News-Record.com

Doug, don't you know that Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world, and he must be defeated? The Islamic Jihadist are just freedom fighters defending their way of like and religion. Our only hope is to lay down our weapons and talk to the terrorists to find out what they want. "Bush lied and people died." Now, that is bumper sticker quality in the next election.

Bullseye on this one Mr. Clark. The nature of the rhetoric coming out of many of our elected "leaders" would be more representative of a Nazi era propaganda campaign than it is of intelligent political discourse in a supposedly educated nation.

The problems we face are real, and both sides of the aisle are guilty of distorting the relevant facts for the sake of political posturing and manuever.

Stormy, my bumper sticker will read:
"Bush spied, terrorists died"

The Dems talking points are unbelievably similar to those of the terrorists:
Both want the US to pull out of Iraq and surrender
Both want the US to stop gathering intel info about our enemies
Both want the US to stop advocating freedom and democracy throughout the world
Both want the US to release enemy combatants
Both want the US to abandon it's allies in the war on terror.

I sometimes wonder whether the Dems are writing scripts for the terrorists or vice versa?

Mr. Clark,

You are having a very good day! Very well said!

Joel Gillespie

The president calls on America to support a war 60% of Americans want us out of. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the merits of that position, but in what possible universe is that call not political?

Does your definition of what's political hinge on the popularity of the issue at hand, or do you simply think that everything a president says about anything is political?

I don't know what public opinion about the Civil War was in November 1863, but I don't regard Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a political speech even though it could be viewed as calling on Americans to support his war policies.

No, I'm not putting Bush's remarks Monday night on a par with the GA. I'm saying neither speech was political.

No, my definition of what's political doesn't hinge on the popularity of an issue, Doug. (There's that strawman again.)

I'm saying that when you argue for a particular position on an issue on which there is a clear, and clearly partisan, division, you're being political. That's what Bush did on Monday. You can agree or disagree with that decision on its merits, but let's be honest about what the president said.

Lex, your definition of a "strawman" seems to be "any argument I don't want to answer."

I simply don't regard every statement Bush makes about Iraq to be political. Nor is every criticism of the Iraq war political. People who have no "politics" at all can comment about the war, and do.

President Bush is the political leader of our country. ANY speech he gives on national issues or national events could be construed by his detactors as "political" in nature. The issue is not what President Bush meant, but what the Dem attackers will claim he meant.

Doug, when you imply through your questions that I said, or think, things I didn't say and don't think, that's a strawman argument.

The reason I don't want to answer the questions is because they proceed from flawed premises, not that I can't answer them. But to put that canard to rest, I'll answer them:

Does your definition of what's political hinge on the popularity of the issue at hand?

No, my definition is as stated above.

... or do you simply think that everything a president says about anything is political?

No; I think that when a politician explicitly advocates a particular position on a divisive issue, particularly when that division breaks down along partisan lines, that's being political. And as I also noted above, "being political" isn't, in and of itself, bad.

Lex, now it appears to me that your definition of what's political depends more on the reaction of the audience than the intent of the speaker. So maybe you and jaycee are in agreement for once.

That's not a "strawman," that's an interpretation.

"So maybe you [Lex] and jaycee are in agreement for once."

Perish the thought.

Doug: Lex, now it appears to me that your definition of what's political depends more on the reaction of the audience than the intent of the speaker.

Doug, with all due respect, I don't know where in pluperfect Hades you're getting that from. It sure isn't coming from what I wrote.

Lex, you're saying "when you argue for a particular position on an issue on which there is a clear, and clearly partisan, division, you're being political."

Whether there is a division is a matter determined by the audience (the listeners all agree, or they don't), not by the speaker.

I'm saying the speaker's intent matters. I did not perceive Bush's intent to make a political speech, and I did not hear it as political. It is not necessarily political, in my view, to speak in support of one's policies or actions, even if they are unpopular.

Of course it is. If you're a politician and you speak in favor of (or against) policies, you intend to persuade others. You are, therefore, being political, and not in a bad way: You're doing your job. The fact that there may be a significant division on the policy/action just makes your action more political, or political in a different (e.g., specifically partisan) way.