Why aren't the Democrats Taking w to Task for being a Goddamned Liar?

[mopaul]

I know it's been said, many times, many ways, but they made such a huge goddamn deal about Bill being a liar, WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE MAKING A HUGE, STINKING, SCREAMING, STOMPING, HELL RAISING DEAL ABOUT IT?

[ClassWarrior]

1. Because they're all - and we're all - liars.

They should be taking Bush** to task for betraying the trust of the American people. I agree with you, but language matters.

NGU.

[emanymton]

2. There Is No Difference Between Dem and GOP. They Are Both

whores for hire. shrub has the money, they follow his lead!



Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

[LaurenG]

8. My Dad always said this

He was a retired Master Sargent US Army. He stated more times than I can say the same exact thing. (Brought back memories, he died last January and this reminded me of him so I had to say something). I think you guys may be right.

[earth mom]

16. My dad used to say that they're all a bunch of crooks...

I try to give some of em the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting harder by the day. :grr:

[dbonds]

3. A better question, why isn't the media doing it.

They are traditionally the ones that expose stuff.

[DemBeans]

12. I guess the media is *exhausted* after the Clinton administration

You know, they whipped up all kinds of "scandals" during Clinton's tenure - the big Whitewater lies, Filegate, Travelgate, lurid descriptions of $200 haircuts at LAX.

This is big stuff, folks, compared to lying to take the nation to war, looting the economy, corrupt war contracts, torture and war crimes, paying off journalists - you know, the little stuff that just passes as silently as a submarine through our daily lives.

How they piled on Clinton and yet not only don't take Bush to task for the above but scramble to make excuses for him demonstrates just how corrupted our "media" has become.

[izzie]

4. Glass houses and all the jazz

--

[Submariner]

5. I would like to see Bush hogtied to a chair

in front of a 52 inch TV screen with Galloway's in-your-face butt chewing of Coleman playing on a loop for a week.

[asjr]

6. Being nice just doesn't cut it. The Dems need to come out of

the gate charging. It might just scare some Repubs. They are so used to our being mild-mannered.

[ihaveaquestion]

7. Because it wouldn't be "dignified"

F&*cking Gutless Wimps - the lot of them!

We need a few bulldog dems - like they used to be. Doesn't anyone remember LBJ and how ruthless he was? He was a cutthroat politician and didn't play nice at all. We need to be able to support tough as nails politicians in the democratic/liberal/progressive big tent if we're going to beat the repukes. I honestly don't see the dem/lib/prog community doing this. We have to nurture and protect the tough guys, but anymore, we only seem to want those who "play nice."

[Somawas]

17. Exactly.

LBJ and Sam Rayburn knew how to kick butt, take names, and bury bodies where they couldn't even find 'em, dammit.

[BillZBubb]

9. We don't want to offend the "undecideds"!

If we "sink to the Republican's level" we might start winning once and a while like they do. But, we can't have that! :sarcasm:

[stopbush]

10. I agree. I had similar thoughts in my thread last night

which no one bothered to read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1810311&mesg_id=1810311

[Karenina]

13. Had to kick that. n/t

[ComerPerro]

11. Granted, people will say "all politicians lie". But none lie like Bush

None lie as regularly, or as shamelessly, or as willingly.

And none get such a free pass as he does.

He should be taken to task and called on his lies.

Why not? What's wrong with calling him a liar?

The GOP has no problem throwing that word around when directed at their opponents.

[leftofthedial]

14. MurkaCorp has regulations against ratting out the pretend boss

when he's a repuke

[gratuitous]

15. It happens fairly often

There's just no coordination of the message, and the media have other priorities such as serving their corporate masters.

I think one problem for Democrats is that we expect people to be intelligent: Tell them something, demonstrate that it's true, back it up with facts, figures and evidence, and they'll internalize it and believe it.

The Republicans, on the other hand, spoon feed their stuff to the rubes over and over again, until it gets to the point where we're actually using their talking points for them.

Witness the social security debate: The most pessimistic set of figures, the ones that have the least credibility, show Social Security having to pay reduced benefits around 2042. More reliable figures say those reduced benefits might have to begin in 2053. And, if the economy continues to grow at the same rate it has for the last 50 years, the reduced benefits will never come to pass. Employee contributions will outstrip benefits paid for the foreseeable future.

But what is the panic point in the social security debate? Is it that there's no crisis? That there might be a crisis 48 years from now? No, we hear 2042, 2042, 2042. And we hear it so often, even the Democrats on the talk shows (who should know better) concede that we'll be in crisis 2042. We lose the debate almost before it starts. Bush keeps using the 2042 figure, and people keep pointing out that it's bogus, but he keeps it up. Now we're actually being gulled into thinking that the crisis point is going to happen in 2012!

We have to ignore the naysayers, to a degree, and quit conducting our end of the political discourse as if the only people worth convincing are David Broder and George Stephanopoulos.

[Deja Q]

18. One party system; democratic republic sham of an oligarchic plutocracy