If it keeps on this track, what will it mean?
1- More descimating enviromental policy.
2- A completely right wing supreme court.
3- Row V Wade in the shitter
4- Congress more in right wing control.
5- A prolonged war with oil making the money.
6- Israel/Palestine continuing to get worse.
7- More SUVs
8- Ten Commandments will start to show up in court rooms.
9- Greater class division.
And here is the even worse part
1- No way under these conditions can Hillary win 2008 and I don't know who can.
2- 2008 ticket will be McCain/Guiliani = undefeatable
3- There is no forseable way to wrestle right wing control out of this goverment until the Reagan generation dies or somehow becomes rational.
The only thing we can hope for is massive scandal that sticks.
Can the pres be recalled?
B) People but SUVs b/c they like them. I don't see a connection with a Bush presidency,
C) Bush 43's second term will almost certainly feature a scandal or two. Possibly impeachment? Not sure if H. Clinton is the answer in 2008 either way, she could even run if Kerry ends up winning 2004.
D) I'd take McCain/Guiliani over Bush/Cheney any day. HOWEVER, McCain's getting a bit old, and has alienated the himself from the power brokers in the GOP. Pataki/Guiliani?
E) Don't forget Ohio... or Iowa.... my peeps in Davenport, Muscatine and Walcott will be heard!
Kerry supportors are crushed b/c of the genuine moral outrage they have at Bush. Of course this isn't worth leaving the country! (The cloud of beer being lifted from my noggin'...) All the more reason to stay in the country. Bush supportors are so less emotionally involved in this election. One of the supporters I was with last night seemed genuinely nonplussed about either candidate. Can Bush govern effectively knowing that 55% of the American public thinks he's incompetent?
Clinton might not be viable candidate in 2008 even if Kerry wins.
Bush can't govern effectively, period. So what does it matter if a majority of people think he's doing the wrong thing?
Nixon was re-elected, wasn't he?
Math _is_ a problem in our schools.
________________
100% Riot-Schtuffy!
Get ready to have the EU sic us like a rabid dog. They understand the nuance of international politics, and will recognize an opportunity to attack, economically. Remember the bananna powerplay from a few years ago? Imagine this X 40.
And they won't be the only one. They've been waiting in the wings in order to take the US down for years. Just like the south has been waiting quietly in order to resurrect the new confederacy.
________________
100% Riot-Schtuffy!
How do the Democrats win in '08? By pushing issues instead of attacking Republicans.
OK, so you're against rules in the marketplace b/c making rules doesn't mean people will follow them. However, a greater emphasis on moral, "religious" values by public leaders will make the public more responsible for their actions?
You're on man: if the divorce rate and single motherhood is down in four years, I'll buy you a beer.
So far, we've seen the economy regain some of the jobs lost in the '01 recession. However, the current rate is not enough to cover those people added to the workforce each month, let alone the currently unemployed. Additionally, the jobs being added are primarily lower-paying service sector jobs. The outlook isn't quite cheery at the moment.
Bush has been attacking Kerry since March. This is what I've heard from Bush during the debates about why we should be in Iraq: "It's hard work, worth doing." Huh?
There may be some interesting reasons why $120 billion (plus the expect $75 billion appropration coming up) and the thousands of lives make the invasion of Iraq seem like a good one. Bush never articulated them.
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
The platform of: "Bush is incompetent" was enough for me...
Kerry/Edwards could have done a better job explaining what they'd do differently. Still not clear to me they would not have invaded Iraq. Seems like Bush & Kerry had the same plan for Iraq, seeing as we are there now.
The K/E health care plan seemed pretty definite if you took the time to read their website.
Even if I'm not, that's what everyone thinks (not of me, but of themselves).
The rest is opinion. I think it was made clear in the Kerry platform that he would lead in Iraq better, the economy, terrorism, health care, etc. Bush's 4 years showed him as a complete failure, but the fear driven America voted for him anyway.
I say it's a valid criticism.
I'd have to say, I knew Kerry might not win yesterday when I heard around ~8pm that exit polls had 22% of the electorate listing "morals" as their number one issue. ...and we all know people who are concerned about morality in public life aren't voting (D).
Is concentrated in those parts of the US that the actual terrorists don't even know about, care about, or would ever want to attack.
I think that the 'guns, god, truck, and proud to be a neo-redneck' culture that voted for Bush's "fear of terrorism" is actually a veiled form of fascism.
________________
100% Riot-Schtuffy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
Oops, my bad for believing the clearly Republican-biased media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57584-2004Oct23.html
Indisputable evidence.
I'm so sick of arguing over bias. I see your sarcasm, but your larger point about popular cultural leaning left isn't buttressed by two pieces of "bad news for Dems" in the Post and NYT.
But back to me! me!:
My point had nothing to do with alleged misconduct in voting in '00 though. Clinton is a sleazeball that turned off a vast majority of the American public with his actions. Instead of stepping down and possibly giving Gore and future Democrats the chance to run on their records, we are still talking about "returning morals" to the Oval Office in 2004.
"An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins." -Washington Post.
Good posts. Thank you BQ.
Sad we didn't get to count all the votes in Florida in '00 thanks to Supreme Court intervention.
But the recount catastrophe aside, I was speaking more about the State wide voter disenfranchisement of blacks, reported so strongly in the US Commision on Civil Right's report in June '01. We've gone over this a bunch.
I will not discuss the Republican bias in the Times and Post, but it is fairly evident in my unhumble opinion, making my case even stronger...
---Rich here
just wanted to address a few things:
- The spreadsheet I promised with Pros and Cons never materialized, I apologize for that... I think this leads into my next point, but I will be the first to admit I often did a cruddy job of backing my shit up
- I have been using IMHO as a copout. I think maybe my strategy will be to post less and have citations ready for the (hopefully)less frequent comments I will make in Politik from now on...
- I never finished out the Florida thread from a few weeks back where we were talking about the civil rights commision Dawn brought up mainly due to being angry, frustrated, overwhelmed and tired as hell. If anyone here does have the time and patience to read the entire report, be sure not to miss the very important and poignant 41 page dissent statement attached to the document (this, you guys will find, is where the WSJ cited most of their info in that last much discussed 'journalistic hack' op-ed piece.
- just like in little league or after a long argument or misunderstanding, I would like to extend a handshake / peace offering / thank you for all that I have learned and observed about politics through this board to everyone. I have little interest in being divided and / or antagonistic regarding things we've discussed in this politik forum. I had honestly prepared to write a"best wishes with absolutely no malice" bit for Kerry as I said I would in past posts. One thing I remember Bill Weld saying 10/12/2004 WSJ Oped was how much credit BOTH of these candidates deserve:
"My complaint is that every four years, we are asked by virtually everyone involved in national politics to believe that one of the two major party candidates for president--but only one--is an idiot, or untrustworthy. This is nonsense. Neither John Kerry nor George Bush is either stupid or untrustworthy. Nor was Al Gore, or Bob Dole, or Bill Clinton, or the senior George Bush, or Mike Dukakis. You simply cannot rise to the highest levels of U.S. politics if your word is not good, or if you are a dim bulb. So let's give the Bush-bashing and Kerry-bashing a rest."
I would like to try to extend my hand in making the country a better place to all my friends. not amongst political party lines but me as a person to you as a person. I am interested in all of us working together for a better America.
Thanks for yr time.
Much respect,
RL
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
Last on WSJ. To reference (not cite) a report as the WSJ did and then claim the dissenting opinion was the report's factual findings, and NOT STATE SUCH, is hack journalism, not matter how you slice it.
B) Who cares if he diddled his ugly intern, (see second part of A)
C) Republicans pounced on that and spun themselves a nice puppet prez (answer to B)
D) Republican Spin Machine even makes you, tgl, a normally reasonable person, fail to remember Clinton as he was, a great man and president, who happened to diddle his ugly intern
E) 30 years from now, when the world is recovering from the globally catastrophic world war that our current socio-politico-economo-path is taking us on, history books will be written that remember Clinton as the last great president the former United States had, before it was torn apart by selfish money-grubbing heathens wearing moralistic masks.
Personally, I think that doesn't reflect on his record as a President.
There are enough hung-up people in this country that think the two are correlated: sex and decision making. It was a bad political decision to fight the impeach and not resign. You can talk about voting the lesser of to evils instead of your ideal candidate (Nader '00 for instance...), it's the same deal. Ideally, Clinton should not have faced impeachment or become a touchstone for the Right to lament the moral collapse of our country. Realistically, Clinton hurt the Democratic party.
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
I'm sorry, I've been drunk all afternoon, and just woke up, let me say it all more clearly:
The Republican attacks on Clinton were far more sleazy than anything he ever did. Those Republicans, not Clinton, should be held responsible for the demise of the Democratic Party.
I *completely* agree with your characterization of the Republican Party, but, politics is a game and Clinton's strategy seems to have been a deterimental one.
Republicans responsible for demise of Democrats? Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I may have disagreed with you on most of what you've posted to this board.
I may have wondered how an intelligent person such as yourself could be so naive politically.
I may have wondered how an intelligent person such as myself can end up just being speechless and angry.
Nevertheless, this board would be, stupid without you, the rational voice of opposition, so much better than the poor devil's advocates any of the regular posters could have been.
So I shake your hand, and I thank you for your opinions, and I respect you so strongly... If I may quote Dumbledore: "It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends."
Respect.
-=>J
(I still think anyone who voted for Bush should be in jail, but respectfully so)
(I might need some epsom salt too...)
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
Reagan succesfully turned the word "Liberal" into a weapon. It seems that the US has forgotten that two of its favorite presidents were liberals- FDR, JFK and that they were about to elect RFK.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that only someone that appeals to the middle states can win the presidency- either by being a southerner or by being heavily religious. They were coming out of the polls sighting moral values as their reason for voting. MORAL VALUES! This presidency has been riddled with scandal after scandal that somehow seems to blow away in the wind. And how can anyone look at the situation in Iraq and not realize that it is a moral abhoration. I have made the 'immoral war' case on this borad before, which has not been rebutted by anyone yet. Let me know if you want me to make it again.
In short, the challenger runs on his plans, the incumbant runs on his record:
Plans:
Kerry's fault with regards to expressing his thoughts, was that he actually had some. America wants a sound bite, Kerry actually had more in his head than that- and from what I saw, he gave more numbers and stats than any candidate I can remember asside from Perot. If you took the time to go to his website and read his plans you would find that most of them were quite well laid out. You can't express real plans on the evening news or in 90 seconds at a debate. 96.985% of what is said in those forums is worthless.
Record:
Bush on the other hand has NO record. He's got a failing war, both poorly and dishonestly concieved- failing economic policies- greater class division- fewer people with health care- a terrible job market- terrible foreign relations- rapant anti Americanism- an emboldened and idologically empowered terrorist world.
Once again I beg our conservative consituents on this board to provide some issues based reason to believe that this re-election is not a complete dissaster- I'm dying here!
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
By all accounts, Kerry beat Bush in each debate. While some partisans might disagree, looking at undecided voters, they gave it up for Kerry each time. That points to an ability to articulate the issues.
It's that 22% voting on moral values as their number one concern. I've heard this a couple times now: Democrats lack the moral language to describe their objectives. Families who work full time and are still below the poverty level is morally wrong. People who are working should be able to earn a wage that provides the basics for their family. It's morally wrong to wage a war in Iraq operating under the assumption that there would be no casualties. It's unconscionable to send our troops to war without fully preparing them for the task ahead. It's morally wrong to oppose fair treatment of people based on sexual orientation (OK, that one may be a bit harder to convince people on...) Kerry et al. have not been able to describe their agenda in the moralistic language that comes naturally to Bush et al. (My apologies to Jack Beatty).
A large voting bloc sees Democrats as baby-killing faggots. Now that both Dems and the GOP are basically on the same page fiscally, these values issues are rightly or wrongly seen as the difference between the parties.
Then again: 130,000 votes in Ohio changes the outcome. It's about the margins...
I'm also now figuring out my next move. I think I'm going to run for state office on the separation of church and state platform, can I get a campaign manager?
That's a keeper.
I would like to _ban_ the church. The tendancy of religious zealousy to destroy empires (see: Rome, Britain, etc) is starting to claw its way into our empire. I like our empire, except for the religion. I don't know what it is about the natural path of power, that drives a nation, once it becomes the "worlds only super-power" to become overly religious, and to want to spread that around the world.
So join with me, save our country. Save the world from our country. Renounce your religion as I have mine. Put me into state office where I can spread my zero-tolerance of religion policy!
(anyone know anything about our state government? or should I go straight for governor?)
I am asking myself the same question. How can I become elected as a religion hating, fag loving, fetus stomping atheist?
The dude was 'cigaring' his intern, but it seems to me that he was working for an economic plan that helped everyone.
The parties aren't exactly equivalent on economic policy, they've definitely moved together though. The "fiscal distinction" is growing less and less, especially considering Bush's tendency to allow Congress to spend willy-nilly.
I think declaring that the sky is falling at this point is a little premature....
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
"We think America will do pretty well over time."
I'm not ready to concede that the sky is not going to fall.
________________
100% Riot-Schtuffy!
I'm not ready to concede that the sky is not going to fall.
________________
100% Riot-Schtuffy!
You are right, Clinton won because he came from the red states. And he also won because he could communicate well from top to bottom. We are just lucky that he had a brain on his shoulders.
Keep in mind that Adams was considered anoying, Jefferson preffered to spend time alone and critics at the time said that Lincoln was a poor orator- they cut the Gettysburg addy to shreds. So what.
In this case we have an idiot with poor ethical standards running the show because his is religious, he is from the red states, and the country is scared.
Dems should have elected Edwards in the primary I guess. Perhaps we can get Edwards and Obama on a ticket. Of course with Obama's oratory style, he may get accused of talking down to people. And those red state would likely never elect a black man or a woman of any sort.
_______________________________
“When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.†Miles Davis
Lets make it a horseshoe then. Dems will take the coasts, down as far as Mason Dixon, connected across the top along the Canadian border, and 'pubs can have the rest. That means the 'pubs will get the great places like Houston, Dallas, Raleigh, Jacksonville and Miami. I'll miss New Orleans, but will be comforted by Chicago, Boston, New York, Seatle, San Francisco and DC.
Can we move Latrobe 700 miles south somehow?
I'll miss Nashville more than New Orleans.