1) I do not know if the original Sargent program allowed for release of convicted murderers. I am admitting to nothing because I’m not familiar with the facts surrounding the program’s inception in 1972. However, this is totally irrelevant to the intial challenge that the prison furlough/Willie Horton issue was not a smear on Dukakis, but a legitimate questioning of a politically weak area for the Democrat in 1988.

2) The said irrelevance is made so by the fact that Dukakis vetoed a bill which would have kept convicted murderers from ever being furloughed. If you are looking for bill numbers and dates, I don’t have them, but this fact is mentioned by almost every public encyclopedia at which I’ve looked. This veto made the issue fair game as a matter of public record. Dukakis said, with his veto, that we was willing to risk more Willie Hortons instead of using his power to correct an outrageous system which released violent criminals back onto the streets. My original question remains: how is it a smear to question a public official’s stance on crime when he supports a program allowing violent criminals to be released?

Despite its irrelevance to my question, I would say that I believe Sargant’s program, with or without the furlough of murderers to be as ridiculous as Dukakis’ support and championing of it (Though I can’t PROVE it beyond my “say-so”, I would be willing to bet that the furlough program was likely expanded and stretched by Dukakis beyond the initial reaches of the Sargent program). Criminals, and especially violent ones, should be locked up in jail – period.

The prisoner furlough program was started by GOP governor Francis Sargent in the early 70’s, as you allude, but the Dukakis furlough program allowed for the release of FIRST-DEGREE MURDERERS. His veto of the bill which would have kept the murderers in prison by making them ineligeble for the program made the issue worth discussion…

So, via the bolded portion, you appear to be admitting that the program started by GOP Governor Sargent allowed first degree murderers to be furloughed. Or do you have any evidence that the Sargent furlough program did not allow for the furloughing of first degree murders?

By “evidence,” I mean evidence, not just your say-so.

How do you think the children of the people in the mass graves in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq felt? How about the ones who died in the chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish areas, where he went after his own people with WMDs? Who is killing children in Iraq? Americans? Hardly…terrorists, my friend, suicide bombers, not American soldiers.

You’re twisted around on who the good guys are, and that’s not a Republican or Democratic thing, that’s moral relativism, and it’s so, so wrong.

We can have a conversation, but you have to drop annoying habits like your monolithic view of evil Republicans if you want it to be a productive one. Don’t assume your political opponents act out of bad faith…all of us try to do the right thing, even if we are sometimes wrong. Democrats want what’s best for this country, and so do Republicans…in the abstract. However, crap like this Foley thing makes everyone run around like monkeys and forget the problems that need our undivided attention.

You want out of Iraq, I bet…so do I…I want to win first, but I do want out…wouldn’t our time be spent much more profitably on that issue than on this b.s.? How about Iran? Have we solved that problem yet? I don’t Mark Foley’s instant messages are going to matter a hell of a lot to Ahmadinejad.

I humbly suggest to you that you rethink your idea that Republicans are the enemy. We are not…we are your neighbors and friends and co-workers. Our enemies are very real, and they are very active, and this nonsense is a distraction…

There is only one thing that concerns me: fighting the attempts to make a broad link between Republicans and abuse of children (or turning a blind eye to same, which is just as bad)…

If you’ll re-read my points in my last comment, you’ll have to agree that I’ve stuck to your original post. All of those things that grownup Republicans regularly say and do are abusive to children, either directly or indirectly. Why do you think Democrats are so pissed off? What your party and this administration is doing to this country and the world is not making it a better place for our children. Global warming. Denying a child loving parents. Creating more terrorists.
Man, I could go on and on. But I don’t have to. You know what you’ve done and what you’ve supported. It’s all here in your blog, and you have to live with it. “Nutroots”? That’s great. I’m supposed to not respond to that? You’re just all agog because the Dems are fighting hypocracy with their ‘attack machine’ and attempting to show the thinking part of the country who our leaders really are.
I notice that you didn’t try to refute or defend even one of the points I made. All you do is call me immature. You can ignore me all you want, but that is precisely what is costing Republicans the support of the few people who are still hanging on. As your leadership ignores more and more people who cotton to your party’s disasterous policies and bumbling ineptitude and speak the truth against them, the Republican base is shrinking. Which is not a bad thing for the children of former Republicans.

I’ve tried being reasonable but you people (I don’t even know what to call you anymore, conservativism is extinct) really don’t seem to see or care what effect you’re having on our children or our neighbors. You call me tolerant like it’s a bad thing. It must be. I don’t see many Republicans practicing the Golden Rule these days.

I’ll tell you the truth, though, in all seriousness. It’s been so long since I’ve had an adult conversation with anybody from the other party, I’ve given up trying. I’m not saying that to be mean or to smear you. It’s just the truth, unfortunately.

Some things grownup Republican do fairly regularly:

- Call women ‘murderers’ for wanting control of their own body
- Support the slaughter in Iraq which is killing real children, and lots of them, as if somehow it’s better for Iraqis to die instead of Americans
- Continue to support a president who not only is LYING to his country (I’d include a link here but you read the news last week and for the last six years) but who, as governor of Texas, probably put to death a lot of innocent people
- State that gay couples are somehow going to destroy straight marriages
- State that loving gay parents somehow corrupt children who would otherwise waste away in the foster care system (How is that better? Seriously?)
- Preach that homosexuality is sinful when their leaders in Congress shelter predators like Mark Foley in order to hang on to your power.
C’mon, man, that’s just plain wrong. The Republicans are haters and bigots and hypocrites, and yes, bullying children. Sorry, that’s just how it is.

You start thinking for yourself and realize that profiting from human suffering is not entertaining but very, very sick, then we’ll talk. ‘Course if that ever happened, you’d be a progressive. Like me. I’d even invite you over for milk and cookies.

Nothing’s more amusing than watching a hateful progressive rant about how hateful Republicans are. Now run along, junior, we cater to adults here…

God, that was mean. I sound like a Repub now. I guess it’s a natural consequence of being a part of the party in control of Congress. So long!

From the Daily Kos:

Things you can count on the Republican leadership to screw up:

The deficit. Body armor. Medicare reform. Social Security reform. The minimum wage. Port security. The National Guard. Diplomacy. The Geneva Conventions. Fair elections. Clean elections. Intelligence. Protecting the Constitution. Protecting the Bill of Rights. Government transparency. Oversight. Separation of church and state. The middle class. The poor. Tax reform. Tax cuts. Bankruptcy law. Global warming. Disaster management. Defeating terrorists. Saying no to lobbyists. Saying yes to public opinion. Pre-war planning. Post-war planning. Competence. Civil rights. Civil liberties. Civil debate. Veterans’ benefits. Hiring based on ability. Legal surveillance. Morality. Energy policy. Energy independence. End-of-life decisions among spouses. Inclusion. Learning lessons from history. Learning, period. Drug policy. Fiscal responsibility. Trusting the generals. Trusting the spooks. Trusting the experts. Basic honesty. Basic health care. Education. Creating jobs. Keeping CIA operatives’ identities secret. Catching Osama. Playing nice. Playing fair. Refilling ice cube trays. Making paper airplanes. Or coffee. Tying their shoelaces. Making friends. Blowing their noses. Counting to ten five three. Sharing their toys. Telling the truth. Uniting the country. Protecting underage kids from a predatory congressman.