Michael Barone

Disgusting Democratic Partisanship in Ohio

October 28, 2008 RSS Feed Print

Comment (14)
Tweet

Here's insight into the thinking of some Democrats. In Ohio, they're attacking state Rep. Josh Mandel for having fulfilled his military obligation to serve in Iraq. As Joel Mowbray tells the story, Democrats are saying that Mandel neglected his constituents in favor of "serving George Bush." In these Democrats' view, the war in Iraq is evidently a purely partisan cause, not one sanctioned by the U.S. Congress and ordered by the U.S. president. These people want the United States to prevail only if there is a Democratic president and take delight in American defeat if the president is a Republican. I've seldom seen such a disgusting display of partisanship over country.

Tags:: Democratic Party,; 2008 presidential election,; Ohio,; Iraq war (2003-2011),; national security terrorism and the military,; military

« Previous Post Next Post »

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Lakerg of TX hit the nail on the head!
I began to learn to think critically in my late twenties and, by my early thirties, it ended up causing me to make a 180-degree change in my political thinking.
Today too much of what I hear during campaigns is pure soundbite-sized hokum and meaningless platitudes presented for people who have never learned to think critically. What's unfortunately missing is well-reasoned, clear arguments such as Lakerg puts forth.
About two years ago, I had heard that Newt Gingrich and his friend from the other side of the political aisle, former NY governor Mario Cuomo, were going to go on a sort of "Ideas Roundable" tour if it turned out that this election was not about ideas. I'm disappointed that this did not happen. Few big ideas are being discussed in this election. Instead, it's about who is who's friends and what kind of accent or wardrobe someone has. How about a frank discussion of "redistribution" and it's pros and cons? Or about what the role of government should be in our society. These topics would actually be helpful to America.
It seems to me that more and more American people, including many who are well educated, have very little conception of the basic principles behind either the conservative or liberal point of view. Instead of knowing the facts, theories, and historical precedents behind what each side believes, all most of us get is dumbed-down catch phrases.
Why not let each political side re-explain to America every four years what its belief system is all about, and then let Americans decide for themselves which party's belief system is closer to their own? That would make for a really intersting and educational campaign season!

Critical of FL 3:47PM October 30, 2008

Please, Mr. Lerner, don't let the cat out of the bag! You wrote, "Democrats believe in progressive taxation. We believe the rich, who have benefitted more from the structure society provides owe a greater debt to society. The wealthy benefit more from an educated workforce. They benefit more from our highway infrastructure, the security provided by our police and military. It is common sense that they should pay more, yet in the case of Social Security and other payroll taxation they actually pay less."
Mr. Lerner, you are providing the thinking behind Obama's recent "spreading the wealth" comment to the plumber. This election is not supposed to be about ideas. The mantra is: Times are bad. We need Change. Obama = Change.
The truth is that taxation is always progressive. If I make $50K and owe 15% in federal taxes, then I owe $7,500. If I make $150K and still paid only 15%, then I would owe $22,500 in taxes. Now, if a politician of either party cut the amount I owe in taxes by 10%, I'd save $750 a year if I make $50K, but a whole $2,250 a year if I make $150K. That's what we're supposed be believe is called "tax cuts for the rich" even though it's the same cut.
Now, if you argue that making $150K means you ought to pay-up more, because it's your patriotic duty as Biden believes, that's another story. It seems to presume that those who make more are somehow scamming the system and deserve to get knocked down a peg. I'm sure there are scam artists at nearly every income level, but it's not fair to brand everyone who has studied hard, worked hard, or even gotten lucky in order to earn a great income with the same label.
The conservative principle is that wealth isn't some finite-sized pie, where if one person gets a bigger slice of the pie it means another person must get stuck with a smaller slice of the pie. The pie can and should GROW bigger. But, again, that's an idea that I haven't heard expressed at all in this campaign, by either side.
I also don't quite follow your argument about how the wealthy benefit more from our highway system, or police or military protection. It seems that a highway is equally useful to me whether I drive a Bentley or a Chevy. It also seems that, if the police are unable to help me when I'm robbed and shot by a mugger, it won't matter much whether I have $10 or $1,000 in my wallet at the time it happens. If you mean that police protection is more useful to rich people because being rich makes one a target of criminals in a way that being poor does not, then you haven't seen many crime statistics. I agree that, in theory, a criminal would be more likely to prey upon the rich. But it just doesn't seem to be that way in practice.

Doubting Thomas of IN 3:19PM October 30, 2008

They're lying to you, Mr. Dede...
For decades, we've all been hearing how electing Republicans will mean that social security and/or medicare will be reduced or even eliminated. And yet, it's never happened. The truth is, any candidate from either party who seriously proposed cutting Soc. Sec. or Medicare would be committing political suicide.
As for investing in the stock market, I wish I had enough savings outside of social security to put something there now. Over the long-haul, including the Depression, the stock market has always risen about 7-10% over and above inflation. Right now, with the market tanking, it represents a good buying opportunity for those who have some extra $ to invest.
I read an really interesting quote from some investment person who said, "When the grocery stores runs a sale with 50% off toilet paper, people run out and buy extra toilet paper. But when Wall Street has a fire sale on stocks, people can't run away fast enough."

Not Scared of 2:53PM October 30, 2008

Disgusting Democratic Partisanship in Ohio

Related Articles

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Michael Barone

Photos »

The White House »

Political Cartoons »

Subscribe »

Congress »