[Eala]

Connelly lamented the loss of civil political debate.
But while they keep themselves above the fray...
...Up yours!

Poor Ken has really lost it now. It was the Left who long ago departed from the realms of civil political debate, but his liberal columnist friends would never admit that. And one has only to read their columns to see how viciously strident they are -- Ellen Goodman "above the fray"? Gimme a break!

Ken Schram is going to be on John Carlson's program on KVI Monday afternoon. And John has thrown the gauntlet down. This should be fun; I hope I get to hear it.

[KC_Conspirator]

How Limbaugh, Hanity [SIC]and O'Reilly, for example, figure that if we don't support President Bush in EVERY instance, on EVERY issue, at ALL times, then we are un-American.

No. Its because you oppose Bush on ALL counts EVERY time he tries to defend this country. Its also because they hate-America and support terrorists.

[Cicero]

"Up yours!"

Rational discourse? As I look through this piece, it strikes me that a psychiatrist might theorize that this fellow has an anal obsession. I wonder why? The old time Freudians would have said that he never grew up.

[God luvs America]

Disagreeing doesn't mean you are un-American but when defame our President or, as with many liberals in this nation, hope we fail in Iraq to gain political victory, you are un-American and a selfish bastard!

[UB355]

Another example of the discourse that is common from the DUmpers

[Paul Atreides]

This from people who are always, ALWAYS, comparing conservatives to Nazis, racists, child-killers, women-haters, environment-destroyers, elderly-murderers just because they don't support liberals on EVERY idea.

What goes around, comes around. We give as good as we get.

[martin_fierro]

Disagreeing Doesn't Mean We're Un-American

These clowns couldn't agree more.

[thegreatbeast]

Well, * you!

[bandleader]

That's EXACTLY RIGHT!It was during the eight-year REIGN of Emperor BeelzeBubba that political discourse deteriorated to the point that curbstones became SKYSCRAPERS!!"The Gingrich That Stole Christmas"."The Republicans Want To Starve Old People,Slash The School-Lunch Program,Let Medicare "Wither On The Vine","Starve Old People","Steal From The Poor"!!!!The DemonRats with their willing accomplices in The Major Media are responsible for the civility disappearing from political discourse!!!If you didn't accept BLINDLY EVERYTHING that came down the pike from the criminal enterprise that RULED for EIGHT LONG YEARS,you were called all kinds of names like"Clinton-Hater","Clinton-Basher","UnAmerican"!!!!!I need to visit the bathroom momentarily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blue Screen of Death]

Ken has been a leftist idiot for as long as I can remember. The problem is that liberals do not like the kind of government this country was intended to be. They want a government more like England or Sweden. This makes them un-American. They don't like the values, goals or constitution that this country was founded on.

Ken, If you have a problem, contact your representatives... Mr. Jim McDermott or Senator Murray. A couple of real Americans there.

[metesky]

How Limbaugh, Hanity [SIC]and O'Reilly, for example, figure that if we don't support President Bush in EVERY instance, on EVERY issue, at ALL times, then we are un-American.

I'm willing to bet that this guy never even listens to L, H and O. I don't know about Hannity (we don't get his radio show up here and I can't even look at Colmes), but I know for a fact that Limbaugh and O'Rielly do not agree with all of Dubya's policies.

Seeing as how even the author admits that a whole slew of liberal columnists are spouting this now, I can only assume that Terry MacAwful has re-issued Birry Krinton's 1994 talking points.

[SkyPilot]

Joel Connelly and Ellen Goodman...

Sure, two great objective voices there....

[Tacis]

We shouldn't be calling Teddy Kennedy a traitor unless we are sure it isn't just the booze talking. Let's be fair.

[mass55th]

"How Limbaugh, Hanity [SIC]and O'Reilly, for example, figure that if we don't support President Bush in EVERY instance, on EVERY issue, at ALL times, then we are un-American."

Well, it's obvious that this moron has no idea what in the hell he's talking about. It isn't the fact that you're speaking out on EVERY issue, at ALL times, it's the fact that you speak out on an issue that affects our TROOPS at a time when we are at WAR!!

[ChadGore]

Disagreeing Doesn't Mean We're Un-American

Freedom of speach is not a safe harbor for fabication.

[Publius6961]

Disagreeing Doesn't Mean We're Un-American

Not necessarily.

But of late, increasing obviously yes.
You enjoy stating the obvious?

[auboy]

BTTT

[cwb]

"if we don't support President Bush in EVERY instance, on EVERY issue, at ALL times, then we are un-American."

There is a big difference between honest dissent and demogagory(?) disguised as dissent. No one is saying that it is un-American to disagree with the president...but calling someone a liar, a fruad, a Nazi, a miserable failure, isn't a disagreement...it's a personal attack.

Were was Tom Delay's right of dissent when he dared question the "timing" of Clinton's impeachment-eve bombing of Iraq? He was not only attacked as un-American by the media and democrats, he was also held accountable by some Republicans. Yet Democrats are allowed to get away with some of the most vitriolic statements I've ever heard...especially during a time of war.

When Thomas Dewey (I think it was him, correct me) dared to question FDR and the lack of preparidness leading to Pearl Harbor, he was taken aside by the administration for fear he might undermine the war effort. He emerged, agreeing not to use Pearl Harbor as campaign weapon. When Democrats are asked to do the same thing, they emerge accusing others of violating their 1st Amendment rigts.

While wag-the-dog was bandied about by many a political "pundit," I can't recall an elected Republican leader publically making this claim. On the other hand, here we have just about every democratic presidential candidate, personally and publically, attacking Bush during a time of war. This isn't dissent; this is deception and deceit as many of these candidates made the same arguments that Bush has.

You want to question the timing of the war as Delay did? Fine...that's a reasonable issue for debate. But, you want to call Bush a liar based on much of the same evidence you used to support Clinton and his actions? That's not dissent...that's deceit, and you can only get away with it because you have a sympathetic media who never holds you responsible for your prior statements. The double-standard from both the democrats and the media is simply amazing.