An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Orrin Hatch on Terrorism and Democrats
The Utah politician recently suggested that electing Democrats is what the terrorists want.
*sigh*
I have more here on this ridiculous statement.
16 Responses to “Orrin Hatch on Terrorism and Democrats”
I believe it is time to hate the republicans as bad as the terrorists. We have always understood that they are stupid and incompetent, but duly elected. Now they begin to attack us in ways that only Adolph Hitler could conceive.
They are dangerous bastards. The desire to kill us is detectable under the tone and spirit of their statements. They love war and bloodshed. They create underpaying jobs that only young people can keep up with. They deny healthcare to those older, but not old enough for Medicare in hopes the poorer will die.
They literally attack the people of this nation with their cheap selfish policies. They are bankrupting the nation with their voodoo economics, as it was called under Reagan and proved to be just that!
Now they make statements like this idiot Hatch, on a regular basis, against us, the American people. We have lost faith in their cornball leadership EXACTLY because of their failures.
The slaughter in Iraq is unbelievable and has been so for far to long. Even if it stopped tomorrow the shame on this nation for causing it can never be wiped away. I am so ashamed to be an American.
We must change the power in Washington.
OK Justin. It’s a bit disingenous to say that the power to fight terrorism rests with the President at the same time the liberals (of which, I presume, you are one) are doing their best to undercut what Bush is doing in the courts, media and Congress. And while you are right that the majority of Democrats voted with Republicans that was done when (1) 9/11 was much fresher in people’s minds, (2) before the radical left determined that supporting Bush was treason to the cause, (3) Bush’s ratings were higher, making opposing him appear to be more dangerous, and (4) when the combination of ‘moderate’ Dems and the GOP was a majority. There are three scenarios should the dems win: they’ll be no more and no less effective, they’ll be more effective or they’ll be less effective. I don’t think the party backed by the ACLU will ever be thought of as more effective, so the best the dems can hope to accomplish is to be thought of as no better and no worse… but since all they do is b**** about what Bush does – and not from the perspective of “let’s be tougher” but rather from a “ooh, we’re being too aggressive, some librarian is going to be all upset at someone looking up her knickers”, I don’t see where Hatch is all that far off.
And, Joe, while you’re certainly playing things up the middle, it’s hard to say that ‘moderate’ applies to the blog as a whole…
Well, sorry Steve that you feel that way. It’s interesting that I get emails from people complaining bitterly about how my blog has now getting too far TO THE RIGHT and some cobloggers are not liberal enough. I get complaints like yours about five times a week from people on both sides. They read someone whose stuff they disagree with, then say it can’t be a moderate blog — which assumes everyone who is a moderate agrees on every issue (find me a poll that shows 100 percent of any group agreeing on any issue). Then I get the emails from readers saying they won’t read the blog again unless I get rid of a blogger who they say is a liberal, or a blogger who is a conservative. I’ve had several bloggers who are almost burned out due to readers comments. So I’m sorry you don’t feel the blog is a moderate blog but I need to tell you I’ve gotten complaints (some of which I fowarded to a coblogger) about posts by one blogger who is center right on some things and some bitter complaints from someone who said this blog is like the Nazis or Pravda. And maybe a blog like this can’t nurture a long range readership because people get upset if they don’t read something THEY agree with — then it can’t be moderate. If that happens, I guess I’d just have to give up the billions of dollars this blog is generating and move onto other things. I think the reaction to Hatch is definitely understandable. If anything, I think the Democrats need to answer this malarky much stronger than they have. If I sound testy it’s because I’m driving huge distances this summer and come back and get about an email a day from someone on the right OR the left saying this blog is actually liberal or actually conservative. Perhaps this is why some people tune out of the political processs and feel a lot of folks in this country need to take a nice, deep breath and realize that reading a variety of ideas doesn’t cause brain cancer but can be good for your intellectual health. And that people who present differing ideas of all kinds enrich us, no matter what our beliefs are.
Joe,
How many times will you take time out of your admittedly busy schedule to respond to what seems to be the same accusation every week?
As I am sure most regular readers of this blog have come to understand, this is not a place where one goes to have constant reaffirmation of pre-existing beliefs. If that is what a reader is interested in, they should consult your list of “Left” or “Right” voices.
While you are certainly within your right to defend yourself against such attacks, it seems to me to be a fruitless endeavor. Save yourself the energy of attempting to explain what has already been said numerous times – some people simply cannot be expected to understand what the “moderate” in your blog’s title implies.
Keep up the good work.
Those in the middle are now considered by conservatives to be raving moonbats. When I said in another post that I has stopped believing what Bush told America about the war- I was likened to Michael Moore. But if Bush’s approval rating on the war stands at 30% that means a disapproval rating of 70%-and that is the majority of the country. I’m not saying that I’m overly impressed with the current Democratic leadership- they have backed down out of fear of attacks on their patriotism, but at least they are willing to admit it when a policy has failed. If Bush simply stays the course on Iraq, he never has to admit failure or accept any responsibility.
This latest tactic by the Republicans is cowardly and unamerican.. They are obviously so terrified of losing power that they feel they have to scare the pants off the voters. Democrats have lead us through two world wars and part of Vietnam. They have confronted and bravely faced nuclear destruction (Kennedy) and somehow we have all survived.
Voters should ask themselves: How safe do you feel with an administration that is totally over their head in Iraq, but can’t admit it, and who no longer has diplomatic relations with enemies that are building up nuclear weapons against us? Are you safer now than you were in 2000, under Clinton?
Joe- the blog is great-keep it just the way it is!
Joe, if moderate-ness were defined by the complaints from the fringe, then even I would be a moderate as I make neither the Al Sharptons or the David Dukes happy. To twist Lincoln, moderate-ness is not p***ing off half the people all of the time, it is p***ing off all of the people half of the time… and, in my humble, unsolicited and apparently unwelcome view, your contributors, for the most past, simply don’t p*** off enough liberals enough times for the blog as a whole to be considered moderate.
Kim (and the others with you), do you not see the hypocrisy in blasting Hatch for claiming that the country would be less safe with the Dems in control just one paragraph before you claim the country is less safe with Bush than it was with Clinton? Are you so terrified of not gaining power that you have to scare the pants off of voters? And, speaking of Clinton, remind me if you criticized him as you have Bush… for I don’t remember us having diplomatic relations with Iran during his terms in office.. while they were getting their nuke program up and running. And wasn’t Bin Laden working on his plans in 2000, when Clinton was in office? But that’s par for y’all, isn’t it: close your eyes hard enough and pretend all is okay with the world?
P.S. Joe, one last bit of unsolicited advice: don’t let the emails – mine included – get to you and, if you can’t do that, definitely don’t let give them the pleasure of knowing they’ve gotten to you.
Thanks Steve for the kind comment. Heh…
Well, you can comment about TMV being too liberal and I can see why you say so. However, many moderates right now don’t see eye to eye with Bush. So this could certainly give the appearance of being liberal.
In any event, I agree with Joe. TMV is a place where ideas come to meet and don’t always agree. Sometimes they seem more conservative, while other times they seem more liberal. That’s the beauty of the middle blogosphere. You don’t necessarily have to be an independent, but you do have to have an open mind.
Steve, best of luck.
Let me remind you:
“Mr.President, the nation is under attack”….
Silence, inaction and an eye glazing stare off into space….for six minutes.
This president and those that enable him, are destroying our country with incompetence.
How many have to die before you get it?
Please, we can’t take much more.
Steve, not pissed ‘liberals’ off enough? Do you read the comment sections at posts I write?
Neocon, propaganda, fox journalist, mossad agent -> I’ve been called it all.
Steve, you want go to “blogs for bush� , where everyone talks about how great he is 24/7. Bush does not get a free pass and for good reason.
Joe, you get billions for this blog? I knew, it you’re part of the vast corporate conspiracy to take over the world. As far as Orrin goes this is par for the course, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh would be proud. These types of comments from both sides makes any attempt at an objective look at how the war is progressing impossible.
Nothing would give me more pleasure than Orrin Hatch getting beaten by a democrat–heck, anyONE, for that matter. This guy is so entrenched with most Utah voters (i.e., the sheeple who do what they’re told at church on Sunday) that he could rob a bank, or embezzle millions, or, well, whatever, and he would STILL get elected. Too bad, too. This state (and the other 49) deserves so much better.
I cannot, will not, believe that most Americans are falling for that “we’re in more danger with Dems” crap. That’s just too easy. We have to face up to the fact that we are in more danger REGARDLESS of who is running the country–9/11 is proof of that. We need to get serious about doing the things we need to protect our lives and our economy, not condemn with sound-bytes.
*sigh*
Oh who am I kidding? This is Politics 101. I may as well steel myself for more of the same gibberish through November. ARRGGHH!!
Steve parrots the RNC line even as he tries to claim that right wing extremists aren’t happy with him. It assumes that we shouldn’t criticize Bush because his actions are not only correct, but the only correct ones. He fails to recognize that opposing what Bush wants to do is opposing terrorism because the incompetent actions of this administration do almost nothing to help the problem.
It’s wonderful reading the claims that I’m a Bush sycophant/cheerleader… is that you all’s automatic reaction everytime someone says something you don’t like? Ooh, someone says something critical of the Dems, he has to be a Coulter groupie! JimS:where in anything I have written, either here as a comment or on my own blog, suggests that criticizing Bush isn’t OK? And, without intending this to be an endorsement of Bush, which it isn’t, how incompetent can he be if we haven’t had another 9/11 since then? It’s not as if the terrorists aren’t trying to score again, is it?
Whoops! Steve, I stand corrected, after reading your blog[ I didn’t before I made my comments] I do see your point that I over reacted. My apologies. I am just so used to the “You’re a unpatriotic/traitor/subversive/idiot liberal because you don’t support the president� stuff that I made an assumption that I now find out is false. Jump to a conclusion, put foot in mouth.
Kim,
You did not say in another post that you stopped believing what Bush told America about the war. You said that Bush lied. There is a big difference between those two statements. The first statement encompasses several possibilities, including that Bush was incorrect in his judgement (a fair statement), but the second is a conclusion that is reprehensible.
And, the second statement which is the one you originally posted IS what Michael Moore believes and pushes with his propaganda. If you were to tell me that I agree with Rush or Hannity on certain points, I would not deny that because of course as a conservative I have some beliefs in common with them. That doesn’t mean that I agree with their approach.
Grognard: appreciated.
And while I may not have done a good job, the point I was trying to make wasn’t that the Dems ARE stupid/unpatriotic/whatever, it was that they face a hard time convincing a whole lot of people that they can be trusted to run national security (perception vs reality).
To the extent that a party is defined in large part by its fringe (especially when its fringe is as loud as the Dem’s fringe is these days), the Dems have a huge problem convincing the public that a party that almost always prefers civil liberties over anti-terror programs is the group that ought to be trusted running national security. Note that the Pelosis don’t argue that snooping on phone calls is an ineffective tactic in fighting terror, they oppose it because it ‘violates’ privacy or because they allege Bush doesn’t have the power to authorize such programs. And, to the public, those security moms who are all the rage these days, they don’t care so much about the fine print of whether FISA is being followed or not, they don’t care if some pervert at a library is at risk of having his porn viewing monitored, they simply want to know that the person in the White House is doing as much as possible to keep them and their kids safe. I’ll grant you that Bush sure isn’t doing enough, but arguing that the Dems would be better is a huge leap of faith for the public to accept.
P.S. I hope this comment doesn’t run afoul of Joe’s comment policy….