Ah, the McCarthyite attack. You and Teresa, accusing your enemies of being "un-American" (quick deny you said it - accuse me of misquoting you) I know my Madison, as well as my Jefferson and Adams (most of the others, save Franklin, are too obtuse to try to apply to today). I also know my McCarthy, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Goebels and Gore. Hate is not a substitute for critical thinking or honest debate. The left, yourself included, has become what you always claimed to despise: mindless doctrinaire establishment drones. You are captives of the institutional bureaucracy, vomiting back the talking points and NY Times editorials instead of actually thinking for yourselves, incapable of thinking that anyone other than your fellow travelers has any right to exist, let alone control the reigns of "your" government. Fortunately we still live in a democracy. That means you lose (unless you cheat).
----
Psh, I'll have to ask you which part of my chain of reasoning you disagree with.
I argue:
1) The essence of American ideology being a government of laws not men, those who specifically base their argument about the rightness of a politician on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart
2) Many--not all--conservatives have begun making arguments on the rightness of Bush based on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart.
Which part do you disagree with, (1) or (2)? After we establish that, we can argue whether I'm being McCarthyite or not.
Again, I'd repeat what a wise Freeper wrote me about people here:
"I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better."
As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?
Maybe some--not many--conservatives adopt this position as you imply. I submit that most conservatives would use Bush's perceived goodness as evidence of, but NOT proof of an intent to "do right." By contrast, if a politician or leader were known to lie, obfuscate, mislead, and parse words, we might conclude that there may be an intent toward decisions that are more self-serving than other-serving. I can give examples if you wish.
Psh, I'll have to ask you which part of my chain of reasoning you disagree with.
Chain of reasoning? What chain of reasoning? I saw no chain of reasoning in your post. Oh, you mean these new arguments you are now adding? Okee dokee.
I argue:
no, you assert. Argument demands statements of fact, not assertions of rightness
1) The essence of American ideology being a government of laws not men,
Find and dandy, with you so far
those who specifically base their argument about the rightness of a politician on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart
And those folks would be? Where has that been asserted? By whom? Certainly not by me.
2) Many--not all--conservatives have begun making arguments on the rightness of Bush based on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart.
What arguments? I see no examples, sources, fact? Many, not all, liberals have been making arguments for decades that conservatives are evil, racist, hate mongers and liberals are good, caring and well intentioned. I see no evidence of either conclusion and can cite plenty of examples to prove the contrary case. First and foremost is the analysis by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (that well know right wing kook), that the liberal solutions to poverty and racism have destroyed the minority communities in this country. Given that well documented and reasoned position liberals still insist that conservatives opposition to those remedies are racists, and liberals blind devotion to those hateful solutions are enlightened and caring. Go figure!
Which part do you disagree with, (1) or (2)? After we establish that, we can argue whether I'm being McCarthyite or not.
Um, both? And McCarthyite tactics consist of blind accusations without any evidence, meant to attack and enemy and destroy them based on the accusation, sans proof. Seems like you've proven my case for me.
Again, I'd repeat what a wise Freeper wrote me about people here:
"I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better."
Ah, I see. Your evidence consists of a "freeper" who agrees with you and is therefore a wise freeper? Therefore anyone who disagrees is, by definition, unwise? Circular logic. You weren't educated by Jesuits, were you? There's this marvelous concept that they teach that revolves around logical discourse. You might like to look into it sometime.
As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?
Um, no? I guess you never actually READ the New York Times, either.
They were one of the most consistent voices saying that he wouldn't be able to survive the vicious attacks by right wing fanatics and that his minor peccadilloes (perjury, obstruction of justice, using the FBI, IRS and all of the levers of the Federal government to destroy his enemies) shouldn't be important given the overwhelming "good" that he was doing for the country. Of course, they never cited what that "good" really was. Can you? Not he helped, he fixed, he did. What actual actions, laws, executive orders, hirings or firings did he perform that helped anyone except himself? I never saw anything.