Like cats and dogs

Columnist Dana Milibank riffs on an analogy:

President Obama complained this week that his opponents “talk about me like a dog.”

No! Bad Republicans! Drop it! Now sit, stay — and listen: The president is not a dog, and it is insulting to talk about him as such. The president is a cat.

Dogs travel in packs and are easily led. They communicate by snarling, growling and snapping. They tend to bark and howl all at once. They are disciplined and obey their masters. Left unsupervised for long periods, they will destroy the house. They are, in other words, Republicans.

Cats, by contrast, are solitary, finicky and independent. They refuse to be herded and they hide under furniture when feeling threatened. They are not easily trained and rarely come when called. They are furtive and skittish. They are, in other words, Democrats.

via Democats, on the run from Republicanines.

Can you think of other analogies to make sense of our current political terrain?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Carl Vehse

    Yes, I can think of some applicable analogies for the current political terrain, but they are scatological in nature.

    Instead it can be noted that here we have a U.S. president who whines that his political opponents “talk about me like a dog” after he used his own initials to name his dog.

  • Carl Vehse

    Yes, I can think of some applicable analogies for the current political terrain, but they are scatological in nature.

    Instead it can be noted that here we have a U.S. president who whines that his political opponents “talk about me like a dog” after he used his own initials to name his dog.

  • Kirk

    Dumb and dumber?

  • Kirk

    Dumb and dumber?

  • Kirk

    Oh! No, a better one: pot and kettle!

  • Kirk

    Oh! No, a better one: pot and kettle!

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Lol. This was funny. Here’s one: King Richard and Little John.

    King Richard taxed his people into poverty to fund war. Little John taxed them into poverty to fund his lavish lifestyle.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Lol. This was funny. Here’s one: King Richard and Little John.

    King Richard taxed his people into poverty to fund war. Little John taxed them into poverty to fund his lavish lifestyle.

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans are strict Calvinists, who believe conservatives are predestined for heaven, and liberals are predestined for hell.

    Democrats are nominal Catholics, who aren’t too sure just what they believe, but feel obligated to show up on election days.

    Independents are non-denominational Evangelicals, who are blown about by every wind of political doctrine. They believe the Rapture will occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2012.

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans are strict Calvinists, who believe conservatives are predestined for heaven, and liberals are predestined for hell.

    Democrats are nominal Catholics, who aren’t too sure just what they believe, but feel obligated to show up on election days.

    Independents are non-denominational Evangelicals, who are blown about by every wind of political doctrine. They believe the Rapture will occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2012.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Yes~ sports. Politics have become another American sport. No matter how beautiful and majestic, a great play is never cheered when performed by the other team. The exchange of athletic prowess means very little compared to the crass need to win. And we attach our egos to a favorite team just as we do to our respective political orientations (or parties) as well.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Yes~ sports. Politics have become another American sport. No matter how beautiful and majestic, a great play is never cheered when performed by the other team. The exchange of athletic prowess means very little compared to the crass need to win. And we attach our egos to a favorite team just as we do to our respective political orientations (or parties) as well.

  • Winston Smith

    The right wing and the left wing of a giant bird of prey.

    Two trains, one headed off the cliff at 100 mph, and the other headed off the cliff at 60 mph on a parallel track. The Republicans are the slower train, and they are trying to convince you that they are headed in the opposite direction.

  • Winston Smith

    The right wing and the left wing of a giant bird of prey.

    Two trains, one headed off the cliff at 100 mph, and the other headed off the cliff at 60 mph on a parallel track. The Republicans are the slower train, and they are trying to convince you that they are headed in the opposite direction.

  • Winston Smith

    Actually, Carl @ 7, I am still amazed that we elected a President with the initials “B.O.”

    I’m still more amazed that, if Osama bin Laden is supposed to be our great national villain, that we elected a ticket bearing a stunning resemblance to his name:

    Osama bin Laden

    O[b]ama Bi[n La]den

    Obama-Biden

  • Winston Smith

    Actually, Carl @ 7, I am still amazed that we elected a President with the initials “B.O.”

    I’m still more amazed that, if Osama bin Laden is supposed to be our great national villain, that we elected a ticket bearing a stunning resemblance to his name:

    Osama bin Laden

    O[b]ama Bi[n La]den

    Obama-Biden

  • Tom Hering

    Winston, maybe we elected the one because we’re completely incapable of capturing the other. Subconscious compensation? :-)

  • Tom Hering

    Winston, maybe we elected the one because we’re completely incapable of capturing the other. Subconscious compensation? :-)

  • Booklover

    The Republican is the philandering husband who has strict rules for his wife. The Democrat allows his wife to cavort almost as much as he, then demands “Gimme breakfast!” as he rolls out of bed.

  • Booklover

    The Republican is the philandering husband who has strict rules for his wife. The Democrat allows his wife to cavort almost as much as he, then demands “Gimme breakfast!” as he rolls out of bed.

  • Ryan

    “Can you think of other analogies to make sense of our current political terrain?”

    Hmm…. Donkeys and Elephants?

  • Ryan

    “Can you think of other analogies to make sense of our current political terrain?”

    Hmm…. Donkeys and Elephants?

  • John C

    In a land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

  • John C

    In a land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

  • DonS

    “Can you think of other analogies to make sense of our current political terrain?”

    I’m still having trouble seeing how Milbank’s analogy makes any sense. If anything, he’s got it backwards. The government unions and statists herd Democrats at will.

  • DonS

    “Can you think of other analogies to make sense of our current political terrain?”

    I’m still having trouble seeing how Milbank’s analogy makes any sense. If anything, he’s got it backwards. The government unions and statists herd Democrats at will.

  • Porcell

    The interesting point is that the president is here whining about his critics whom he thinks treat him like a dog. Bush took far more venomous criticism than any thing Obama has taken. The difference between them is a thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen and one who took it without public complaint. It’s, also, the difference between Bush who had class and Obama who lacks it.

  • Porcell

    The interesting point is that the president is here whining about his critics whom he thinks treat him like a dog. Bush took far more venomous criticism than any thing Obama has taken. The difference between them is a thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen and one who took it without public complaint. It’s, also, the difference between Bush who had class and Obama who lacks it.

  • John C

    “Bush took far more venomous criticism than………………….”
    Indeed Porcell, much of it warranted.
    All hat and no cattle. Didn’t George sell the ranch after the election?

  • John C

    “Bush took far more venomous criticism than………………….”
    Indeed Porcell, much of it warranted.
    All hat and no cattle. Didn’t George sell the ranch after the election?

  • Ryan

    Has anyone thrown a shoe at Obama yet?

  • Ryan

    Has anyone thrown a shoe at Obama yet?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So … is anyone else surprised that a statement by Carl Vehse (@1) that begins with the phrase “Yes, I can think” ends with the phrase “scatological in nature”? Kinda pointing out the obvious there, “Carl”.

    As for analogies, let’s see. Democrats are like a herd of very large bulls, running wild in a china shop, breaking nearly everything and then pooping on the floor. On the other hand, Republicans are like a herd of very large bulls, running wild in a china shop, breaking nearly everything and then pooping on the floor. The key difference being that the Republican bulls are red, while the Democratic ones are blue. And that has made all the difference.

    Oh, also, some of the Republican bulls will tell you that the very fact that the china shop is now destroyed is evidence that it would never have worked as a business, anyhow.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So … is anyone else surprised that a statement by Carl Vehse (@1) that begins with the phrase “Yes, I can think” ends with the phrase “scatological in nature”? Kinda pointing out the obvious there, “Carl”.

    As for analogies, let’s see. Democrats are like a herd of very large bulls, running wild in a china shop, breaking nearly everything and then pooping on the floor. On the other hand, Republicans are like a herd of very large bulls, running wild in a china shop, breaking nearly everything and then pooping on the floor. The key difference being that the Republican bulls are red, while the Democratic ones are blue. And that has made all the difference.

    Oh, also, some of the Republican bulls will tell you that the very fact that the china shop is now destroyed is evidence that it would never have worked as a business, anyhow.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “A thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen” (@14), eh?

    At least Obama listens to his critics, you could say, instead of locking them up far away so as to keep them from reverberating forever in his perfect ears.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “A thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen” (@14), eh?

    At least Obama listens to his critics, you could say, instead of locking them up far away so as to keep them from reverberating forever in his perfect ears.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: And the Democratic bulls would say that we need to tax the rich more so that we can “stimulate” the economy by rebuilding the china shop using public money and union labor!

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: And the Democratic bulls would say that we need to tax the rich more so that we can “stimulate” the economy by rebuilding the china shop using public money and union labor!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@19), I’ll accept your friendly amendment, but next time, do try to work within the framework of the metaphor a bit more. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@19), I’ll accept your friendly amendment, but next time, do try to work within the framework of the metaphor a bit more. :)

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 18, I read that WIKI slur on Bush’s rejection of free speech based on the ACLU source. Actually Bush listened carefully to Congressmen and other critics of the Iraq war and never criticized their motives. He often stated that he respected the views of his critics while disagreeing with them. Of course, the Secret Service walled off potentially dangerous angry mobs into protected zones, just as it continues to do so for Obama.

    Obama routinely criticizes the motives of his critics, particularly those whom he regards as wealthy. Dan Henninger in a WSJ piece today, A President’s Class War, writes:

    One may argue that Mr. Obama’s community-organizer attacks on the wealthy in front of a union crowd (delivered with the tone and syntax of bar-stool resentment) are meant to keep the party’s perpetually angry left-wing base agitated enough to vote in November. But since the earliest days of his presidency, starting with his first economic message, Mr. Obama has harped on the idea that “well-off and well-connected” economic factions in the U.S. have done something explicit to shaft the middle class. Yesterday’s Cleveland speech was more of the same.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 18, I read that WIKI slur on Bush’s rejection of free speech based on the ACLU source. Actually Bush listened carefully to Congressmen and other critics of the Iraq war and never criticized their motives. He often stated that he respected the views of his critics while disagreeing with them. Of course, the Secret Service walled off potentially dangerous angry mobs into protected zones, just as it continues to do so for Obama.

    Obama routinely criticizes the motives of his critics, particularly those whom he regards as wealthy. Dan Henninger in a WSJ piece today, A President’s Class War, writes:

    One may argue that Mr. Obama’s community-organizer attacks on the wealthy in front of a union crowd (delivered with the tone and syntax of bar-stool resentment) are meant to keep the party’s perpetually angry left-wing base agitated enough to vote in November. But since the earliest days of his presidency, starting with his first economic message, Mr. Obama has harped on the idea that “well-off and well-connected” economic factions in the U.S. have done something explicit to shaft the middle class. Yesterday’s Cleveland speech was more of the same.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@21), you are immune to facts you don’t like. Have a nice day.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@21), you are immune to facts you don’t like. Have a nice day.

  • Porcell

    John C: Didn’t George sell the ranch after the election? I haven’t heard that. What evidence of it do you have?

    “Bush took far more venomous criticism than………………….”
    Indeed Porcell, much of it warranted.

    That’s a matter of opinion. My view is that the Left never forgave Bush for “stealing” the 2000 election and then mounted a vicious campaign against him with the support of the liberal media for eight years.

    Bush was on balance a fine president, though he was too easy allowing Congress to spend beyond the country’s means.

  • Porcell

    John C: Didn’t George sell the ranch after the election? I haven’t heard that. What evidence of it do you have?

    “Bush took far more venomous criticism than………………….”
    Indeed Porcell, much of it warranted.

    That’s a matter of opinion. My view is that the Left never forgave Bush for “stealing” the 2000 election and then mounted a vicious campaign against him with the support of the liberal media for eight years.

    Bush was on balance a fine president, though he was too easy allowing Congress to spend beyond the country’s means.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 22, that’s rather a typical whine than a refutation.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 22, that’s rather a typical whine than a refutation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@24), not a whine, just an observation. I pointed you to an article. You clearly didn’t read it, much less the sources it points to, choosing instead to ignore it with a wave of the hand and a magical incantation of “WIKI slur … based on the ACLU source”. What best way to characterize your reply to me? As someone once said, your reply is rather a typical whine than a refutation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@24), not a whine, just an observation. I pointed you to an article. You clearly didn’t read it, much less the sources it points to, choosing instead to ignore it with a wave of the hand and a magical incantation of “WIKI slur … based on the ACLU source”. What best way to characterize your reply to me? As someone once said, your reply is rather a typical whine than a refutation.

  • Digital

    The way I see it is you have the Republicans pushing to get things done while you have the democrats whining about how they could have done it better.
    Republicans are pragmatists.
    Democrats are idealists.

  • Digital

    The way I see it is you have the Republicans pushing to get things done while you have the democrats whining about how they could have done it better.
    Republicans are pragmatists.
    Democrats are idealists.

  • Porcell

    Todd: You clearly didn’t read it, [The WIKI article on FreeSpeech Zones] much less the sources it points to.

    I did read the WIKI article and the ACLU source [footnote #3] that it referred to. Then I tried a detailed refutation of your thesis that Bush neglected criticism of his views, to which you responded with a one sentence whine, at 22, that I am immune to facts and compounded this with an accusation, at that I hadn’t read the WIKI article. How could I have not read the article, having referred to the WIKI source?

    For a while I thought you might be a serious writer. Having dealt rather too often with your tendentious evasions including on this thread, I fear that you don’t know about that which you passionately aver.

  • Porcell

    Todd: You clearly didn’t read it, [The WIKI article on FreeSpeech Zones] much less the sources it points to.

    I did read the WIKI article and the ACLU source [footnote #3] that it referred to. Then I tried a detailed refutation of your thesis that Bush neglected criticism of his views, to which you responded with a one sentence whine, at 22, that I am immune to facts and compounded this with an accusation, at that I hadn’t read the WIKI article. How could I have not read the article, having referred to the WIKI source?

    For a while I thought you might be a serious writer. Having dealt rather too often with your tendentious evasions including on this thread, I fear that you don’t know about that which you passionately aver.

  • Porcell

    Sorry in the above in paragraph 2 I intended the ACLU source.

  • Porcell

    Sorry in the above in paragraph 2 I intended the ACLU source.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@27), if you did read the article, then how could you possibly call it a “slur”? It’s a fact. What’s more, you claimed (@21) that it was a “slur on Bush’s rejection of free speech based on the ACLU source”. But if you’d even glanced at the References section, you would have seen that the article wasn’t based merely “on the ACLU source”, but on 54 sources (and those are hardly exhaustive), only a handful of which were from the ACLU.

    However, I get that you have filed Bush into your “good” group, and the ACLU into your “bad” group, and none of the facts in that article will possibly disturb that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@27), if you did read the article, then how could you possibly call it a “slur”? It’s a fact. What’s more, you claimed (@21) that it was a “slur on Bush’s rejection of free speech based on the ACLU source”. But if you’d even glanced at the References section, you would have seen that the article wasn’t based merely “on the ACLU source”, but on 54 sources (and those are hardly exhaustive), only a handful of which were from the ACLU.

    However, I get that you have filed Bush into your “good” group, and the ACLU into your “bad” group, and none of the facts in that article will possibly disturb that.

  • Joe

    tODD – I skimmed the article so forgive me if I am missing some of it, but Free Speech Zones were hardly an invention of the Bush Admin. They have been around for a while and have been used by both parties. I saw those that were set up for Al Gore’s visit to Wausau, Wisconsin in 2000. I also so them in De Pere Wisconsin when Clinton gave speech at a public park would have been sometime between 1996-2000. The article you linked noted that the Dems set one up for the 2004 Dem. convention and this article seems to suggest that Obama is still using them as of last month:

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/08/10/obama_protesters_arrested_afte.html

  • Joe

    tODD – I skimmed the article so forgive me if I am missing some of it, but Free Speech Zones were hardly an invention of the Bush Admin. They have been around for a while and have been used by both parties. I saw those that were set up for Al Gore’s visit to Wausau, Wisconsin in 2000. I also so them in De Pere Wisconsin when Clinton gave speech at a public park would have been sometime between 1996-2000. The article you linked noted that the Dems set one up for the 2004 Dem. convention and this article seems to suggest that Obama is still using them as of last month:

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/08/10/obama_protesters_arrested_afte.html

  • Tom Hering

    And a free speech zone was set up for the protesters attending a John Edwards speech here, in Stevens Point WI, in 2004. Seems this is now standard Secret Service procedure.

  • Tom Hering

    And a free speech zone was set up for the protesters attending a John Edwards speech here, in Stevens Point WI, in 2004. Seems this is now standard Secret Service procedure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Context, Joe (@30). Remember, I am replying to Peter’s claim (@14) that “Bush took far more venomous criticism than any thing Obama has taken. The difference between them is a thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen and one who took it without public complaint.”

    I’m not saying Bush invented the Orwellian “Free Speech Zones”. Not at all. Nor am I excusing their use by Democrats, then or now. Not at all.

    But keep in mind that many times, under Bush, only those people whose shirts or signs were critical of Bush were herded into these zones, while apparent supporters were allowed to stay.

    Pretty sure those actions are suggestive of a “thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Context, Joe (@30). Remember, I am replying to Peter’s claim (@14) that “Bush took far more venomous criticism than any thing Obama has taken. The difference between them is a thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat in the kitchen and one who took it without public complaint.”

    I’m not saying Bush invented the Orwellian “Free Speech Zones”. Not at all. Nor am I excusing their use by Democrats, then or now. Not at all.

    But keep in mind that many times, under Bush, only those people whose shirts or signs were critical of Bush were herded into these zones, while apparent supporters were allowed to stay.

    Pretty sure those actions are suggestive of a “thin-skinned president who can’t take the heat”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Since some people here instinctively reject any article written in anything other than a conservative outlet, here are two articles on “Free Speech Zones” from a conservative/libertarian point of view:

    amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
    Concludes “Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely.”

    reason.com/archives/2004/02/05/speakers-cornered
    Notes that “These Orwellian ‘free speech zones’ are typically far away from the venue where the visiting President is appearing, so that he can enjoy a Potemkin village experience in which he sees only an adoring populace through his limousine windows. Protesters can peaceably assemble, just out of the President’s sight and earshot.”

    Bush didn’t have to “take the heat”. It was removed from his presence.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Since some people here instinctively reject any article written in anything other than a conservative outlet, here are two articles on “Free Speech Zones” from a conservative/libertarian point of view:

    amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
    Concludes “Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely.”

    reason.com/archives/2004/02/05/speakers-cornered
    Notes that “These Orwellian ‘free speech zones’ are typically far away from the venue where the visiting President is appearing, so that he can enjoy a Potemkin village experience in which he sees only an adoring populace through his limousine windows. Protesters can peaceably assemble, just out of the President’s sight and earshot.”

    Bush didn’t have to “take the heat”. It was removed from his presence.

  • Porcell

    Todd, the point is that despite the frequent venomous criticism that Bush took, he never lashed out at his critics in the way that Obama frequently does.

    It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,

    This was written by Obama’s aide, David Axelrod, in 2004 and has been amply proved during his presidency.

    Peter Wehner in a Politics Daily article, Obama, the Thin-Skinned President writes:

    The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.

    During his administration, I was amazed at Bush’s ability to sustain
    Continuous vicious criticism with what amounted to a certain graciousness and at times even humor. I don’t remember him publicly lashing out at any of his critics.

    Bush has, also, kept to his word that Pres. Obama deserves his silence, even though Obama gracelessly often heaps criticism upon him and even takes full credit for ending the Iraq War. Obama opposed and voted against the funding of the surge that won the Iraq War and allowed Bush to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that Obama is merely carrying out.

  • Porcell

    Todd, the point is that despite the frequent venomous criticism that Bush took, he never lashed out at his critics in the way that Obama frequently does.

    It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,

    This was written by Obama’s aide, David Axelrod, in 2004 and has been amply proved during his presidency.

    Peter Wehner in a Politics Daily article, Obama, the Thin-Skinned President writes:

    The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.

    During his administration, I was amazed at Bush’s ability to sustain
    Continuous vicious criticism with what amounted to a certain graciousness and at times even humor. I don’t remember him publicly lashing out at any of his critics.

    Bush has, also, kept to his word that Pres. Obama deserves his silence, even though Obama gracelessly often heaps criticism upon him and even takes full credit for ending the Iraq War. Obama opposed and voted against the funding of the surge that won the Iraq War and allowed Bush to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that Obama is merely carrying out.

  • Pingback: Washington Post: Dog days for Obama « Center for Intelligence News Study

  • Pingback: Washington Post: Dog days for Obama « Center for Intelligence News Study

  • Digital

    Porcell & tODD
    Thought given your two’s happy debate here you may enjoy this small clip:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame

    Take it with a grain of salt, it is the daily show after all.

  • Digital

    Porcell & tODD
    Thought given your two’s happy debate here you may enjoy this small clip:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-29-2010/blame

    Take it with a grain of salt, it is the daily show after all.

  • Joe

    tODD – sorry I did come late to the thread and missed the major thrust of why you posted the comment about FSZs. I get your context.

    Help me understand this:

    “But keep in mind that many times, under Bush, only those people whose shirts or signs were critical of Bush were herded into these zones, while apparent supporters were allowed to stay.”

    Are you suggesting that the Dems put also puts their pro-demonstrators in the FSZ’s and that only Bush made a distinction between pro and con? If so, I call BS. The FSZ’s I personally saw did not conatin any pro-demonstrators. Those folks were allowed to roam free. Everyone is guilty of using these stupid FSZ’s and its wrong no matter who is doing it.

  • Joe

    tODD – sorry I did come late to the thread and missed the major thrust of why you posted the comment about FSZs. I get your context.

    Help me understand this:

    “But keep in mind that many times, under Bush, only those people whose shirts or signs were critical of Bush were herded into these zones, while apparent supporters were allowed to stay.”

    Are you suggesting that the Dems put also puts their pro-demonstrators in the FSZ’s and that only Bush made a distinction between pro and con? If so, I call BS. The FSZ’s I personally saw did not conatin any pro-demonstrators. Those folks were allowed to roam free. Everyone is guilty of using these stupid FSZ’s and its wrong no matter who is doing it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@36), you asked “Are you suggesting that the Dems also …?” To which, again, my answer is no. I’m not sure how this question is different from the first one (@30) to which I replied.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@36), you asked “Are you suggesting that the Dems also …?” To which, again, my answer is no. I’m not sure how this question is different from the first one (@30) to which I replied.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X