Shameless Chambliss
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 11-12-2008 - 8:00am |
Senator Saxby Chambliss is in a runoff election with Jim Martin in Georgia. Chambliss is the guy who in 2002 took out Max Cleland, a former U.S. Senator, triple-amputee disabled US Army veteran of the Vietnam War, decorated war hero, and a critic of the Bush Administration. In the 2002 election, Chambliss stooped to run an infamous ad blasting an image of Cleland next to Osama bin Laden.
Then Chambliss was content to go right along with Bush and his failed policies for the past six years. Now
Chambliss expects people to reelect him for it.
How is Chambliss expecting to get himself reelected? By using the same hit-em-low fear tactics that Bush used to get himself reelected and that Chambliss used to defeat Cleland in 2002.
You can watch Chamblis' latest ad here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27669978 , complete with fear music playing as the narrator says Obama is a scary liberal and shows his opponent Martin holding a sign reading "Women for Obama." I don't know about you, but Obama doesn't sound so much like a scary liberal to me. In fact, many think he's right of center. Instead, Obama sounds a lot like hope. And what is up with the prominently featured picture of the "women for Obama" sign in the Chambliss ad? Weird mind games I guess.
This is nothing new. Chambliss has a history of whipping people up with baloney:
"Chambliss was criticized for remarks he made during a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, where he said that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line." "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss
By the way, let's compare Chambliss and Martin's military service, which is always a good baloney barometer:
"In the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, Chambliss was given five student deferments and he received a medical deferment (1-Y) for bad knees due to a football injury."
"From 1969 to 1971, Martin served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War."
Just like Bush in 2000 and 2004, Chambliss was the wrong choice in 2002. Nothing makes him any better today.

Pages
I have never seen Obama as more than a human. Hoping/expecting that he will transcend human traits is not logical, however great his intellect or social perception.
FDR accomplished great things. But he made mistakes too. And a despot, however benevolent, is still a despot.
I like David Brooks. Don't always agree with him and once wrote a letter to him arguing that one of his positions on Iraq seemed ill-founded.
I like Obama. Supported his candidacy, went to one of his rallies here in New Mexico and voted for him.
I haven't read Niebuhr but sounds like he had some interesting ideas.
And I absolutely do not trust any one person or party to consistently serve the needs of the nation over time.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
"And I absolutely do not trust any one person or party to consistently serve the needs of the nation over time. "
I agree. I believe that's why we need the Republicans to clean up their act. This will be really hard for them:
1. Republicans are in denial. They have four more stages of grief to go through.
2. Republicans' core belief is that the government they seek to control is a bad thing - they get into power and get weird because they don't know what to do.
In the short term, the Democrats need to be able to do some things without obstruction from this incompetent corrupt Republican Party. Even Newt Gingrich said the Republicans look like a mid-level college football team trying to play in the Super Bowl. We need the Republicans to get out of the way for two or four years, or as long as it takes until the Dems lapse or the Republicans can get their stuff together (later of).
I've never posted on this board before but I am bored tonight and I've been reading various threads, content to lurk. But I never understand when people start posting about "checks and balances" in re: to not having one party control Congress and the White House.
The writers of the Constitution knew that there was a need for checks and balances.
Yes, they absolutely did. But they also didn't have political parties, so by "checks and balances," they certainly weren't meaning that one party controls one branch while another party controls another. In fact, in George Washington's farewell address, he specifically mentioned his fear of political parties and how we shouldn't ever split up into them. About Parties, he says:
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
In re: to checks and balances, he says:
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
Using his own words as a measure to judge, I truly believe that President Washington would fear the encroachment to consolidate powers shown by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. That is what was meant by "checks and balances" -- keeping each of the three branches separate from each other. It had nothing to do with political parties. I think President Washington would kick our butts for letting Parties divide us so insanely, but he and the other Founding Fathers were certainly not thinking of a filibuster-proof Congress when they came up with the idea of checks and balances.
Bored, huh? Enjoy it while it lasts! "Bored" will give way to "exhausted"! Am assuming that you're a primipara.
I was a poli-sci major and received a heaping helping of checks and balances. But those checks and balances only work when the branches of government take their NATIONAL obligations more seriously than their political party ones. In that sense, I agree with George (Washington, not Bush!) that "in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged."
Unfortunately, partisan loyalties have trumped national ones. I saw the pandering of the Republicans in both House and Senate. When they SHOULD have been acting to stop Bush's presidential fiats, they did not. And I fear the same sort of excess from the Democrats, though the lessons of the Republican sycophants may be fresh for a time.
However, I am confused by the mention of a filibuster proof Congress. Are you saying that it's not part of the checks and balances; and if so does that apply when one party holds Congress and another party holds the White House? Seems to me like a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate would be a pretty effective check on a Republican president.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
a lot of people party vote .... not that I agree with it, but a lot do!
Glad you found out about AZ in enough time to register in GA!
George Washington and the Founding Fathers would never tell us to vote for a demagogue like Chambliss. They might not tell us how to vote at all, or they might advise to vote against him. If they were voting, they would vote against Chambliss. Period. The prospect of a filibuster-proof Senate certainly would not sway them. And I agree with the new poster kittiejb (welcome by the way!) that filibusters are not the type of thing the FF had in mind when they discussed checks and balances. Forms of filibusters in the Senate were not used until the 1850s. And filibusters are not always a good thing - let's not forget the longest filibuster:
"The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
My strongly held view is that the Democrats, or any half-decent political party for that matter, will perform far better without an incompetent, demagogue-filled party threatening a filibuster than with it.
If, on the other hand, the Republicans were half-decent, not corrupt, not incompetent, not failures and not what they in fact are, then it would be better for them to have the "check" (yes I'll concede use of this term, though in a different way) of the filibuster. Then again, if the Republicans were half-decent, we would not be in such a crisis on all fronts, economic and diplomatic, and there would not be such a need for strong corrective action without further obstruction from the failed party that caused it.
So I hope people don't let some perceived ends justify the means of voting for a demagogue.
By the way, in a little supplemental surf, I found this interesting summary of what it means to be a demagogue:
"Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.
* * * *
A famous usage was by the aging Erich Ludendorff, who was for a time a strong supporter of the early rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. After learning of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, he expressed his disappointment to German President Paul von Hindenburg :
"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich, you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."
Hitler indeed would become regarded as perhaps the epitome of a demagogue, having successfully risen to power through appeals to the ethnic and nationalistic prejudices and vanities of the German people.
Methods
Apples and oranges — mixing of incomparable quantities. For example, "our government has increased social spending by 5 billion dollars, while the previous government increased it only by 0.4 percent." The latter sounds like less, but one cannot be sure without an absolute value.
Half-truth — making statements that are true only in a strict and relatively meaningless sense. For example, "the opposition have accused us of cutting foreign aid, but actually our government has increased foreign aid by 500 million dollars," not mentioning that (adjusted for inflation) the allocated funds have in fact gone down.
False authority — relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. For example, "the professor read my book, and liked it very much," omitting the fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on history.
False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.
Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities. This method was incorporated by the Nazi regime to gain the general support of the public when it began to initiate its anti-Semitic policies.
Straw man — mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization.
Loaded question — posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have, e.g. "When did you stop taking bribes?"
Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. For example, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar competitors.
Emotional appeal or personal attack — attempting to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You're stupid!", or just the classic retort "Shut up!""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
Not to worry, Lisa. I don't live in Georgia and my opinion doesn't have any weight whatsoever.
One brother lives in Atlanta. I have no idea how he voted in the senatorial race though I'm pretty sure he was disillusioned by the Republican party as a whole.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Pages