Posted on 03/05/2005 8:08:22 AM PST by Beckwith
Sydney Blumenthal, the Clinton’s attack ferret, writes in Slate, "The coming defeat of President Bush on Social Security will be the defining moment in domestic policy and politics for his second term and for the future of the Republican Party. It will be a central, clarifying event because Bush alone chose to make this fight."
Blumenthal continues, "Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove, had forecast a fundamental realignment that would establish Republican dominance, but Bush's desperate political position required a series of tactics of character assassination against the Democratic candidate and culture war gambits on gay marriage, atmospherically organized around the fear factor of Sept. 11. The outcome was a strategic victory but not a structural one, and Bush's campaign further polarized the country."
"In the chasm between his meager win and his grandiose ambition, Bush might have decided to form a government containing some moderate Republican and Democratic Cabinet members, claiming that the gravity of foreign crisis demanded national unity. But the thought never occurred to him. Instead, he bulled ahead in the hope of realizing the realignment that eluded him in the election."
Sydney warns of disaster. "But, most important, it would unravel the fact and idea of government insurance programs providing for the needs of the people as a whole. Once Social Security was cut into pieces, the Democrats would be left defensively representing the least politically powerful and most vulnerable -- literally the lame and the halt, the poor single mothers ("welfare queens") and minorities. The Democrats would be drawn and quartered on the wheel of broken entitlements."
He then makes his prediction. "Bush's impending defeat on Social Security is no minor affair. He has made this the centerpiece of domestic policy of his second term. It is the decades-long culmination of the conservative wing's hostility against Social Security and the Democratic Party. Projecting images of Roosevelt and Kennedy cannot distract from Bush's intent to undermine the accomplishments of Democratic presidents. The repudiation of Bush on Social Security will be fundamental and profound and will shake the foundations of conservative Republicanism. Bush's agony is only beginning, if the Democrats in the Senate can maintain their discipline."
link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/030305D.shtml
Sydney spends 2,000 words of soaring rhetoric, Democratic platitudes and wishful thinking to attack President Bush's attempt to fix the Social Security System. He predicts the Democrats will defeat the Social Security System overhaul. He doesn’t mention that the Democrats have no counterproposal or ideas of their own, just no, do nothing. However, Blumenthal's ending sentence tells the story, "... if Democrats in the Senate can maintain their discipline."
Blumenthal claims that Bush won the 2004 election with the smallest margin of any incumbent president in American history. He neglects to mention the Republican victories in the Senate and House, where the Social Security battle will be fought. He laments that Bush won’t include Democrats in his cabinet.
Blumenthal whines that Kerry's character was assassinated and the gays were picked on. How does one assassinate the character of a person who has no character? How screwed up is Sam and Charlie getting married? Bush won because the American People trusted him more than they trusted Mr. Flip-Flop. Even leading Democrats have pointed the finger at the miserable candidate that was John Kerry, who has yet to sign the Standard Form 180 as he promised Tim Russert a month ago on Meet the Press.
Barbara Boxer isn't disciplined. She's a whiner and hysteric, prone to emotional outbursts. Harry Reid is a passive-aggressive wimp who gets upset when he's challenged and pleads "no mas." With leaders such as this, how will they maintain their discipline. The Democrats have simply become the "just say no party."
What I really want to know from Sydney is if he has stopped beating his wife?
Should this plan be defeated, the Democrats are the ones who will suffer because they will be seen as obstructionist and naysayers who stopped a plan without offering a plan of their own. How quickly they forget that John Kerry's lack of a plan on anything was one of the torpedos that sank his [swift] boat.
Ah, yes. Sidney Blumenthal, mob attorney. Let us hope that some day he enjoys the prison cell he deserves.
Just like they predicted tens of thousands of body bags coming back from Iraq, bla, bla, bla
...morons
The last question of the essay is along the lines of, "when did you quit beating your wife?" (I forget the lawyer latin for this type of question). Anyway, the correct answer to that question is, "I've never beaten my wife." I've used that before and, boy, does it shut the interrogator up.
Whoa, Tex. Before you get all sanctimonious and on your high horse, we've lost 1500 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors to this war.
It's pretty evident that you've never worn a uniform or had to write a letter home to a next of kin.
BTW ... there will be a fix offered and it will pass.
AARP, and the "greatest generation" be damned.
Syndney Bluming Idiot
Thydneys twisted thought process left me convinced that he is terrified by strong decisive men.
"Should this plan be defeated, the Democrats are the ones who will suffer because they will be seen as obstructionist and naysayers who stopped a plan without offering a plan of their own."
I agree. If the personalization of SS accounts doesn't happen it's only a matter of time before our kids are screwed so badly that even those who have benefited from the dumbing down of our school systems will figure out who screwed them. It may take a while, but in the end the democrats will pay for adding to the misery. It just makes me mad that my kids will be forced to live through higher taxes, poor economy, and the end of life as Americans knew it.
W hasn't lost the issue yet. Funny how they keep writing him off but yet he keeps kicking their arses.
1,142 died as a result of hostile action.
The British have reported 86 deaths; Italy, 20; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Spain, 11; Bulgaria, 7; Slovakia, 3; Estonia, Thailand and the Netherlands, 2 each; and Denmark, El Salvador, Hungary, Latvia and Kazakhstan 1 death each.
Unreported is the total number of Iraqi police and National Guard casualties, probably even higher.
Apples and oranges. If the DC figure was 1000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty there would be a tenuous connection.
Your simplistic rationalization astounds me.
The outcome was a strategic victory but not a structural one
It seems structural to me given Republican gains in both 2002 & 2004. It feels like a majority biding its time until terms expire so they can throw the bums out.
Angel,
I've worn the uniform and my son is currently in the military, and while 1500 deaths are very regretable, did you forget 9-11? This country is in a war, not of our own making. Let's not get into whether the sadman was operational in 9-11, or merely complicit. Besides, this article was about kidney blommer and social security {and the left did predict [and rooted for] 10's of thousands of body bags}. The majority on the left is anti-American, is not patriotic and should be tried for treason, convicted and shot. I volunteer either for execution duty or burial duty {I'm too biased/honest to be a judge or the member of the jury}.
No, as a matter of fact I haven't, but what I seem to remember, and what a lot of folks are selective about, is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, OBL is a Saudi national, there was zero connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (the President said this), and the House of Saud is still supporting the hate schools that are indoctrinating young Saudis to kill the infidels (us). In other words, we not only made mistakes in regards to the intelligence, but we even attacked the wrong country.
And you write like a fricken idiot. I point out facts, you ad hominen attack. Smart move, keyboard warrior.
I didn't realize President Bush was in agony.
In other words, we not only made mistakes in regards to the intelligence, but we even attacked the wrong country.
In AMERICA'S SECRET WAR Friedman observes:
The Saudis had developed a very refined method of managing Washington: They stayed away from the Israel question, except in a very formal, perfunctory way; they cultivated key decision-makers in Washington and created webs of financial relationships with a range of people outside the government. Finally, and most important, they allowed the United States to use Saudi territory for military operations. They assumed that if they signaled a military breach, the United States would find a basis of accommodation with the Saudis and cancel plans for an invasion of Iraq. To the Saudis' shock, the U.S. went ahead not only with withdrawing but with plans for invasion. This is where the light assault strategy became important. It didn't need the Saudis' participation. Practical or not, in introduced the idea that war didn't depend on agreement from the Saudis.
...
The decision to invade Iraq was not a good one and very few in the administration thought it was. It was simply the best decision available given the limited menu. It was the best of a bad lot. Taking out Al Qaeda through covert operations was not a practical option. Getting Saudi Arabia to incur the political wrath of its radical elements by cutting off financial support was also not going to happen unless the United States forced them to do so. The United States faced the option of hoping for the best or making the best of a mediocre strategy. In a sense, Iraq reminds us of Guadalcanal. no one wanted to be there and no one really cared about it. It was, under the circumstances, the best available option.
The question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” as others have noted, is not strictly a logical fallacy, in the sense of a fallacious argument. It is a form of attack question intended to trick the responder into an admission against interest, no matter how they answer, because it presupposes the answer to a preliminary question. So, it is what is generally known as a “loaded question,” or ”complex question.” It presupposes you have, at some time, beaten your wife, which may not be true at all . . . . it may also be true that you do not have a wife, in which case your interrogator didn’t do his homework!
If you prefer the Latin, Plurium Interrogationum – “many questions,” the demand for a simple answer to a complex question. It differs slightly from Petitio Principii, or “begging the question,” in which the conclusion is assumed as established or proved in one of the premises.
For a good sources on this and other logical fallacy inquiries, you might enjoy the following links.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=37
http://www.lkwdpl.org/thinkingcity/usefulterms.htm
http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm
Your answer -- "I've never beaten my wife," -- is the right way to respond.
I love how the dems are using "dismantling" and "destroying" to describe the changes in SS.
But .. I agree with President Bush - in 2006 - the dems don't want to be on the wrong side of this issue.
Sydney is having illusions again by thinking Bush will get defeated on this.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Beckwith.
My entire prior comment, including the conclusion -- Your answer -- "I've never beaten my wife," -- is the right way to respond. – - was merely directed to Archangelsk because he said he had plum forgotten “the lawyer Latin for this type of question.”
I remembered, and thought I might direct him to a few sources of logical thinking. Judging from many of his responses, they could certainly be put to good use.
Alas, some things just don’t take! Note, for example, a classic example -- bookended ad hominem arguments, surrounding an accusation that someone else was using an ad hominem argument! You just can't make this stuff up:
“And you write like a fricken idiot. I point out facts, you ad hominen [sp] attack. Smart move, keyboard warrior.”
As to Sidney Blumenthal, Salon’s Talbot says they initiated the discussions that led to his quick departure -- Salon! He is now also writing a book on Presidents and race . . . I suspect a polemical screed in the making. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/268471p-229923c.html
"Apples and oranges. If the DC figure was 1000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty there would be a tenuous connection.
Your simplistic rationalization astounds me."
To me a life is a life, people are not apples and oranges. If anything, the thousands and thousands of people murdered in our big cities is much more alarming than the relatively small number of troops killed in our present war. I'm just saying we need to keep this in perspective. You being astounded doesn't surprise me at all.
Actually he's not, strictly speaking. He was stripped of his citizenship by the Saudis some years ago. Wanna say '96 or '98, but I forget exactly when.
there was zero connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (the President said this)
Have you been smoking crack the last several years? The President and the administration repeatedly affirmed (and still does) that there were indeed connections between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda, as there were in fact. It is not in dispute that there were multiple high-level contacts over a period of nearly a decade. The only proviso is that there is no unambiguous and public evidence of "operational coordination" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. (And even that's not entirely true, as there is good evidence they did jointly operate Ansar al-Islam.)
And, btw, since you're bitching about faulty intelligence, how could or why should the president affirm a negative: "there was zero connection"? Obviously the most he could say is that was no evidence of a connection, which he did say wrt Saddam and 911, but did not say wrt to Saddam and al Qaeda, where connections have been verified (even if we don't know exactly how much cooperation those connections engendered).
And why were you complaining about the reference to tens of thousands of body bags? Have you forgotten how Bush and Rumsfeld were hammered by the press (not even just the hard left) over the fact that "only" ten thousand body bags were sent to Iraq? This is what the freeper you bizarrely bitched at was quite sensibly referring to as a previous predictive failure: that the MSM and 'Rats of Sid's ilk were saying that ten thousand bags would not be nearly enough, even for the initial phases of the war.
Bush knew this would happen. Hell, he even planned it that way. IMHO SS reform was/is a feint. His real plan is the overhaul of the tax system, read national sales tax. Adoption of a national sales tax will solve the SS problem. A twofer so to speak. Another perfect Rovian storm. hehehe!
bttt
Don't insult ferrets by including Sid.
You beat me by a couple. Wish I'd have a thread in my honor. Everthing they say warms my heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.