I recall Carter and Bill Clinton getting the bulk of criticism when Dems ruled, and even Bush 1.

Only Reagan, w his odd teflon, ever seemed to miss that.

I’ll grant you the exaggeration on the 99.9% claim- but if you take out a few conservative commenters (who are the ones being criticized as partisan), it certainly leans pretty heavily that way (esp if you take into consideration that I’m also discounting criticism of the Dems for not being liberal enough). Perhaps I’m odd to think that a moderate blog would apply the same standard toward the conservative and liberal side, to criticize both when they lean toward their wings- and to give neither side the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tactics and ethics.

However, since the R’s and Bush have dominated policy this century, and our nation is in a mess, the odds are likely that you’ll see more crit of the dominant folk.

However, 99.9% is an exaggeration, certainly on this blog.

In addition you are definitely exaggerating when you say that no one wants to kill SCHIP. Republican think tanks such as the Hoover Institute, AEI and Cato don’t believe in the continued existence of any social programs and their influence is not exactly minuscule.

Their influence overall may not be miniscule, but I’d say their ability to influence this particular debate in that direction certainly is. What Tully is pointing to is the fact that neither Bush’s proposal nor the GOP alternative bill on SCHIP come even close to gutting SCHIP- in fact both include expansion of the funding for it. So there is no alternative on the table by anyone in either party or either branch of govt which would in any way put the existing program in danger.

When about 90% of your criticism does stick to criticizing Democrats you are open to being considered partisan for the Republicans. Not accusing, just pointing out that the overwhelming majority of your posts here stick to pretty much one side. I’m also not denying that I criticize Republicans more than Democrats.

Cosmo:
When the blogposts and the majority of the commenters focus 99.9% of the time on criticism of the GOP (or criticism of the Dems for not being left enough, esp on the war), then you’re going to see some of us focusing more on where we think the criticism should be applied to the Dems for not being moderate. That’s not partisanship, that’s called pushback.

It’s not an assumption, it’s looking at the facts- and Jim’s link is a good example.

I don’t really care what’s in ‘the hearts of men.’ That’s between themselves, their consciences, and if they have a deity to shrive to. I care what people do, in the philosophically material sense, not what they claim.

This is what is wrong w most politics. People vote for hacks who say they’ll do something, but if the guy or gal does not do it, they refuse to punish them by voting them out of office, because the other guy’s worse.

When about 90% of your criticism does stick to criticizing Democrats you are open to being considered partisan for the Republicans. Not accusing, just pointing out that the overwhelming majority of your posts here stick to pretty much one side. I’m also not denying that I criticize Republicans more than Democrats.

In addition you are definitely exaggerating when you say that no one wants to kill SCHIP. Republican think tanks such as the Hoover Institute, AEI and Cato don’t believe in the continued existence of any social programs and their influence is not exactly minuscule.

While I don’t take it as far as cosmo, I did post this on my blog a while back.

There are whole goddamned charities that do NOTHING for the suffering in our own country, while shilling for foreigners.

Most of these types are what were once known as ‘limousine liberals’. They’d talk the good game about Apu in Calcutta, yet sneer at the homeless bum they stepped over getting into the fancy hotel to give their speech.

Earth to Sam, over:

The government wastes billions in defense contracts, Homeland Security (remember the cruise boats sent down to house Katrina victims!), and foreign aid. Here’s a program that is needed, that actually works well, and that is even backed by the insurance industry. American taxpayers are tired of seeing their money go to subsidize Big Oil, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors etc etc.

If Bush and his allies care about ordinary Americans, and not just the poor, repressed people of Burma, he has a lousy way of showing it. He’s obviously short on Compassion, but long on Conservatism.

The thing is, there haven’t been quick “smackdowns”. I see a lot of weasel words…and still the “they made us do it” by putting their kid out there in the first place. Anyone who follows that line of “reasoning” is really unspeakable.

And if you weren’t trying to create the sense that this is probably the way things happened, then what does this comment mean?

Does the GOP now condemn sweat equity, too?