Return to Column: 10 Days that Shook the Bush Presidency
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1771)
by Dick Smith on July 25, 2002 at 12:18 PM
by Dick Smith on July 25, 2002 at 12:18 PM
Dear Bill,
So sorry to have hurt your feelings. It never occurred to me that a mouthpiece for federalist and republican liars would react with such bombast when cought. Oops! I forgot their history.
Lest you forget, Al Gore won the election by over a half a million votes. He was not awarded the presidency because the fix was in with the once honorable Supremes. But to suggest that Gore had a hand in denying the vote to "our men and women in arms"? HOW DARE YOU? Our men and women in arms were allowed to vote by absentee ballot DAYS AFTER the election in order to make sure Bush Junior "won" while tens of thousands of mostly black but equally valid citizens were denied the right to vote at all through an intentional campaign by Jeb Bush to disenfranchise them. HAVE YOU rEPUBLICANS NO SHAME?
Here's a little research for you by way of an interview by the recently famous BuzzFlash. It isn't about the theft of the 2000 election, but rather about the attempted theft of the Clinton presidency. Facts are useful:
BuzzFlash: We've talked with Gene Lyons and David Brock, and want to talk with you, about one of the little details that gets lost in the memory of the average person. There are probably only a few hundred people in the U.S. that can recall this, but it's in your book and David Brock's book. We're talking about the moment when former Senator Faircloth of North Carolina and Jesse Helms met with David Sentelle.
What happened? Why was this such a critical moment in the effort to bring down the President? To us, it symbolizes that the right-wing and the Republican Party would stop at nothing to unseat a duly elected president, including using their judiciary pals to try to achieve that effort.
Joe Conason: What happened was very interesting, because it shows how determined the Republicans can be, and how far-sighted they often are when they're protecting their partisan interest. David Sentelle was put in the position to run the Special Division, which is a special court empowered under the Independent Counsel Act to select independent counsels and to oversee their work. Sentelle was a relatively inexperienced federal judge from North Carolina with extreme right-wing views, brought to power by Jesse Helms. He had been a big fundraiser for Ronald Reagan, which was a principal reason why he was appointed to the bench in the first place. Then he was chosen to run the Special Division by William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Under the guidelines of the Independent Counsel Act, Rehnquist was supposed to select somebody of senior status, a very experienced judge. But the Act did not require him to do that. And David Sentelle was reliably right-wing. That was the only reason that Rehnquist picked Judge Sentelle, and Judge Sentelle proceeded to behave exactly as I think Rehnquist must have expected him to.
But before the Independent Counsel Act was reinstated by Congress and President Clinton, Robert Fiske had been chosen by Janet Reno to serve as the Whitewater special counsel in January 1994.
BuzzFlash: He was a Republican from New York with integrity.
Joe Conason: He was a U.S. Attorney of spotless integrity, one praised by Republicans when he was chosen. Then he functioned for about six months as the special counsel examining Whitewater. Of course, he basically found very little -- if anything -- to prosecute. I think he was going to prosecute Webb Hubbell. Other than that, there was very little for him to do, and he was wrapping it up. He had wrapped up the Foster investigation and had found that Foster committed suicide. But the right-wing decided that they were very unhappy with this Republican prosecutor's results in the Whitewater investigation, and started a campaign in the newspapers to get rid of him, particularly in William Safire's column for the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal editorial columns. There were really vicious attacks on him.
BuzzFlash: So they demanded a special counsel and a special counsel was appointed. But they didn't like the fact that Fiske was about to close up shop and say there's nothing here.
Joe Conason: They didn't like the investigation of somebody they had endorsed, who was from their party, of total integrity -- he had prosecuted Democrats and Republicans as U.S. Attorney. They didn't like the results, so they started a press campaign to get rid of him and get a different prosecutor in there who would get better results -- from their point of view. So what happened? When the Independent Counsel Act was reinstated by Congress in the summer of '94 -- and the President made the mistake of signing it -- Sentelle was suddenly re-empowered. Instead of re-appointing Fiske, he fired Fiske. After meeting with Senators Helms and Faircloth, the two right-wing Republican senators from his home state of North Carolina, Sentelle appointed Ken Starr.
When they were asked about this inappropriate luncheon, the judge and two senators first claimed that all they had talked about was their prostates and cowboy boots. But later, Judge Sentelle admitted under oath that they might have talked a little bit about the independent counsel, though he wasn't sure exactly what had been said. Naturally this was considered an extremely suspicious set of circumstances by anybody who had the faintest powers of observation.
What happened after the meeting with Helms and Faircloth was that David Sentelle picked Ken Starr. This was a very curious choice because Ken Starr had no prosecutorial experience -- none whatsoever. He was an appellate attorney for big corporations. He had been Bush Sr.'s Solicitor General, but he had no experience in criminal prosecution at all.
What he did have going for him was that he was a politically reliable, right-wing Republican with a good reputation in the Washington press.
BuzzFlash: And a member of the Federalist Society.
Joe Conason: A leading member and supporter of the Federalist Society, a Bush loyalist, and a very partisan Republican. Not too long before that, Starr had thought of running for the Senate in Virginia as a Republican. He had also recently gotten himself involved in the Paula Jones cases as an informal advisor to Paula Jones' attorneys. Then he was asked to assist Jones by the Independent Women's Forum, which is a Scaife-funded political organization for conservative women. So we went from a professional prosecutor -- pobably one of the best in the country -- to a lawyer with no prosecutorial qualifications whatsoever, but a strong partisan who'll behave that way.
BuzzFlash: This symbolizes to BuzzFlash the intersection between the political objectives of the Republican Party and how they use the judiciary. The judiciary nominations are generally below the radar screen of the public and the press. Yet it's been so important to the Bush White House to get their people on the courts. That's because their people, with a wink of an eye, tend to be people that can be relied upon when it comes to decisions that can politically affect the interests of the Republican Party. It seems to BuzzFlash that the David Sentelle appointment of Ken Starr was a pivotal moment. The results consumed the nation for four years, including an impeachment trial -- the judiciary was used to secure someone who was willing to try to entrap the President of the United States and lead to an impeachment trial.
Joe Conason: Well, I think that's right. I think these judicial appointments can't be underestimated. The judiciary is supposed to protect freedoms from corrupt political leaders. The judiciary is supposed to be a bulwark of freedom, and, in this case, it proved to be the opposite of that. The judiciary was used from the very highest judicial position in the land, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to make political attacks on the opposition or on the duly elected President. This was how the judiciary was misused. It's one of the grossest abuses of judicial authority we've ever seen. And Rehnquist got away with it.
BuzzFlash: How do you reflect upon the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court to install Bush as President? Particularly that unbelievably frank injunction that Scalia issued to stop the recount, saying the recount might be harmful to the eventual winner of the election, George W. Bush -- that it might damage the reputation of his presidency?
Joe Conason: I think this was the end result of a long series of unchecked abuses by partisan conservative members of the Supreme Court. And we may not have seen the last of it. What's disturbing now is you look at a Court like that and you wonder about challenges to civil liberties -- whether the support will stand up for them or not. I have grave doubts.
So sorry to have hurt your feelings. It never occurred to me that a mouthpiece for federalist and republican liars would react with such bombast when cought. Oops! I forgot their history.
Lest you forget, Al Gore won the election by over a half a million votes. He was not awarded the presidency because the fix was in with the once honorable Supremes. But to suggest that Gore had a hand in denying the vote to "our men and women in arms"? HOW DARE YOU? Our men and women in arms were allowed to vote by absentee ballot DAYS AFTER the election in order to make sure Bush Junior "won" while tens of thousands of mostly black but equally valid citizens were denied the right to vote at all through an intentional campaign by Jeb Bush to disenfranchise them. HAVE YOU rEPUBLICANS NO SHAME?
Here's a little research for you by way of an interview by the recently famous BuzzFlash. It isn't about the theft of the 2000 election, but rather about the attempted theft of the Clinton presidency. Facts are useful:
BuzzFlash: We've talked with Gene Lyons and David Brock, and want to talk with you, about one of the little details that gets lost in the memory of the average person. There are probably only a few hundred people in the U.S. that can recall this, but it's in your book and David Brock's book. We're talking about the moment when former Senator Faircloth of North Carolina and Jesse Helms met with David Sentelle.
What happened? Why was this such a critical moment in the effort to bring down the President? To us, it symbolizes that the right-wing and the Republican Party would stop at nothing to unseat a duly elected president, including using their judiciary pals to try to achieve that effort.
Joe Conason: What happened was very interesting, because it shows how determined the Republicans can be, and how far-sighted they often are when they're protecting their partisan interest. David Sentelle was put in the position to run the Special Division, which is a special court empowered under the Independent Counsel Act to select independent counsels and to oversee their work. Sentelle was a relatively inexperienced federal judge from North Carolina with extreme right-wing views, brought to power by Jesse Helms. He had been a big fundraiser for Ronald Reagan, which was a principal reason why he was appointed to the bench in the first place. Then he was chosen to run the Special Division by William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Under the guidelines of the Independent Counsel Act, Rehnquist was supposed to select somebody of senior status, a very experienced judge. But the Act did not require him to do that. And David Sentelle was reliably right-wing. That was the only reason that Rehnquist picked Judge Sentelle, and Judge Sentelle proceeded to behave exactly as I think Rehnquist must have expected him to.
But before the Independent Counsel Act was reinstated by Congress and President Clinton, Robert Fiske had been chosen by Janet Reno to serve as the Whitewater special counsel in January 1994.
BuzzFlash: He was a Republican from New York with integrity.
Joe Conason: He was a U.S. Attorney of spotless integrity, one praised by Republicans when he was chosen. Then he functioned for about six months as the special counsel examining Whitewater. Of course, he basically found very little -- if anything -- to prosecute. I think he was going to prosecute Webb Hubbell. Other than that, there was very little for him to do, and he was wrapping it up. He had wrapped up the Foster investigation and had found that Foster committed suicide. But the right-wing decided that they were very unhappy with this Republican prosecutor's results in the Whitewater investigation, and started a campaign in the newspapers to get rid of him, particularly in William Safire's column for the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal editorial columns. There were really vicious attacks on him.
BuzzFlash: So they demanded a special counsel and a special counsel was appointed. But they didn't like the fact that Fiske was about to close up shop and say there's nothing here.
Joe Conason: They didn't like the investigation of somebody they had endorsed, who was from their party, of total integrity -- he had prosecuted Democrats and Republicans as U.S. Attorney. They didn't like the results, so they started a press campaign to get rid of him and get a different prosecutor in there who would get better results -- from their point of view. So what happened? When the Independent Counsel Act was reinstated by Congress in the summer of '94 -- and the President made the mistake of signing it -- Sentelle was suddenly re-empowered. Instead of re-appointing Fiske, he fired Fiske. After meeting with Senators Helms and Faircloth, the two right-wing Republican senators from his home state of North Carolina, Sentelle appointed Ken Starr.
When they were asked about this inappropriate luncheon, the judge and two senators first claimed that all they had talked about was their prostates and cowboy boots. But later, Judge Sentelle admitted under oath that they might have talked a little bit about the independent counsel, though he wasn't sure exactly what had been said. Naturally this was considered an extremely suspicious set of circumstances by anybody who had the faintest powers of observation.
What happened after the meeting with Helms and Faircloth was that David Sentelle picked Ken Starr. This was a very curious choice because Ken Starr had no prosecutorial experience -- none whatsoever. He was an appellate attorney for big corporations. He had been Bush Sr.'s Solicitor General, but he had no experience in criminal prosecution at all.
What he did have going for him was that he was a politically reliable, right-wing Republican with a good reputation in the Washington press.
BuzzFlash: And a member of the Federalist Society.
Joe Conason: A leading member and supporter of the Federalist Society, a Bush loyalist, and a very partisan Republican. Not too long before that, Starr had thought of running for the Senate in Virginia as a Republican. He had also recently gotten himself involved in the Paula Jones cases as an informal advisor to Paula Jones' attorneys. Then he was asked to assist Jones by the Independent Women's Forum, which is a Scaife-funded political organization for conservative women. So we went from a professional prosecutor -- pobably one of the best in the country -- to a lawyer with no prosecutorial qualifications whatsoever, but a strong partisan who'll behave that way.
BuzzFlash: This symbolizes to BuzzFlash the intersection between the political objectives of the Republican Party and how they use the judiciary. The judiciary nominations are generally below the radar screen of the public and the press. Yet it's been so important to the Bush White House to get their people on the courts. That's because their people, with a wink of an eye, tend to be people that can be relied upon when it comes to decisions that can politically affect the interests of the Republican Party. It seems to BuzzFlash that the David Sentelle appointment of Ken Starr was a pivotal moment. The results consumed the nation for four years, including an impeachment trial -- the judiciary was used to secure someone who was willing to try to entrap the President of the United States and lead to an impeachment trial.
Joe Conason: Well, I think that's right. I think these judicial appointments can't be underestimated. The judiciary is supposed to protect freedoms from corrupt political leaders. The judiciary is supposed to be a bulwark of freedom, and, in this case, it proved to be the opposite of that. The judiciary was used from the very highest judicial position in the land, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to make political attacks on the opposition or on the duly elected President. This was how the judiciary was misused. It's one of the grossest abuses of judicial authority we've ever seen. And Rehnquist got away with it.
BuzzFlash: How do you reflect upon the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court to install Bush as President? Particularly that unbelievably frank injunction that Scalia issued to stop the recount, saying the recount might be harmful to the eventual winner of the election, George W. Bush -- that it might damage the reputation of his presidency?
Joe Conason: I think this was the end result of a long series of unchecked abuses by partisan conservative members of the Supreme Court. And we may not have seen the last of it. What's disturbing now is you look at a Court like that and you wonder about challenges to civil liberties -- whether the support will stand up for them or not. I have grave doubts.
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1775)
by Bill Heuisler on July 25, 2002 at 2:32 PM
by Bill Heuisler on July 25, 2002 at 2:32 PM
Dear Mr. Commaroto and Mr. Smith,
Take a deep breath and relax. Both of you remind HNN readers that Gore won by half a million popular votes. Most readers immediately realize your number, your logic and your knowledge of Civics are all unsound. The popular vote in Florida was within hundreds either way by all counts - even after the disenfranchisement of panhandle voters and soldiers and sailors. Now to Civics: We have something called the Electoral College in the U.S.; ring a bell? The winner of Florida's ELECTORAL votes won the Presidency, not some ephemeral popular vote. Rote repetition of large numbers does not gain you points, nor does it enhance your reputation among the better-informed.
Mr. Smith, Whitewater resulted in sixteen convictions of "Friends of Bill" including a Governor and an Attorney General. Your meeting of knuckle-dragging conspirators is laughably irrelevant and Buzzflash is a Left Wing sinkhole.
The unseemly animus of the Left is a paradoxical blessing for us "knownothings" and "toadies"; it induces wind, angst and benightedness, but little cogency. Do you also read the same tabloids and share talking points in dank coffee houses?
Best wishes, Bill Heuisler
Take a deep breath and relax. Both of you remind HNN readers that Gore won by half a million popular votes. Most readers immediately realize your number, your logic and your knowledge of Civics are all unsound. The popular vote in Florida was within hundreds either way by all counts - even after the disenfranchisement of panhandle voters and soldiers and sailors. Now to Civics: We have something called the Electoral College in the U.S.; ring a bell? The winner of Florida's ELECTORAL votes won the Presidency, not some ephemeral popular vote. Rote repetition of large numbers does not gain you points, nor does it enhance your reputation among the better-informed.
Mr. Smith, Whitewater resulted in sixteen convictions of "Friends of Bill" including a Governor and an Attorney General. Your meeting of knuckle-dragging conspirators is laughably irrelevant and Buzzflash is a Left Wing sinkhole.
The unseemly animus of the Left is a paradoxical blessing for us "knownothings" and "toadies"; it induces wind, angst and benightedness, but little cogency. Do you also read the same tabloids and share talking points in dank coffee houses?
Best wishes, Bill Heuisler
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1779)
by Rogelio F. Arteaga on July 25, 2002 at 6:20 PM
by Rogelio F. Arteaga on July 25, 2002 at 6:20 PM
I can certainly sympathize with those who find Mr. Heuisler's contributions here maddening. He loves to talk down to people and is somewhat disingenuous in his selection of facts.
Now -- having taken a deep breath and feeling quite relaxed, let me address some of his points.
The logic in the argument that Gore won by a half-a-million votes is sound insofar as the national count is concerned. Mr. Heuisler is, of course, correct in stating that the electoral college determines the winner of a presidential election.
But if we are to accept his "civics lesson" as it pertains to the 2000 election, we must first consider a brief history lesson. The final count of the popular vote in Florida was disputed in the courts. That dispute was never settled because the Supreme Court short-circuited a recount already in progress. Mr Heuisler blithely ignores that point and presumes an ignorance of civics in anyone who disputes the election's results.
So indefensible was that decision that the court felt compelled to limit it to the "present circumstances". It could not serve as precedent because it was so fundamentally flawed! Even the eloquent Richard Posner's primary argument was that it was necessary to save the country from being torn apart. Far more jurists, legal scholars, and judges decried that decision than defended it. (I am not discussing here the results of the media's vote count announced last fall. If Mr. Heuisler wishes me to, though, I'll be happy to do so.)
Mr Heuisler then moves on to the convictions of President Clinton's "friends". One he mentions is the governor of Arkansas -- a Clinton political rival! The attorney general referred to was convicted for nothing to do with Whitewater, nor with his conduct during his tenure. Others were convicted of activities which harmed the Clintons financially. Another conviction stemmed from testimony concerning the amount of money an official paid a mistress (if he admitted to paying her, what possible difference would the amount make?). Such was the animus of the right-wing prosecutors who threw away prosecutorial judgment simply for the sake of partisanship.
The entire Whitewater investigation was fueled by an "unseemly animus" by the right directed at the Clintons -- an animus unprecedented in its virulence. So virulent was it, that a convention of Christians displayed a banner which proclaimed "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him?" A convention of CHRISTIANS, mind you. Its proponents were so devoid of cogency in their arguments, so lacking in sobriety of judgment, so incoherent in their attempts at logic, that the enterprise fell flat on its face insofar as winning the support of the American people was concerned.
Mr. Heuisler's frequent contributions here often have those same qualities. For example, he continually refers to alleged lost Republican votes, while ignoring any possibility of alleged lost Democratic votes AND ignoring the inclusion of many military votes illegally cast (isn't it curious how conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys, yet constantly harp about any illegality from the left? Alleged perjury by President Clinton? Impeach him! Alleged perjury by Vice President Bush? What's the problem?). Constantly he engages in ad hominems: "The unseemly animus of the left... induces wind, angsts, and benightedness, but little cogency" Or, "Buzzflash is a left-wing sinkhole." Then, he complains because he receives ad hominem attacks in return! If Mr. Heuisler wishes to be considered logical, cogent, and judicious in his arguments, he needs 1) to take a deep breath, 2) relax, and 3) look elsewhere besides his right-wing sources for information. With any luck, he may open his mind a little and strike a balance in his commentary.
Now -- having taken a deep breath and feeling quite relaxed, let me address some of his points.
The logic in the argument that Gore won by a half-a-million votes is sound insofar as the national count is concerned. Mr. Heuisler is, of course, correct in stating that the electoral college determines the winner of a presidential election.
But if we are to accept his "civics lesson" as it pertains to the 2000 election, we must first consider a brief history lesson. The final count of the popular vote in Florida was disputed in the courts. That dispute was never settled because the Supreme Court short-circuited a recount already in progress. Mr Heuisler blithely ignores that point and presumes an ignorance of civics in anyone who disputes the election's results.
So indefensible was that decision that the court felt compelled to limit it to the "present circumstances". It could not serve as precedent because it was so fundamentally flawed! Even the eloquent Richard Posner's primary argument was that it was necessary to save the country from being torn apart. Far more jurists, legal scholars, and judges decried that decision than defended it. (I am not discussing here the results of the media's vote count announced last fall. If Mr. Heuisler wishes me to, though, I'll be happy to do so.)
Mr Heuisler then moves on to the convictions of President Clinton's "friends". One he mentions is the governor of Arkansas -- a Clinton political rival! The attorney general referred to was convicted for nothing to do with Whitewater, nor with his conduct during his tenure. Others were convicted of activities which harmed the Clintons financially. Another conviction stemmed from testimony concerning the amount of money an official paid a mistress (if he admitted to paying her, what possible difference would the amount make?). Such was the animus of the right-wing prosecutors who threw away prosecutorial judgment simply for the sake of partisanship.
The entire Whitewater investigation was fueled by an "unseemly animus" by the right directed at the Clintons -- an animus unprecedented in its virulence. So virulent was it, that a convention of Christians displayed a banner which proclaimed "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him?" A convention of CHRISTIANS, mind you. Its proponents were so devoid of cogency in their arguments, so lacking in sobriety of judgment, so incoherent in their attempts at logic, that the enterprise fell flat on its face insofar as winning the support of the American people was concerned.
Mr. Heuisler's frequent contributions here often have those same qualities. For example, he continually refers to alleged lost Republican votes, while ignoring any possibility of alleged lost Democratic votes AND ignoring the inclusion of many military votes illegally cast (isn't it curious how conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys, yet constantly harp about any illegality from the left? Alleged perjury by President Clinton? Impeach him! Alleged perjury by Vice President Bush? What's the problem?). Constantly he engages in ad hominems: "The unseemly animus of the left... induces wind, angsts, and benightedness, but little cogency" Or, "Buzzflash is a left-wing sinkhole." Then, he complains because he receives ad hominem attacks in return! If Mr. Heuisler wishes to be considered logical, cogent, and judicious in his arguments, he needs 1) to take a deep breath, 2) relax, and 3) look elsewhere besides his right-wing sources for information. With any luck, he may open his mind a little and strike a balance in his commentary.
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1785)
by Bryant Saylors on July 26, 2002 at 9:53 AM
by Bryant Saylors on July 26, 2002 at 9:53 AM
Mr. Heuisler you have some wonderful vocabulary and your dance with words while not funny remind me of my favorite republican. Lincoln. We all know what happened to him for his dancing (his sword play, not the shooting )
Mr. Heuisler many many men use eloquent words and like yours, you use them to charm and discombobulate --- reminds me of a snake charmer. Why not try more simple common words for your hidden insults? Facts are facts and those that we can not produce sometimes have to be left as theories. We can take those theories and facts and we don’t ALWAYS have to have assumed insults and judgements attached to them do we? It just produces walls. Like our friend Lincoln, “first convince them you are their sincere friend”. I think you should try that. See if you can response in a nicer more sincere tone this this note. Should be easy for a master like yourself. (I mean that truly you are better at it then I.)
Head butting of the parties and wings are ageless not only here, but before the dark ages. Either you are fueling them or you are ignorant of some of the facts you talk about. I don’t mean ignorance as an insult, but leaving out some important facts or (from my view seeming) to “warp” them does no one any good except keep you pumped up and upset and those you might want to convince, it just keeps them up in arms.
Just my two cents. Speak like a normal man and your point will get across a bit better.
Bryant Saylors
Mr. Heuisler many many men use eloquent words and like yours, you use them to charm and discombobulate --- reminds me of a snake charmer. Why not try more simple common words for your hidden insults? Facts are facts and those that we can not produce sometimes have to be left as theories. We can take those theories and facts and we don’t ALWAYS have to have assumed insults and judgements attached to them do we? It just produces walls. Like our friend Lincoln, “first convince them you are their sincere friend”. I think you should try that. See if you can response in a nicer more sincere tone this this note. Should be easy for a master like yourself. (I mean that truly you are better at it then I.)
Head butting of the parties and wings are ageless not only here, but before the dark ages. Either you are fueling them or you are ignorant of some of the facts you talk about. I don’t mean ignorance as an insult, but leaving out some important facts or (from my view seeming) to “warp” them does no one any good except keep you pumped up and upset and those you might want to convince, it just keeps them up in arms.
Just my two cents. Speak like a normal man and your point will get across a bit better.
Bryant Saylors
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1800)
by Bill Heuisler on July 29, 2002 at 2:06 PM
by Bill Heuisler on July 29, 2002 at 2:06 PM
Mr. Arteaga,
After reading and rereading your self-righteous cant I decided you weren't worth my time, but my mind kept returning to your hateful reference to the military. My anger would not let me ignore the scornful reference. I am a former Marine, as was my father and his father; my great grandfather was wounded at Fredricksburg and his father was killed there. My son is in the Army. Like many Americans - Democrats included - I consider the military an honorable and necessary part of our common heritage.
You wrote: "...AND ignoring the inclusion of many military votes illegally cast...". Then you wrote how, "conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys...". THEIR GUYS! Are you an American citizen? Is El Paso part of the U.S.? Do you not consider my son worthy of a vote? He puts his life on the line for you and Al Gore's thugs actively pursue a policy that would disenfranchise him and other brave young men and women on the basis of mail bags from the fleet not getting from the FPO to the State in time. Mr. Arteaga, you and your wing of the Democrat Party are beneath contempt. My comments in HNN madden you? Well, I'm pleased to perform the service.
Bill Heuisler
After reading and rereading your self-righteous cant I decided you weren't worth my time, but my mind kept returning to your hateful reference to the military. My anger would not let me ignore the scornful reference. I am a former Marine, as was my father and his father; my great grandfather was wounded at Fredricksburg and his father was killed there. My son is in the Army. Like many Americans - Democrats included - I consider the military an honorable and necessary part of our common heritage.
You wrote: "...AND ignoring the inclusion of many military votes illegally cast...". Then you wrote how, "conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys...". THEIR GUYS! Are you an American citizen? Is El Paso part of the U.S.? Do you not consider my son worthy of a vote? He puts his life on the line for you and Al Gore's thugs actively pursue a policy that would disenfranchise him and other brave young men and women on the basis of mail bags from the fleet not getting from the FPO to the State in time. Mr. Arteaga, you and your wing of the Democrat Party are beneath contempt. My comments in HNN madden you? Well, I'm pleased to perform the service.
Bill Heuisler
RE: Hatred and wishful thinking
(#1801)
by Rogelio F. Arteaga on July 29, 2002 at 4:11 PM
by Rogelio F. Arteaga on July 29, 2002 at 4:11 PM
Mr. Heuisler, please... Calm down... Take a deep breath... Relax.
Let's get this straight. Your ad hominem attacks aren't hateful, but my comments are? Any criticism of conservatives is hateful, but any criticism of liberals is not? Doesn't sound balanced to me.
Let's examine my reference to illegal votes. An illegal vote is an illegal vote, regardless of whether it was cast by a military person or even a self-righteous American such as yourself. My point is, that you and your conservative friends don't concern yourselves with illegalities whenever they support your side. In this instance, a larger share of those illegally cast votes favored your candidate so you couldn't care a whit about the legal aspects, just count the votes. All of you demanded this.
Same thing with the example I offered to illustrate my point. None of you on the right thought it improper that the Vice President, a Secretary, and a Marine captain broke the law by either committing perjury, destroying evidence, or both. Yet, when President Clinton lied about an affair, all of you trumpeted -- self-righteously, mind you -- that the rule of law must be upheld. This is why I said, "isn't it curious how conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys, yet constantly harp about any illegality from the left?"
No, Mr. Heuisler, your characterization of my comments is typical of the tactics used by you and yours. If you were to employ logic, facts and reason, you would provide an argument that would show definitively that your stand on the law is not hypocritical. Since you can't do that, you try to deflect attention away from your hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, and then try to frame my comments in a "hateful" context. In effect, you are saying that you can't win on logic, so you must you resort to emotion.
In fact, emotion is a major factor in the arguments you use to support your points. I've already offered several examples of this in previous contributions here, but I'll provide another: "Al Gore's thugs".
Think about that. Anyone who watched the 2000 election dispute saw a horde of angry men striving mightily to break in to a Miami office where a recount was being held. That mob was brought in by guys like Tom DeLay and other Bush supporters specifically to break up a legal recount. (The rule of law, anyone?). There's a famous picture, widely circulated, of these men clamoring to get in. If you want to see real thugs, Mr. Heuisler, look at that photo.
Another contributor here offered you some good advice about winning people over. I offered you some good advice (part of which came from you, no less) on how to open your mind. You've chosen to ignore both. That's fine. I'll continue to counter any arguments you present which I feel are incorrect or misleading. In doing so I will employ reason, fact, and logic. If a little emotion breaks through, it will be prompted only by emotional outbursts devoid of any of these traits. You will either choose to reply or ignore my comments. It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I'll still be here.
Let's get this straight. Your ad hominem attacks aren't hateful, but my comments are? Any criticism of conservatives is hateful, but any criticism of liberals is not? Doesn't sound balanced to me.
Let's examine my reference to illegal votes. An illegal vote is an illegal vote, regardless of whether it was cast by a military person or even a self-righteous American such as yourself. My point is, that you and your conservative friends don't concern yourselves with illegalities whenever they support your side. In this instance, a larger share of those illegally cast votes favored your candidate so you couldn't care a whit about the legal aspects, just count the votes. All of you demanded this.
Same thing with the example I offered to illustrate my point. None of you on the right thought it improper that the Vice President, a Secretary, and a Marine captain broke the law by either committing perjury, destroying evidence, or both. Yet, when President Clinton lied about an affair, all of you trumpeted -- self-righteously, mind you -- that the rule of law must be upheld. This is why I said, "isn't it curious how conservatives have no qualms about illegalities committed by their guys, yet constantly harp about any illegality from the left?"
No, Mr. Heuisler, your characterization of my comments is typical of the tactics used by you and yours. If you were to employ logic, facts and reason, you would provide an argument that would show definitively that your stand on the law is not hypocritical. Since you can't do that, you try to deflect attention away from your hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, and then try to frame my comments in a "hateful" context. In effect, you are saying that you can't win on logic, so you must you resort to emotion.
In fact, emotion is a major factor in the arguments you use to support your points. I've already offered several examples of this in previous contributions here, but I'll provide another: "Al Gore's thugs".
Think about that. Anyone who watched the 2000 election dispute saw a horde of angry men striving mightily to break in to a Miami office where a recount was being held. That mob was brought in by guys like Tom DeLay and other Bush supporters specifically to break up a legal recount. (The rule of law, anyone?). There's a famous picture, widely circulated, of these men clamoring to get in. If you want to see real thugs, Mr. Heuisler, look at that photo.
Another contributor here offered you some good advice about winning people over. I offered you some good advice (part of which came from you, no less) on how to open your mind. You've chosen to ignore both. That's fine. I'll continue to counter any arguments you present which I feel are incorrect or misleading. In doing so I will employ reason, fact, and logic. If a little emotion breaks through, it will be prompted only by emotional outbursts devoid of any of these traits. You will either choose to reply or ignore my comments. It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I'll still be here.
by Jeffery Commaroto on July 25, 2002 at 11:23 AM