Remember the short villian in that movie who kept saying "inconceivable!" That's Boehner.

You're right, of course.

It's not particularly nice for either party to use such images. How painful for families and friends who've lost loved ones through war/terrorism.

But then neither side is particularly in tune with the views and concerns (or the pain) of the everyday man and woman in this country.

P.S. (I do think it's different of one shows Karina destruction and has images of Heck-of-a-Job Brown and Buy-a-Clue Chertoff by way of conveying the administration's astonishing ineptitude. That's different than showing a human being in a box. But I digress.)

All I know about this subject is what I read in this article, so if I'm misinformed, please correct me. That said, here's my impression:

What strikes me most is the part about the DCCC running the ad, the NRCC complaining, and the DCCC immediately turning tail and pulling the ad. What fools. That just makes it look like the DCCC did something wrong.

If you're going to put something loaded and controversial in an ad, you'd better be prepared to stand behind it. If they decided on this ad without realizing there would be backlash and having a plan for it, they're idiots. If they realized there would be backlash, but then caved, they're cowards.

The GOP wins elections because they dont do these things. When they put something controversial out there, they defend it to the death. Dems constantly do this half-assed stuff and it makes them look like pandering simps.

As someone who would like to support the Democratic Party, I find it perpetually disheartening.

When this IMPERIAL NATION raised 'Old Glory' over a land fighting the occupation of "RED COATS" who were wishing to spread Freedom, Liberty and Justice, by 'Proclaimation'. That 'spread' was from a knife dipped into a jar of LYE.

The Breaking down of Doors to see if "you're with us" or "against us", the America of my youth shouted "Crispus Attics and the Boston......,NO FALLUIGIA MASSACRE".

MY "STARS and BARS" have flown at Half Staff since King Georges' declaration and will continue to do so until every American is allowed to come HOME. WITHOUT THE COFFIN!

THEN, and only then, my "Thirteen Star and Bars" Flag can be Raised to HONOR these United States of America and those VALUES:

Family, God and Country

which this Land that I love,

AMERICA

represents.

jp irving msha

To me, the difference is very clear. The WTC victims died because Bush ignored a warning that terrorists were plotting to use airliners in an attack. The soldiers in Iraq died because Bush sent them into an unnecessary war against an imaginary threat of WMDs. Can't you see the difference?

"An exasperated Boehner said: 'The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen.

Well, I'm a bit appalled and exasperated (though not surprised) by this bonehead's comments. Is he hinting that Americans aren't appalled by the sight of flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers? Should we think, "Oh, it's just those soldiers again...they're paid so it's OK?" I am appalled by the sight of ANY flag-draped coffin. It means a human being has been killed, a family is grieving. How pathetic for the GOP to nit-pick about what caused the death. Yet how typical...

Boehner that is, why should not be good for the goose what is evidently good for the Gander? Just asking. Flags are flags and coffins are coffins. And by now the numbers killed are about equal, but the soldiers died in an illegal invasion and its lasting results. Besides that it seems that your boss ignored warnings about 9/11 that may have been useful to avoid the disaster. And it was the same boss who instead of finishing of the culprits organisation went after a third party, because "he tried to kill my daddy", has imaginary WMDs and seemed to be an easier target. Time to wake up Mr. Majority "Leader?".

The real difference is that Republicans believe the flag is their symbol.

I've never been one to analyze song lyrics deeply, but sometimes the connection to real life makes it unavoidable. How about these lines excerpted from The Who's classic "Won't Get Fooled Again", when considering John Boehner, and current events in general? Sadly, I live in his House district, and for sure, this new House boss IS the same as the old boss:

- - - - - - - - - -

We'll be fighting in the streets

With our children at our feet

And the morals that they worship will be gone

And the men who spurred us on

Sit in judgement of all wrong

They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

- - - - - - - - -

There's nothing in the streets

Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left

Are now parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

Don't get fooled again

No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

I seem to remember an outcry from the Democratic blogosphere when the Republicans used the ad mentioned here.

Why is it OK for Democrats to use pictures of coffins for their purposes, but not for the Republicans to use pictures of coffins to gain support for their own?

Dear NYT,

It is a large hit to the image of the Democratic party to falsely attribute to Mrs.Clinton the sentiment that Democrats are wasting time and merely pursuing inflammatory legislation. The entire thrust of this article is based on the false reporting of Ms. Clinton's statements. The transcript of Ms. Clinton's remarks makes it very clear that she is referring to Republicans' focus on controversial legislation, to the detriment of important issues. This should be corrected on the front page of your newspaper. After allowing Judith Miller to serve up White House briefings as "news" and failing to question the WH's WMD assertions, the New York Times hasn't got much credibility left to trade in. Does accuracy and journalistic integrity interest the "paper of record" anymore?

Dear New York Times,

I am sure you have received many letters in regard to the falsely reported story by Anne Kornblut, covering Hillary Clinton's speech. It has been two days and apparently you feel this does not merit correcting. The New York Times is known to the right wing as a liberally biased, elitist rag. More and more, it mainly appears that the New York Times is dishonest, not dedicated to truthful reporting. The New York Times disgraced itself in its coverage leading to the war in Iraq, and continues to serve the public ill in its coverage of this administration. There are countless examples of pandering to a White House that is overreaching its power. The New York Times is apparently impotent, incapable of promoting accountability for wrongs committed by our government.

It is time for a boycott of the New York Times. This "liberal" paper is of no use to anyone, regardless of their politics, that is interested in the facts.