MSNBC "Hardball" - Comments by Pat Cadell

C

ChrisL

New member
I've watched this show now for quite some time and Chris Matthews, although a
whiner, has been fairly harsh on Gore. One guest who appears frequently on the show is Pat Cadell.

The quote below establishes his liberal credentials.

On the Nov. 27 Hardball, Caddell said: "I'm a liberal Democrat. I started
in Florida politics. I've worked for George McGovern. I've worked for
Jimmy Carter. I've worked for Teddy Kennedy, Mario Cuomo. Nobody
can question, I think, my credentials and convictions. But I have to tell
you, at this point it's hard to believe that my party, the party that I've
belonged to since my great-great-grandfather-of my family-has become
no longer a party of principles, but has been hijacked by a confederacy
of gangsters who need to take power by whatever means and whatever
canards they can say."

He has spoken in similar fashion throughout the whole Fla. election debacle. I've yet to
see or hear anyone on either side be as brutally honest about what is happening. He
has stated also, unequivocally, that Gore is trying to steal the Fla. election.
 
I too have been very impressed by Cadell. He is a touchstone for reality in this debate.

I've never had a significant problem with liberals per se ... in the past, they simply had a different perspective, especially on economics. I disagreed with them, but it could be a polite, intellectual disagreement. Their threat to me was mainly a matter of my wallet. The debates could be fun and educational for both sides.

All that has changed. Now, so-called liberals have become much more like fascists. I had one blithely extolling the virtues of the 'general welfare' over individual rights the other day ... she was downright bubbly about it. Liberals I meet (and hear) now seem quite comfortable with blatant hypocrisy, lying, gross distortion of fact, usurpation of individual rights, absurd extensions of responsibility (e.g. to gun owners / manufacturers for what criminals do with their guns) and so on. Many of them no longer engage in political discourse ... they practice propaganda that would make Joseph Goebels blush.

"Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, and people will believe it's the truth." - Joseph Goebels, Nazi propaganda minister.
Click to expand...

Cadell has juevos. And, brains. He knows this will end badly if the Democrats continue down this road. Many of them have lost their souls, and it will come back to haunt them, IMHO.

Regards from AZ
 
What I don't understand is why the good, decent people in the democrat party (there must be some) do not rise up and throw out the "gangster socialists" who have taken the party over. Is it that they are too blind to see what has happened, or do they just refuse to admit it? (same thing?) If they believe that they can not take their party back why do they remain in it? Any ideas?
 
Sorry, I'm at a loss to explain. The Gore position is so inconsistent right on its face: "make every vote count--except those that might not be for me..." I don't understand how Democrats support it.

The one Democratic friend I have has been very consistent in his support/apologies for Gore. "He's just doing what he feels is right. He honestly believes he has won this election" that kind of BS.

I find this kind of response from Democrats very troubling. If they can so easily be swayed by double-talk, if they can swallow the BS they're being fed as truthful, what does that mean? Half the country is incapable of critical/logical thinking?
 
When I turned 18, I joined the Dem party (25 years ago or so). Today's party bears NO resemblance to the one I joined. Since I can't make myself (after all these years) join the Repubs, I guess that makes me a "conservative spy" within the Dem ranks. Works for me (snicker).

Seriously, the roles of the two parties have ABSOLUTELY REVERSED in 25 years. Back then, the Repubs were for big government and harsh "control" of the people (the WOD for example), and the Dems were all for personal freedom and less gov't intrusion into peoples' lives. (That's why I joined them BTW).

These days, the model is reversed. What a crazy world....
 
Mr. Thomas,
In the preamble of the US Constitution "promoting the general welfare" is one of the seven jobs explicitly given to the US federal government. My problem with the Libertarian platform is that they seem to ignore this, and while it is interesting to speculate about whether a government founded on Libertarian principles would produce a society better and more just than ours, it is clear that our government is not and has never been so structured. What has happened, that upsets you and me, is that the general welfare has been grossly misconstrued to mean the improvement of the PERSONAL welfare of some segment of the society at the expense of another. I think a refinement of the concept of the general welfare that embodied many Libertarian ideas would be a great help.

Lonnie

PS: I want to add that I share the opinion of most of the founders that most of the time to promote personal liberty is coessential with supporting the general welfare.
 
Mr. Jaycox -

The preamble of the Constitution doesn't really have any legal standing. It's a statement of principles, nothing more.

The particular jobs that the Federal Government is authorized to do are found in the Articles of the Constitution. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no broad "promote the general welfare" statement in the Articles.

Besides, just because a government is authorized to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea!

Later,
Chris
 
Back to Dave R's point

Just because it's BS, hypocritical and inconsistant, doesn't mean everyone can recognize it as such. People develop a template or a prism thru which they view the world, and this colors all their perceptions. I am an objective realist. I believes facts have existence outside of the view of the beholder. I believe there are revealed truths that guide us in deciding what is right and wrong, and those standards are generally applicable. These principles do NOT guide leftists, socialists, or liberals. For them, reality has no meaningful existence outside the realm of their wishes. Maybe they believe their wishes can shape reality.

For many, including, hell PRIMARILY politicians, saying something can make it so. Lies about sex are not lies, they're actually commendable and gentlemanly, as long as a Democrat says them. Saying that the USSC vacating the FLSC decision is a win for Gore serves the higher cause, so it's technical accuracy is of no consequence. In fact technical accuracy has no merit as long as the higher purpose is served. Upon reflection, it's ironic how many liberals can prostitute themselves to a higher purpose, as long an nobody accuses it of being God.

It sort of reminds me of the John Gray paradigm, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". At least in the battle of the sexes, there are physiological differences to help us explain how two different people can draw such radically different conclusions from observing the same facts. What accounts for the difference of opinion between Caddell and oh, say, Margaret Carlson? They are both statist, big government, nanny-state bliss ninnies. One sees things as they are, the other screeches at the obvious injustice. Go figure.
 
There were some interesting comments on a local (San Antonio) talk radio show today. Some woman called in and said that Algore must have a good argument that "all the votes had not been counted" because so many people were saying so. Arghhhh! :mad: The host responded by stating that the Jews, gypsys, etc must have been a burden to German society because so many people were saying so. The Joseph Goebbles' Big Lie technique is exactly what Clinton and Gore have been practicing over the past eight years. The liberals' attempts to 'dumb down' the public is at least partially succeeding since so many are falling for their lies.
 
In answer to Dave R's question: "Half the country is incapable of critical/logical thinking?" You have to understand one simple fact; Half the country is, by definition, below average. Apparently, that half are the ones that joined the Democratic Party. Dennis being the exception, of course.
 
"Since I can't make myself (after all these years) join the Repubs, I guess that makes me a "conservative spy" within the Dem ranks. Works for me (snicker)."


No Dennis, that makes you a "Reagan Democrat".

Nothin' wrong with that either.

;)
 
You guys should read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights! How many of you even knew that there was one? You can see it on my homepage...


Joe
 
Lonnie, between your comments and those of my friends, I think I'll need to study the legal history of 'general welfare'. It is interesting how people can latch on to a couple of words, ignore the historical context, and expand those words to fit their own socialist desires.

If I hear you correctly, I think we agree that the phrase has been misconstrued.

Regards from AZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top