The "how to debate liberals on this one" pointers are nuts, but they touch upon something that drives me up the wall. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and others do this time and again--if there's something a Republican official comes under criticism for, they immediately try to show how a Democrat did something just as bad. Bush went into Iraq without UN approval; the conservative rejoinder to this was, "Clinton has acted without UN approval too!" That is supposed to shut "liberals" up.
So, on the one hand, they are basically letting Clinton and Democrats set the bar for them ("If Democrats do it, it must be okay for us to do it"--bizarre reasoning for neocons and right wingnuts), and, secondly, it assumes that those opposed to Bush & Co. are automatically 'liberals' and/or Democrats, and not say ... anarchists, or independent critics of any kind. Proving that the Democrats hypcorites doesn't somehow make war etc legitimate.
Brian
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> > >Reply-To: <patcitdav at digiverse.net>
> > >From: <patcitdav at digiverse.net>
> > >To: ConcernedCitizens
> > >Subject: Rallying cry for Republicans
> > >Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 00:35:19 -0700
> > >X-Priority: 3
> > >
> > >Dear Fellow Republican,
> > >
> > >Because claims continue to grow that Vice President Cheney knew about and
> > >allowed the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and strategic gain,
> the
> > >Republican Party needs your moral and financial support more than >>
> ever.
>
>
> Very clever. I suspect a certain number of people will buy this......
>
> Seth
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--