Anti-Jefferson attack ad(video link)

Gaurav on July 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Wow… they really knew how to sling mud back then.

Lieberman is for cap and trade and other Big Liberal/Big Taxes ideas, so other than the W.O.T. he’s more harmful than helpful. He just makes it harder for McCain to make a clear distinction between the candidates, especially as Barry slithers to the right.

Buy Danish on July 4, 2008 at 10:28 AM

We agree that McCain has the weakest grip on conservatism, prefering the limelight of “non-partisan” RINO work; and we agree and that Lieberman is appreciated as an ally of McCain’s, certainly not because of his penchant for the mommy-state. Less government intrusion is our mutual point of reference, I believe. For the record, McCain would have done so much more honorably as a Senator had he followed Fred Thompson’s Constitutional lead rather than fawning over his democrat fair weather friends’ tendencies.

BHO has no point of reference other than CHANGE FOR MARX.

Still, to you and yours, Buy Danish, Happy 4th!

“He has a super abundance of bodily fluids not all the whores of Philadelphia could draw off”

Anyone who thinks that todays political rough and tumble is the be all end all, hasn’t read history.

Anyone else going nuts with fireworks later?

It is worth noting that John Adams thought partisan politics was the greatest threat the young Republic faced.
Terrye on July 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Washington and Madison, too. Both warned strongly of the dangers of political “factions.”
aero on July 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Jefferson too –
“I fear [political difference] is inseparable from the different constitutions of the human mind and that degree of freedom which permits unrestrained expression. Political dissention is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism, but still it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude its influence, if possible, from social life. The good are rare enough at best. There is no reason to subdivide them by artificial lines. But whether we shall ever be able so far to perfect the principles of society, as that political opinions shall, in its intercourse, be as inoffensive as those of philosophy, mechanics, or any other, may be well doubted.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1797. ME 9:389

[And incidentally that is an ideal stock response to lefties who credit Jefferson with Howard Zinn's "dissent is the greatest form of patriotism" nonsense.]

By the way, it figures that the first campaign for president turned negative when 2 lawyers were involved.

But I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Jefferson’s slander of Adams (I see HBO is setting the standard for history now) was because he genuinely believed that the fate of the nation was to be determined by the results of the election. The intensity and legitimacy of the concern of the course, ie “desperate times call for desperate measures”, of the Republic by this men is not comparable to today. Statesmen vs. politicians – different times. Hamilton was definitely comfortable in the mud, though, to be sure.

Spirit of 1776 on July 4, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Don’t forget in Adam’s administration the “Alien and Seditions Acts” were passed, which Jefferson politicized for political gain.

Robert Kagan’s ‘dangerous nation’, is a fascinating book. especially for those of us with a political IQ. he points out that the Adams/Washington/Hamilton faction truely beleived that France was plotting to takeover our country after they defeated the british(if they did) AND that there were some on the Jefferson/Republican side that were working with them and starting political trouble domestically. This is how we got the Seditions Acts, it forced over 25k French immigrants to leave and several politicians and newspaper editors were charged and convicted…some acquitted.

at the same time, the Jefferson/Madison/Burr faction truely beleived that the federalist were plotting their own Monarchy thanks in part to their pragmatic approach to allying with the British..Jay Treaty, etc..

the Alien and Seditions Acts make the Patriot Act look like child’s play.

When did negative campaigning and attack ads start?

The Election of 1828.

Funny how that’s the first year that the Democrats ran a candidate for president.

It is worth noting that John Adams thought partisan politics was the greatest threat the young Republic faced.

Terrye on July 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Washington and Madison, too. Both warned strongly of the dangers of political “factions.”

rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I doubt Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather expected exposure of the media’s bias to be their lasting contribution to journalism, but there you have it.

Happy 4th :)

I call the Times the New Gay Times now. Almost all of its writers and reporters are militant homosexuals, and that’s really all you need to know about the paper. It’s the Identity Politics Daily.

In the 1800s, there were entire newspapers dedicated to one political point of view or another. If you lived in New York or any other big city, you could choose from among dozens of newspapers depending on your ethnic background, political party, etc. These papers slung gallons of mud at the opposition all the time.
Today’s politics is marshmallow fluff in comparison.

rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Yeah, but somehow in the 20th C., we came to believe the media was impartial.

I was a student in France for a time during the late ’70′s. There it was clear that the newspapers had a point-of-view.
It didn’t seem to me that people there got as angry about what was printed as we do here. Everyone understood it was biased. Luckily, we’re moving to that situation here. The Times rarely makes me mad anymore. I usually laugh at it, if I even read it, like most do here.

Lieberman is for cap and trade and other Big Liberal/Big Taxes ideas, so other than the W.O.T. he’s more harmful than helpful

I think he’s the reason McCain is for those things. McCain doesn’t know about the stuff, and looks to Lieberman for guidance.

maverick muse on July 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Lieberman is for cap and trade and other Big Liberal/Big Taxes ideas, so other than the W.O.T. he’s more harmful than helpful. He just makes it harder for McCain to make a clear distinction between the candidates, especially as Barry slithers to the right.

and points to the somewhat hyperbolic list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence as proof.

Heh. Gandhi wasn’t the only one lucky to be fighting the British.

There were entire campaigns for President run on slogans like “Rum, Romanism, and Rebeliion” and people singing songs like “Ma, Ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!”

Today’s politics is marshmallow fluff in comparison.

If McCain has enough sense to designate Romney or Palin et.al. he’d have his weekends covered by his VP. As is, at least announce the posse and let them cover weekends off. Thompson’s doing what he can, as is Lieberman. But McCain needs to utilize his squadron leadership skills right now, so he’d better organize his squadron or stay in the shadows of what could have been. Get enough voices, the message gets through even an MSM blackout.

Sure, the some of the citizenry think that, but do you think McCain does? Or Obama? No, not even Fred with all his “for the children” rhetoric thought it was important enough to campaign hard.

Spirit of 1776 on July 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM

I definitely think that Obama does think this way – but his designs on the Republic are repugnant to those of us who cherish liberty.

On our side, I do think that Mitt Romney gets it. He understands what’s at stake and is willing to work his tail off to secure our future. Too bad we’re stuck with “weekends off” McCain.