Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Attacking a private citizen like this is out of bounds and, if you ask me, immature.

But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?

Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker. "That's why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him."

Washington Post

This isn't just a liberal strategy. Selective memory is an interesting thing...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

---

I thought exactly that when I read the whole thing. This guy has said he wants our elected president to fail and we have little recourse in speaking to him publicly about how we feel about what he said.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

well there is 1 big difference, Moore uses facts, Rush uses lies and decetion

But to a surprising number of conservatives there is a solemn appropriateness about Reagan's passing the torch to the 42-year-old former disc jockey and college dropout. Certainly if any conservative is in line to inherit the mantle of "The Great Communicator," it is the idol of the "dittoheads," the man who presides over the country's most listened-to radio talk-show. But his twenty million listeners a week on 616 stations also make him the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the cage in which American conservatism is languishing. "One reason he unites the Right is that he's the biggest kid on the block," says Terry Eastland, editor of The Forbes Media Critic. "People don't want to be lampooned on the air; politicians don't want to offend him because he's so popular."
...
"When Rush Limbaugh talks, you know you're listening to the real world," says Bob Dole.

Phil Gramm says Limbaugh "has had a profound impact on conservative thinking in America . . . He says things other people are afraid to say. As an opinion maker and thinker he is very intelligent and, like Ronald Reagan, a very effective communicator. There are many days when I think he's doing a lot more good than the Republicans in the Senate are doing."

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jsobecky I highlighted the most hypocritical and ironic part of her statement. Amazing that she can actually use the words "leave behind the failed partisan attack politics of the past" in the same breath as calling for a derogatory statement to put up on a billboard!

I find it very telling that you left out the following part of that message:

If Republican leaders aren't willing to tell Rush, then we will. Americans want President Obama to succeed. Our country's future depends on it. Rooting for the President's failure is rooting for our country to fail.

I'd suggest that if you are dealing with hypocracy vis-a-vis partisan politics, that you not engage in it yourself.

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
reply to post by jsobecky

---

There is something seriously wrong with liberals and the liberal mind set.

But did you say the same thing when the Republicans did it?

Jesus, I didn't attack you. I asked you a question. I am debating the issues. I'm not the one getting personal here.

Except for the people putting up the billboard...

This is not to say the government is prohibited from speaking on matters of importance. Had the government purchased advertising, and the advertising was labeled as such, there would have been no problem.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jd140
Where is the strategy involving Rush?

I think it's just that the Dems want people to think that this is their choice. Obama or Rush. Which party people are drawn to will make a HUGE difference in the 2010 (next year) midterm elections.

And I'm not so sure this billboard thing is about that. A LOT of Americans are pissed off and hurt that Limbaugh insists he wants Obama to fail and they want to say something back to him. I think that's the impetus behind the billboard.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If you can't see the difference between free speech, and a blatant attack on a private citizen authorized by the President's Administration, then there isn't any help for you.

There is a difference between free speech and government propaganda, and this billboard being authorized by the Obama admin. is political propaganda. In fact there are laws against government propaganda. Although I don't know if this falls into the constructs of propaganda law.

Originally posted by jimmyx
uhmm...the democratic national committee is not part of the government, it's a private political party...sooo...it's not illegal. both parties put out ads during the election attacking people, and they could do it because they were not part of the government.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal organization governing the United States Democratic Party on a day to day basis. While it is responsible for overseeing the process of writing a platform every four years, the DNC's central focus is on campaign and political activity in support of Democratic Party candidates, and not on public policy. The DNC was established at the 1848 Democratic National Convention.[1]

The Democratic National Committee provides national leadership for the Democratic Party of the United States. It is responsible for promoting the Democratic political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy. Shortly after his inauguration, Barack Obama transferred his Obama For America organization to the DNC, along with its 13 million person email list, as restrictions prevented him from taking it with him to the White House.[2] Renamed Organizing For America, the organization also controls the BarackObama.com domain and website and is expected to work closely with Obama's New Media Director Macon Phillips, who will manage the WhiteHouse.gov - formerly Change.gov - website, though Phillips' duties technically fall under the White House umbrella, not the DNC.[3]

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by jsobecky

---

THE DNC IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! can you show anywhere, anyhow, any proof that it is???? why are you saying things that are blatantly false??