Why are the Democrats not labeling Bush a liar?

Remember what they did to Gore. Bush's lies are huge compared to Gore's so called lies.

When asked whether Gore's exaggerations were a problem, said yes, and in the course of explaining why, deftly added a few more whoppers to the list Jim Lehrer had provided.

Source (Mona Charen)

Gore lies whether he does or doesn't "have" too. He lies even when the truth would suffice, and when his lie can be easily discovered. He lies habitually. He lies pathologically. And it can be dangerous.

Source (Betsy Hart)

Albert Arnold Gore Jr. is a habitual liar. The vice president lies reflexively, promiscuously, even pathologically. He lies on matters large and small, significant and trivial, when he "needs" to and when he doesn’t.

not in matters of national security or war or world domination, etc. etc.

Arnold's lies about his sex life didn't mean a thing.

One of the major problems is that Democrats are too timid to stand up to Bush, while Republicans never had a problem standing up to Clinton.

We have a failure of leadership.

no power, or their jealous, or their panties are in a wad or some other stupid and pointless speculation.

they're not running against Bush yet.

The time to hit that will be during the few months before the general election. Right now that would get played out too soon and lack teeth by next November.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Kerry said that the information they were given before the Iraq vote was a lie. Just because the media does not show the Dems doing things, doesn't mean they are not.

to just illuminate the lie than it is to label the liar.

Good for you.

You have to pick and choose your battles, and Dem leaders should hold back on the blatant term until enough of America is already thinking and saying it.

'sides - revolutions come from the ground up, not the top down.

That they do. Hopefully we're seeing the slow but steady building of one. This lies business - hopefully it's just more drip-drip-drip. Eventually, there's a cumulative effect, and critical mass is then reached.

silly

The Democrats should atart with a low not that builds to a crescendo. Right now, MoveOn is doing a better job of leading the Democratic Party than is the DNC. At least they are calling Bush a liar. However, it is time for that to move into more establishmentarian circles. Bush is not the Presiedent, as he claims, and is worthy of no respect or even benefit of the doubt.

Besides, there is no doubt; he is a liar.

First, most of them lack the nerve.

Second, to do an effective job of accusing the president of the United States of being a liar, is not altogether simple. It takes practise, prestige, & rhetorical skill, even if you have the nerve and the will. For example, Kucinich has been saying for a long time that "the war was based on lies" -- yet the message does not seem to be getting through.

Third, there is no party organization or strategy for bringing Bush down by concerted action. When Kennedy made the one outburst (the war was "a fraud made in Texas") a few weeks ago, it got plenty of attention -- but then there was NO FOLLOW-UP, either by Kennedy himself or by other Democrats.

Fourth, Bush has too many media defenders. They can drown out the occasional effective attacks. Krugman comes very close to calling Bush a liar in column after column -- yet Bush has so many media defenders, that Krugman remains an isolated voice crying in the wilderness. His own newspaper treats Bush so deferentially, that most Times readers probably get the overall impression that Krugman's just got some weird fixation on Bush.

Where I cite 3 of MANY hits found on google.

The Democrats have been calling out Junior consistently... but some on DU prefer to ignore this- just LIKE THE RIGHT WING MEDIA.

Perhaps because they prefer to bash Democrats and feel somehow superior.

Perhaps they just like being angry?

Did you not read my post where I said "see post below" where three QUOTES from different dates PROVED my point.

And those 3 were googled without even really trying. Plenty more where they came from.

Well if you ask me, many of the Democratic candidates are agreeing to a policy of nonaggressiveness with the Bush campaign to come. I mean, they want to oust the guy from the WH not throw him in jail.

However, I think that some of the cadidates of integrity wouldn't agree to a gentlemen's agreement such as that, as it is dishonest to the American people (Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun). So these have to tread lightly and carefully, for fear of being labelled by the media as being wacko if you will and then expeditiously uninvited to the debates.

So there you go, you have the cowards and you have the realists trying to save the country.

Bok Bok BGERK!

How about INVESTIGATING to see if the Democrats have actually called Junior out?

Because if you did some WORK instead of the typical knee jerk Democrat Bashing... you'd find out that Daschle has been working on the phrase "Credibility Gap" for quite some time now.

If it is necessary to 'do research' just to find out what message a party is delivering, it isn't delivering a message. Do all the 'research' you want, but the failure to get on message around Ted Kennedy speaks for itself.


Bok Bok BGERK!

Our so-called "leader"?

Man, that guy wouldn't recognize his own spine if you ripped it out of his back and shoved it down his throat.

He is the most worthless wimpy-assed lousy excuse for a politician I've probably ever seen!

He's been buried and he doesn't even know it. He might as well have been shot into outer space like Lex Luthor for all the good he does.

Yes, some Democrats are calling him a liar, but they are not getting their message out to the average person.

It's not the Dems who frame him, it's the media.

It is the media calling him a liar (rather indirectly), but not saying that lying to the American people is an impeachable offense. The media let this man actually say 'the people have spoken' as if we elected him.

No, that is a major misconception, the media keeps it low key. It sets the so called 'normal' reaction society should have and then set the example.

Open your eyes and see.

It was the media choosing to frame Gore and Clinton as liars, and up till recently they refused to really go after Bush. The Dems have been bitching about lying for a long time now, but the media has to follow along for it to work.

If the media won't carry the party's message, then the party has an obligation to find some other way to get its message out. No party can afford to rely on the good nature of others for its survival.

If it takes buying ad time to make the point, then so be it. If it takes establishing a new media network, then so be it. If it takes recruiting martyrs to write the message on the sidewalks in blood, then so be it. Do whatever it takes.

The buck stops in the party, not in Rupert Murdoch's office.

We get all this pussyfooting around like the president must have "misspoke" or he "misled" or he "exaggerated" or he used "faulty intelligence."

He fucking LIED. Who's saying that?

Gee, do we need to dig up all the old posts where people were complaining about the fact that nobody was using the "L" word??

It seems to me that every candidate, with the possible exception of Lieberman, DID call Bush a liar, at least as concerns Iraq.

They don't need to spend campaign cash on that, at least not yet. It's too early, and they all are concentrating on winning the nomination. A natural part of that is they need to show their differences with their primary opponents. Since most agree on Bush's lies and deceptions, they can't use that as a reason to vote for them as opposed to the other guys.

The campaign against Gore was somewhat effective because it came during the general election campaign, and stayed fresh in voters' minds.

It's fun to watch them all up there attacking Bush, but it would be more helpful if they spent as much time explaining just how they would handle the situation as President. Several have, some haven't.

While the Bush lies are certainly campaign issues, their real use will be next year. The main question is "WHO do we want delivering the message?"

Dennis Kucinich. Bush would be speechless before this man. He wouldn't be in the least agreeable, he would walk all over Bush.

And did you know, he has a degree in speech even...didn't spend his college years snorting dad's money.

Daschle and other Democratic Congresscritters started using the term "credibility gap" quite a long time ago. But of course, it's more fun to just ignore all the many times they've spoken out- individually and collectively regarding Junior's problem with lying.

Following is only 3 google out of many:


Sunday, February 9, 2003 Page B07, The Washington Post

When Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle reached back a generation and revived the term
"credibility gap" for a rhetorical attack on the policies of President Bush, it was not a casual or
accidental choice of words.

Daschle, who was in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, is just old enough to remember how
that phrase haunted Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats at the time. It was invented by Murrey
Marder, then a diplomatic correspondent for The Post, to describe the gulf between the Johnson
administration's upbeat appraisals of the war in Vietnam and the much bleaker (and more
realistic) picture being drawn by reporters and other independent observers on the scene.
...........................................................................................................................................................
March 5, 2003

Senate Democrats Cite Bush Administration's Credibility Gap On Proliferation, Offer Comprehensive Strategy For Addressing This Threat

WASHINGTON, DC. - Despite President Bush's acknowledgment that the spread of
weapons of mass destruction represents the "gravest danger our Nation faces," Senate
Democrats indicated today that the Administration has failed to formulate a
comprehensive policy for dealing with this threat. Instead, the Administration's unhelpful
actions and ad hoc reactions have actually undermined America's ability to halt the
spread of these weapons.

As a result, Senate Democratic Leader Daschle, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator
Joseph Biden, and their fellow Senate Democrats, introduced a resolution today that
voices serious concerns about the Administration's course on proliferation and sets forth
a series of principles that should underpin a comprehensive proliferation strategy. They
have done so in the context of the Senate debate of the ratification of the Moscow
Treaty.

According to Senator Daschle, "While President Bush says he recognizes the gravity of
the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, his Administration
has failed to act with the urgency this problem requires. In fact, during President Bush's
time in office, the risks of proliferation have grown, in part as a result of actions pursued
by his Administration."

..................................................................................................................................................................
U.S.: Democrats Assail Bush on War, His Credibility Washington Post Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A04

Pelosi, Daschle Step Up Attacks

Democratic congressional leaders yesterday ripped into President Bush on the eve of his State of the Union
address, assailing his administration's credibility and contending that Bush has not yet made the case for war
against Iraq.

In a joint appearance at the National Press Club, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and his House
counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accused the administration of creating a "credibility gap" by promising
things it has no intention of delivering.

His comments were mild. Where was the outrage? Where was the word L-I-E? The time for mild-mannered diplomacy is way over. Why was Ted Kennedy alone on telling it like it is on the Senate floor? Why hasn't the minority leader been leading on the issue of this administration's lies?

Yes, there have been some comments, like "credibility gap", but this couches the truth in diplomatic double-speak. The bastards are liars, and they should be called liars. Our party looses credibility by not going nose-to-nose with the liars, and calling them on it. Our party looks like sissies when we don't stand up to them. How are we ever going to win, if we don't act like winners?

And I'm sorry, the excuse of political prudence doesn't fly in my airport. I am old enough to remember when the Dems had leaders who were not afraid to confront the opposition, nose to nose, whether they were in the majority or not. Now it seems they are scared of their own shadows. Where's the blood? Where's the passion? It's nice to see some of the presidential candidates though, standing up, and speaking out loudly. It's a shame our congressional leaders can't do the same.

It's a pussy-assed, mealy-mouthed, wimpy fucking way to say it.

Say it. LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.

Even Sean Hannity keeps asking Democrats about people calling Bush a liar. He just reinforces what is already out there.

:kick:

N/t

They both mention that Gore's character is not credible because he lies when he doesn't need to, suggesting a pathalogical personality.

Bush clearly needs to lie. If he doesn't keep up his lies, then some of his supporters will start to maybe realize what an incompetent moron he is, and how badly he has fucked everything up.

But I would rather have a president who lies about personal matters and when the truth would be just as acceptible than one like Bush.

I am tired of his obvious, thinly vailed lies. I am tired of the arrogance that comes off in his lies. I am tired of the fact that, upon discovering that he has been caught in a lie, he lies his way around it. I am tired of him changing the past and attacking those who call him on it.

And I would rather have "I invented the internet" (which Gore never really said) than "If we had known they would use those airplanes to kill...".