confused.
Signs all over the Crawford area read to the effect that "you dont speak for me, Sheehan". She has said repeatedly that she speaks for herself, and possibly for the others that surround her, and no for any wingnuts.
But the beautiful part of all this is the fact that the wingnuts are fighting amongst themselves as to what the correct message is contra Sheehan. They just cannot agree on anything.
What a pity that people like that exist.
August 28th, 2005 at 8:16 pmGoldberg -- What a goob.
August 28th, 2005 at 8:48 pmThis is completely off the thread but I just can't help thinking what $800,000 billion and all the military personnel in Iraq could do to protect the citizens of Louisanna and the other Southern States from the Terorist threat that is imminent there. And don't think for a second those people aren't terrorized. That Bush's terorists caused that hurricane has as much credibility as Iraq caused 9/11. What is DUHbya and company doing? Vacationing while Daddy raises the gasoline prices $1.00 or more per gallon to the people trying to flee for their lives.
August 28th, 2005 at 8:51 pmTHIS IS TOO FUNNY!!! CONSERVATIVE PROTESTORS ASSAULTING EACH OTHER IN CRAWFORD!
1) NEW FOX SHOW: "WHEN DITTOHEADS ATTACK REDNECKS"
"Ken Robinson, of Richardson, Texas, who described himself as a Vietnam veteran, was carrying a sign at a 'You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!' rally in Crawford. The sign read, 'How to wreck your family in 30 days, by The Bitch in the Ditch Cindy Sheehan.'"
"Mr. Kristinn Taylor, an event organizer with (pro-Bush) FreeRepublic.com, heard about the (too extreme) sign and rushed up to Robinson. 'This is our rally and you can't do that here,'...Camera crews rushed in...Some of the crowd around Robinson came forward to shake his hand, while others chanted, 'Idiot, go home.'...The two men then squared off and raised their voices. 'Just get outta here!' Robinson yelled, and AIMED A KICK AT TAYLOR'S MIDSECTION. Taylor called for security, and a young Woodway policeman quickly showed up...Robinson continued to protest loudly as police handcuffed him and led him away."
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/28/20050828wacarrests.html
2) NEW FOX SHOW: "WHEN CHICKENHAWKS ATTACK HILLBILLIES"
"The pro-Bush, Crawford caravan was coordinated by Move America Forward...The crowd, which organizers said topped 3,000 but appeared closer to 1,500, chanted 'Cindy, Go Home' and compared her to Jane Fonda...In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on what they MISTAKENLY thought were a group of anti-war protesters, CURSING THEM, THREATENING THEM, AND TEARING DOWN THEIR SIGNS. A police officer rushed the group to safety."
Turns out the "anti-war" group was actually "The Protest Warriors," a group of conservative extremists. Their signs said, in large block letters, "SAY NO TO WAR!" So the Bushies assaulted them. What the Bushies didn't notice was the second message below, in smaller type, that said "Unless a Democrat is President." The two sentences TOGETHER form an anti-Democrat message, but the overall effect was a botched, inadverdent message which appeared to say the OPPOSITE. So Bushies, reverting to their underlying psychopathic form, literally attacked members of their own team. Here's a photo of the Bushies trashing the signs:
August 28th, 2005 at 8:58 pmhttp://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/08/splitters-before-we-bring-up-oops.html
PRECIOUS!!! YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!
The Nazis are embracing Sheehan because she says things about Israel like this.
"My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11."
She has become the Queen of All Useful Idiots.
August 28th, 2005 at 9:02 pmCindy has a problem with Israel. So do the Nazis. useful idiot?
August 28th, 2005 at 9:10 pm"We're not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism. There, I used the "I" word, imperialism, and now I'm going to use another "I" word, impeachment because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."
The Nazis are embracing Sheehan because she says things about Israel like this.
“My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.â€
Official communique from Reich Winger, Uberofficer, Oval Office:
Achtung Steed Lankershim:
You're the idiot, Steed. We proud Nazis of Der Furher Herr President George Bush's Fourth Reich condemn you for associating us with the likes of Cindy Sheehan.
Watch out. Bush is sending the trusted Brownshirts to get you.
Fair warning,
Reich
August 28th, 2005 at 9:15 pmAchtung Steed Lankershim:
We Bush Nazis have a problem with YOU, Steed. And we're coming to get you.
Fair Warning No. 2,
Reich
August 28th, 2005 at 9:19 pmBut, Steed -- we ARE doing this for Israel. Didn't you get the memo from Michael Ledeen?
August 28th, 2005 at 9:31 pmAs it turns out, the Intelligent Design doctrine and Iraq strategy are related for President Bush. There is no question that Iraq is, as ID advocates like to say, "irreducibly complex." The security nightmare, the economic devastation and the budding civil war could not have come about by chance. Iraq shows all the signs of a faithful designer, if not an intelligent one...
For the details, see:
"Intelligent Design in Iraq."
August 28th, 2005 at 10:13 pmBut, I think Sheehan’s PR operation — including her water-carriers in the liberal press — should no [sic] be surprised that they’re attracting a broad Popular Front which includes a lot of disreputable and unpleasent elements. If you leave yourself no room, rhetorically speaking, between yourself and the crazies don’t be surprised if the crazies respond to your rhetoric.
(from top)
Is this clown talking about dumbya too?
August 28th, 2005 at 10:15 pmPretty hilarious stuff, but sad when you think about it. These folk are the archetypical war supporters. Don't bother to read the WHOLE message, just get all worked-up and react in typical knee-jerk conservative fashion. Attack the perceived threat (whether it's real or imagined)- especially if they threaten the conservatives' carefully constructed fiction.
The attack is a vivid example of republican commitment to free speech. Their brownshirt tendencies are on full display; from physical intimidation and threats of violence, to neo-McCarthyist smearbloggers like Jonah Goldberg, trying to make war protestors like Cindy Sheehan appear guilty by "unintended" association with nazi's.
August 28th, 2005 at 10:24 pmSunday on Meet the Press there were four retired generals:
Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark criticized Bush's performance in Iraq and laid out counterplan, surprisingly detailed for such a brief TV exposure time
Ret. Gen. Wayne Downing supported Bush's performance in Iraq, criticized Gen. Clark's counterplan, offered no helpful suggestions
Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey supported Bush's performance in Iraq, criticized Gen. Clark's counterplan, offered no helpful suggestions
Ret. Gen. Montgomery Meigs supported Bush's performance in Iraq, criticized Gen. Clark's counterplan, offered no helpful suggestions
Moderator journalist Tim Russert was about as aggressive as a tower of jello.
August 28th, 2005 at 10:36 pmJudd has once again mischaracterized the content and context of the comments to which he links. Jonah Goldberg did not call Cindy Sheehan a Nazi, and he did not "apologize." In the first place, he merely noted the missappropriation of Mrs. Sheehan's anti-Isael comments by white supremacists. In the second place, he simply expanded on his view of her duty to disavow those white supremacists.
In other words, Goldberg merely pointed out that Cindy Sheehan's overheated rhetoric is sufficiently beyond the pale of rational discussion that neo-Nazis find it very easy to make common cause with her anti-Israel remarks. He makes the point, rightly in my view, that Mrs. Sheehan - in spite of her highly stage managed protest - has done nothing to put distance between herself and the crazies who are attempting to align themselves with her.
I recall that, when David Duke tried to position himself as a mainstream Republican, Democrats had a field day accusing the GOP of harboring racists. The big difference then was that the GOP actually went out of its way to repudiate Mr. Duke and everything he stands for. That didn't stop Democrats from making false charges of GOP racism.
Other examples of this problem come to mind. When Dick Durbing compared conditions and interrogation techniques at Gitmo to Nazis, Soviet gulags and the Khmer Rouge, al Jazeera immediately used his comments as pro-jihadist propaganda. Sen. Durbin recognized this and was forced to apologize, which he rightly did.
[Note: al Jazeera has also has made similar use of Mrs. Sheehan's remarks. She refuses to recognize this, and has never apologized or disavowed al Jazeera's misuse of her remarks.]
Only last week, Pat Robertson made some nutty comments about "taking out" Hugo Chavez. The left was unanimous in its demand that the Bush administration disavow those comments, which it rightly did. This situation is no different.
Anyone who engages in a deliberate campaign of overheated political rhetoric has a responsibility to say not only what she means, but also what she does not mean. Where others try to misse her remaks for evil and unintended purpsoes , she ahs a responsibility to disassociate herself from them. Cindy Sheehan is not just "a mom whose son was killed in Iraq." She has made herself the figurehead of a PR-savvy media campaign. She should disavow any misuse of her comments by neo-Nazis, or by al Jazeera, or by anyone else. Her failure to do so is a subject of fair comment.
All of which brings us back to Judd, who continues to mischaracterize the content of the material to which he cites, as though no one will ever read it. In this case, he mischaracterized both Goldberg's original post and his follow-up posts. As long as Judd continues to mislead his readers, his posts will be unworthy of serious discussion. This boy cries "wolf!" far too often.
August 28th, 2005 at 11:14 pmRSB -- Nice try!
August 28th, 2005 at 11:24 pm#28BSR
August 28th, 2005 at 11:35 pmNo cigar!
Your arguments are faulty as is your view of what was said. You dismiss Robertson's comments as nutty, but you thiink Durbin's reading an FBI report is reprehensible.
Judd is not misleading his readers -- we really can think for ourselves, unlike sheeple who can only comprehend what runs through the Fox filter.
Sorry, I meant "BSR." Alas, I'm lysdexic.
August 28th, 2005 at 11:40 pmJudd has not mischaracterized the content and context of the comments to which he links. Jonah Goldberg did imply that Cindy Sheehan was a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. However, it is true that Goldberg’s “apology†wasn’t full-vast at all, but only half-vast. In the first place, Mrs. Sheehan made no anti-Isael comments at all. That’s a figment of Goldberg’s own twisted conspiracy hallucination. In the second place, he simply tried (though unsuccessfully, as can be seen by the remarks on this thread) to smear a righteous grieving mother, as is always his want.
In other words, Goldberg merely lied when he tried to cast Cindy Sheehan’s heartfelt remarks as beyond the pale of rational discussion. Crypto-Nazis like Goldberg find it very easy to smear others as Nazi, thinking to hide the fact that he is in fact a crypto Nazi trying to turn Israel into a Nazi-type state. He fails miserably to make the point, however. There is nothing remotely resembling “stage management†of Cindy’s protest. She is under no obligation to distance between herself from all the crazies of the world. If she did she would find herself doing nothing else, and the Bush Nazis would win by distracting her from her duty to expose them for what they are — crypto-Nazis just like Goldberg himself.
It is sheer lunacy to say that David Duke tried to position himself as a mainstream Republican. He was always clear as to what he was, an American Nazi. The fact that many Republicans agreed with him is not the fault of Democrats. It’s only history that the GOP was more sympathetic to Duke than the Democrats. Nor did the GOP go out of its way to repudiate Mr. Duke and everything he stands for. That’s the reason the Democrats true charges of GOP racism resonated with the American people at that time.
Other examples of this problem come to mind. When Dick Durbin [not Durbing] compared conditions and interrogation techniques at Gitmo to Nazis, Soviet gulags and the Khmer Rouge, he was speaking the truth. The fact that al Jazeera picked up his comments cannot rightly be blamed on him. Durban apologized for his overwrought rhetoric, not for failing to speak the truth, which he did.
Nor is it Cindy Sheehan’s place to repudiate al Jazeera or anyone else. She rightly speaks the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.
Only last week, Pat Robertson not only made some GOPist Reich-wing comments about “taking out,†and having the United States government assassinate and murder Hugo Chavez. True American patriots were unanimous in their demand that the Bush administration disavow those comments, which it never did. It only tried to play down and mute and distance. The performance of the White House was pathetic, and it exposed itself for exactly what it is — in sympathy and in league with the fascist Pat Robertson.
When Cindy Sheehan engages in speaking the truth, she not only says what she means, but also means what she says. And the fact that crypto-Nazis like Jonah try to misuse her remarks for evil and unintended purposes is hardly her fault. Nor must she take responsibility for repudiating them, for if she did, she would, as stated above, be able to do nothing else. And that in any of itself would give this fascist Bush administration the victory that it is currently missing. Again, Cindy has no responsibility whatsoever to disassociate herself from crypto-Nazis and neo-fascists. Cindy Sheehan is indeed “a mom whose son was killed in Iraq.†The reich-wing idea that she has made herself the figurehead of a PR media campaign is fascist disinformation so well noted by the Karl Roves of the Bush administration. She should definitely NOT disavow any misuse of her comments by neo-Nazis such as Jonah Goldberg, fascist Bushists, or by anyone else. For, as stated at least twice above, if she were to do so she would be doing nothing else, and the crypto-Nazis and neo-fascists would have won. Thank God they’re still losing. And thank the All Mighty that they will continue to do so till they go down in flames in the mid-term Congressional elections.
All of which brings us back to Judd, who continues to truly characterize the content of the material to which he cites. In this case, he rightly skewered both Goldberg’s original post and his follow-up posts. As long as Judd continues to speak truth to his readers, his posts will be continue to be worthy of serious discussion. This boy never cries “wolf!†He’s too right-on righteous for that.
Monte Hjortspring
August 29th, 2005 at 12:01 amRotwang,
Join Dam! "Mothers Against Dyslexia"
BSR,
If you lived in New Orleans now you would realize how DUHbya and company have been blowing smoke for the last five years. Why don't you plan on opening day of the NFL in the Superdome with the other 100,000 victims of you and the rest of the shrubery?
August 29th, 2005 at 12:01 amI blame Dog for my condition.
August 29th, 2005 at 12:21 am"So Goldberg’s argument is that Sheehan isn’t like the Nazis, she just uses the exact same rhetoric. Nice."
So you disagree with Goldberg's explanation for the Nazi's affection toward Cindy Sheehan?
Fair enough. Then please provide your own explanation. We're really interested.
August 29th, 2005 at 1:06 am“So you disagree with Goldberg’s explanation for the Nazi’s affection toward Cindy Sheehan? Fair enough. Then please provide your own explanation. We’re really interested.â€
And YOUR explanation, Am, is:
August 29th, 2005 at 1:25 amSince Jonah Goldberg IS a Nazi, or at least a cryptonazi, his explanation for the Nazi’s affection toward Cindy Sheehan must be the explanation of his own affection for her. Love you enemy? Goldberg Jonah is a moanah-groanah!
August 29th, 2005 at 2:13 amSeeing how every white nation on the face of the planet is set to have a non-white majority in the future (most West-European countries can expect this in 30-40 years) I`d say that being a "nazi" means that you`ve understood the threat your people are facing.
I`m a white man and I want to have nations exclusively populated by my own people, just like the chinese, the negroes and the arabs. What`s so bad about that?
August 29th, 2005 at 7:55 amHeimdal:
Hi! How's the weather on YOUR planet?
August 29th, 2005 at 8:13 am"White man" Heimdal:
You told us you're an albino, a "white man," but you didn't say which kind. Chinese albino? Negro albino? Arab albino? Which?
Harry
August 29th, 2005 at 9:15 amI don't see how pointing out Sheehan's radical views is a "smear." Typical liberal argument - Sheehan can make outrageous statements to attack opponents, but we're not allowed to respond. That is exactly why Democrats like Byron Dorgan are distancing themselves from this liar and her supporters. They know better.
August 29th, 2005 at 9:57 amI'm still waiting for Sheehan to say something "extreme." So far, she's been dead on target.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:02 amPHONY ASSUMPTION 1: I don’t see how pointing out Sheehan’s radical views is a “smear.â€
TRUTH: Sheehan's views aren't radical.
PHONY ASSUMPTION 2: Typical liberal argument - Sheehan can make outrageous statements to attack opponents
TRUTH: Sheehan's truthful statements only seem outrageous to people who make phony assumptions about her.
PHONY ASSUMPTION 3: we’re not allowed to respond.
TRUTH: What are you doing in this post if not responding? Huh? Huh?
CLUELESS MINDREADING 1: That is exactly why Democrats like Byron Dorgan are distancing themselves ....
TRUTH: Your mindreading of Dorgan is sooooo clueless.
PHONY ASSUMPTION 5: ... Democrats like Byron Dorgan are distancing themselves from this liar and her supporters.
TRUTH: Cindy Sheehan's no liar. She's a truth-teller.
CLUELESS MINDREADING 2: .... Democrats like Byron Dorgan ... know better.
TRUTH: They know better than to think the kind of phony, clueless thoughts you've written down in your post.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:15 am#42 - George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world is not a radical view? Maybe not to this site, but to the voting public, YES.
Appearing with leftists like Martin Sheen and Al Sharpton certainly doesn't help Cindy moderate her views either.
Keep drinking the kool aid folks - it only helps Republicans maintain power.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:34 am[...] Jonah Goldberg of the National Review’s the Corner went after Cindy Sheehan, stating that, “She’s rallied the Nazis to her cause (obviously unintentionally, but it’s interesting how her message resonates in such quarters nonetheless).†And his so-called apology for the statement still likened her rhetoric to that of white supremacists. [...]
August 29th, 2005 at 10:51 am"George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world is not a radical view?" You're taking Cindy's statement out of context and twisting its meaning. Her meaning: Creating terror among Iraqi civilians by "shock and awe" in Iraq is not a radical view.
KOOK ASSUMPTION: "Appearing with leftists like Martin Sheen and Al Sharpton certainly doesn’t help Cindy moderate her views either."
TRUTH: Martin Sheen and Al Sharpton aren't leftists in the word's sense of being Communist.
SHEER LUNACY: Keep drinking the kool aid folks - it only helps Republicans maintain power.
TRUTH: Bush's numbers are in freefall.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:59 am"Bush's numbers are in freefall"
They are low, not in freefall. At 40% approval, he is still above Reagan and Clinton's low points. But the left's inability to focus on important issues and provide no alternatives could make the next election a wash. Exploiting a "grieving mother" is not an important issue to most people. Gas prices are. Next month when the left cries about the carribou in Alaska, that won't help your cause either. Americans will become pro-drilling overnight - TRUST ME.
Also, the left's anti-Christian rhetoric - alot of it on this site, will help Republicans next year. The polarization will continue to help next year: http://www.pollingreport.com/educ2.htm
August 29th, 2005 at 11:07 amwent to your blog NED, and i noticed your favorite book is by Ann Coulter. i thought you were a sheep for liking me, but Ann too? wow, you are a very good soldier NED. no wonder your sheep-like talking points are always so fresh. i noticed you like pop music too. sweet. .
August 29th, 2005 at 12:03 pmHannity - what a loser you are. Why don't you try debating the issues. I know that's hard for liberals, but it might help when you are up against the real deal. Here's a hint for the fall: George W. Bush is a lying war criminal is not debating.
August 29th, 2005 at 12:06 pmBush's numbers are both low and in freefall. 36% in the American Research Group poll is a full six points below Gallup's 40%. The fact that in none of the major polls has his numbers gone up nor even leveled off means that they're still downward bound.
At 40% approval, he is still above Reagan and Clinton’s low points is only true for now. Watch the polls in the next two-three months.
DUMB ASSUMPTION: ... the left’s inability to focus on important issues and provide no alternatives could make the next election a wash.
TRUTH: The left has no inability to focus. The left is focusing as never before, and this is the reason the Republicant's are running scared.
DUMBER ASSUMPTION: Exploiting a “grieving mother†is not an important issue to most people.
TRUTH: In a recent poll 90% of Americans supported Cindy Sheehan's right to protest!
Gas prices are also murdering Bush's numbers. "Next month when the left cries about the carribou in Alaska, that won’t help your cause either." Wanna bet?
"Americans will become pro-drilling overnight - TRUST ME."
Bwahahahahahaha! Trust WHO?
August 29th, 2005 at 1:44 pmDUMB ASSUMPTION: lso, the left’s anti-Christian rhetoric - alot of it on this site, will help Republicans next year. The polarization will continue to help next year:
TRUTH: The rhetoric isn't anti-Christian. I, for example, am a Christian.
DUMB PREDICTION: ... the ... rhetoric - alot of it on this site, will help Republicans next year. The polarization will continue to help next year:
TRUTH: You're obviously no true prophet.
August 29th, 2005 at 1:49 pmThen let me apologize in advance for calling Jonah Goldberg a despicable piece of shit.
August 29th, 2005 at 1:51 pmDUMB ASSUMPTION: ... debating the issues ... that’s hard for liberals
TRUTH: Is that why you keep losing arguments? Because you're clueless about debating?
"Here’s a hint for the fall: George W. Bush is a lying war criminal is not debating."
At last we agree: The fact that George W. Bush is a lying war criminal is indeed a prelude to his fall, thanks to God.
August 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pmThis'll blow the brains of all Bush-duped neonazicons:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/08/29/BL2005082900733.html
August 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pmPotter - I support Sheehan's right to protest. There was no follow up question asking if A. Americans cared about Cindy or B. Do you think Cindy is exploiting her son's death.
POLLS and more polls - they have yet to help your cause. I wish I had some excerpts of stuff written by you guys last year. I am sure you thought Bush was going to go down. He didn't. His party gained seats and made history in SD and Louisiana.
Harry Potter - a real work of fiction!
August 29th, 2005 at 2:13 pm"question asking if A. Americans cared about Cindy or ..."
ANSWER: The poll was taken IN THE NEWS CONTEXT of the main event: grieving mother Cindy Sheehan v. war president George W. Bush. It can be inferred that the 90% were siding AGAINST Bush in the sense that his administration has perpetrated the anti-Constitution propaganda that protest against a wartime president borders on treason. The poll can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a slap in the face of the perpetrators of this propaganda. Noted that Bush himself claimed she had the right, but his surrogates — the likes of Jonah Goldberg, for example — are doing everything in their power to deny it to her. It's the old "good cop (Bush), bad cop (Goldberg)" approach.
B. Do you think Cindy is exploiting her son’s death.
ANSWER: Not a chance. That's all part of "the big lie" of the neonazicon reich-wing.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:24 pmDUMB ASSUMPTION: POLLS and more polls - they have yet to help your cause.
TRUTH: You're clueless about my cause.
SPECIAL PLEADING: I wish I had some excerpts of stuff written by you guys last year.
Sob, sob.
"I am sure you thought Bush was going to go down.
Mind-reading again! My oh my!
"He didn’t [go down]. His party gained seats and made history in SD and Louisiana."
ANSWER: "The mill wheels of the Lord grind slow, but they grined exceeding fine."
PS. You got the wrong Potter. Sorry.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm#56 - Bush has said nothing about protester except that it's their right. WHY WOULD HE TRY TO SILENCE YOU GUYS - you're helping him like you helped Nixon!!! People agree with the right to protest - doesn't mean they think they should and certainly doesn;t mean they think Sheehan exploiting her son's death is acceptable. That might explain why she has a negative favorable rating.
I love protestors. Please - bring out the Gitmo/Palestinian sympathizers - I welcome it.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:34 pmUNSUPPORTED ASSERTION: That [nonsense above] might explain why she [Cindy Sheehan] has a negative favorable rating.
ANSWER: Prove "she has a negative favorable rating."
August 29th, 2005 at 2:38 pmhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm
August 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pmBOAST: I love protestors. Please - bring out the Gitmo/Palestinian sympathizers - I welcome it.
MEANING; You love yourself.
Your tactic — smear, smear, smear — by trying to imply that those who dare to protest this neonazicon Bush are traitors ISN'T SELLING. Sob, sob, sob.
Having fun watching his freefall,
Harry
August 29th, 2005 at 2:47 pmOkay, I went to
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm
and read that Cindy Sheehan has a negative favorability rating that:
1. is within the margin of error.
2. doesn't say what you said it says, namely, that the reason those who have the negative rating think Cindy is exploiting her son's death. Nobody's saying that. To the contrary, the poll says that people are reading their own views into Cindy.
"In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself."
Sorry to have to be the one to stick a needle into your hopeful balloon.
August 29th, 2005 at 3:03 pmREAD IT, NORTHEAST DILEMMA, AND WEEP
Frank Newport and Jeff Jones of the Gallup Organization writes: "A new Gallup Poll reflects further erosion in President George W. Bush's job approval rating, continuing the slow but steady decline evident throughout the year so far. The poll -- conducted Aug. 22-25 -- puts Bush's job approval rating at 40% and his disapproval rating at 56%. Both are the most negative ratings of the Bush administration."
Gallup reports that the only second-term president with an approval rating this low at this time in their presidency: Richard Nixon, at 34.
"The drop in President Bush's job approval rating has been accompanied by a continuing drop in the American public's overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States today.
"Just 34% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in this country in the Aug. 22-25 Gallup Poll, while 62% are dissatisfied. This is the lowest satisfaction level of the entire Bush administration to date and is the lowest recorded by Gallup since January 1996."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/08/29/BL2005082900733_3.html
And this doesn't even cover the American Research Group poll last week that put Bush's job approval rating at only 36% and his disapproval rating at a whopping 58%
Furthermore, all four polls that came out last week — Harris, Rasmussen, American Research, and Gallup — showed a CONTINUING DECLINE from their previous track for Bush. Not even a leveling off.
Sob, sob, sob,
Harry
August 29th, 2005 at 4:00 pmHere is last week's polling of the way George W. Bush is doing his job as U.S. President
POLLSTER • • • % APROVE • % DISAPROVE
Harris • • • • • • •40 • • • • • • 58
Rasmussen • • • •45 • • • • • • 54
Amer. Res. Gp. • •36 • • • • • • 58
Gallup • • • • • • 40 • • • • • • 56
AVERAGE • • • • •40 • • • • • • 57
Freeeeeeeeeeefaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall!
August 29th, 2005 at 4:41 pmPRECIOUS LORD, WILL THIS POP YOUR EYEBALLS OPEN
Monday 29th August 2005 (20h49)
UNTANGLING THE BALL OF BUSH LIES UNTANGLING SOME BUSH LIES By Peter Fredson
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7935
August 29th, 2005 at 5:00 pmMy English is no so good. Could someone explain why Bush wants to kill all the tourists? He says touris evil. He starts war on tourism.
Thank you much,
Eva An
August 29th, 2005 at 5:05 pmEva An, Bush's war on tourists and tourism is just part of his hideology. —Harry
August 29th, 2005 at 8:07 pmVery original content. I really like your site. Create Grass is very good Table: http://www.space.com/ , Soldier can Win TV when Mistery is Circle it will Make Tournament , Full, Central, Full nothing comparative to Full Do Mistery is very good Table
December 4th, 2005 at 1:51 pm