[frankiep]

The politicians on both sides are essentially the same. They bitch and moan about each others actions in front of the microphones yet if you look at their policies and actions you will see that they are stringingly similar; and all too often, heavily socialistic in nature. All of this name calling and arguing about this or that is just a smokescreen to take our attention away from this fact.

Take big whiff everyone, we are in a world of you know what. Brought to you courtesy of the republocrat party.

[what's up]

The politicians on the Republican side do not speak against the WOT.

The other side works against Bush in the WOT every chance they get.

Big difference here between the parties.

[Zacs Mom]

[MeekOneGOP]

Take [a] big whiff everyone, we are in a world of you know
what. Brought to you courtesy of the republocrat party.

[Slings and Arrows]

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

When Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Rick Santorum, on the other side of the same debate, said of Democrats objecting to the GOP’s stand, ‘‘It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine,’’’ why was there no outpouring of censure? When pundit Robert Novak, at still another point in the filibuster controversy, fumed that for Republicans to consider compromising with Democrats would be ‘‘like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber,’’ how many commentators and talk-show hosts erupted in outrage and contempt?

The politicians on both sides are essentially the same

I'll give you the Novak analogy, since it was a direct reference to actual Nazi crimes - even though Novak clearly wasn't being literal. But the Santorum analogy was pretty tame; all he meant was that he believed in his cause and his opponents were hypocrites for condemning him for acting on his beliefs when they themselves would not have hesitated - were the tables reversed - to do as much or more than he was doing.

All the rest of the examples in the piece are Democrats. There are more examples of the Democrats using Hitler to smear Republicans, and the examples are more clearly smears. Durbin's smear was the most egregious, because he spoke of the treatment of prisoners by American guards and literally compared that to the treatment of prisoners by the most abusive people in recent history. To seriously compare prisoners who on average gained over 15 pounds of weight to those who starved to death is egregious - an unambiguous smear. The other Democrat examples are just a little less vicious - but only just so.

Jacoby - and you - engage here in false moral equivalence.

[Paul_Denton]

Well I have yet to see a Conservative Republican call our troops Nazis and call Gitmo a Gulag.

[ImpBill]

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What will it take for the shpeople to implement their "Declared" rights?

[freedumb2003]

Look, Newbie, there is a big difference between the parties, particularly on this issue.

Republican's don't provide aid and comfort to the Enemy. Period.

[No Blue States]

Attention: Those of you who wish to support the Pinkos, the Democrats, and and other assorted traitors of the left in their aiding and abetting of the enemy, please let us know and we'll transfer your accounts to DUmmyland. That is all.

Jim 74 posted on 06/26/2005 5:30:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[PilloryHillary]

You don't see a difference between the Republicans & Democrats? The republicans aren't perfect, but at least they don't give aid and comfort to our enemies. Democrats call our troops in harms' way "Nazi's" and want us to treat our enemies better than we treat our own people. Democrats didn't want to respond to the horrors of 9/11, except to offer 'understanding' for our enemies and to call on our government to not respond in self defense. 'Let's just lock up all the terrorists and give them long jail sentences.......that'll teach 'em.' When the world trade center was attacked the FIRST time....what did the president (who just happened to be a democrat) do? NUTHIN' but lock up some bad guys and slap them on the wrist. Exactly who's side is the democratic party on anyway? There is a BIG difference between democrats & republicans. Go over to the democratic underground. You'll find lots of America hating friends over there.

[yoswif]

My favorite for Greatest American, George Washington, didn't think much of giving a lot of power to political parties and party leaders. He thought they'd be easy targets for powerful special interests, foreign and domestic, to either buy or coerce. I don't think GW would call what party leaders have produced a democracy.

I'd much rather see conservatives and libertarians support free and fair non-partisan elections at all levels of government instead of doggedly defending Republican party leaders. I think the product of free and fair non-partisan elections at all levels of government would do a better job protecting national sovereignty, individual liberty, and the relatively unfettered right of average Americans to own their homes and businesses than the product of partisan elections.