Not really caring what happens there, because I'm convinced none of these guys can beat Bush.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 19, 2004 11:50 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingSee, this is where I disagree. What we need is a person who can appeal not only to Democrats, but also Republicans, but mostly to the centrists.
And I do think there is at least one (I know which one, because I'm voting for him) in there. Two, if you count Kerry.
Extremists not allowed, neither ex-Yankee governors.
Anyway, I'm glued to the set today.
Travis
Gotta have hope, PAD. A lot can happen between now and November.
See, this is where I disagree. What we need is a person who can appeal not only to Democrats, but also Republicans, but mostly to the centrists. And I do think there is at least one (I know which one, because I'm voting for him) in there.
Dude, believe me, I'd be *thrilled* to be wrong. My concern is that they're focusing on the sense of outrage they feel with Bush which a majority of Americans just don't seem to have. I mean, the White House blocks investigations into 9/11 and wants to make sure the committee is shut down altogether well before election day. Where's the outrage? The White House starts a smear campaign to attack the guy who confirms what I think even his staunchest supporters knew in the first place--that Bush wanted Saddam out in the first place and 9/11 was just a convenient excuses. Where's the outrage? I mean, maybe it's out there, but I'm not seeing it.
I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.
I'd love to believe Dean or Kerry or one of them could carry more than two, three states. But I don't.
PAD
Let me just say that I fervently hope you're wrong. (PAD, that is, not Travis -- though as a fan of said Yankee ex-governor, I'd rather you not be entirely right either. :-)
I've got my preferences in the primaries, but the fall is a foregone choice for me. To paraphrase Asimov (talking about the Kennedy-Nixon campaign), I'd happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he's the one running against Bush.
TWL
I think the opposite, I think we need someone who is truly on the left, not the middle, look where the middle to the right has gotten us...democrats need to be democrats again! I dont think dean is the guy, but I wish someone would stand up for what is truly opposite of bush....why can he be so right, yet the dems have to be so center, i thought the left was what we dems were supposed to be!
I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.
If so, I'm frankly worried it's going to be too late for the country as a whole. I'm frankly terrified about all the stuff this administration will pull once it doesn't have to worry about the election.
(As just one example ... people around here are aware that the Selective Service is ramping draft boards back up, yes?)
I haven't gone out and walked precincts on behalf of someone's campaign since I was in college. This summer may change that.
My hope is that some reasonably big revelation is going to break that finally wakes the electorate up. My fear is that it won't happen -- or worse, that there's an October surprise in the works. (I could think of several varieties.)
TWL
Where's the outrage?
Do you mean in the media? I would agree there isn't sufficient outrage there, but there's plenty of outrage among ordinary everyday folk who are seeing their sons and daughters die in Iraq, and who are seeing this Congress spend money "like a drunken sailor" to quote John McCain. Even if the polls show Bush with an edge, it's the turnout that counts, and people who are not happy are far more likely to turn out than those who are. I would say Dean, Kerry, or Edwards could beat Bush, if their campaigns are run properly.
Dean is the only one with a hope in hell of defeating Bush: When is the last time a Senator won the presidency?
I read a very good piece on how a Southern strategy is not necessary to carry the election: doing sufficiently well in a coalition of South East states and similar will see someone win, and they are easier to turn Democrat based on last time.
Dean has the machine, the energy and the finances to take on Bush. I honestly believe he is the only chance anyone has this time. The NYT poll this weekend shows Bush is vulnerable, particularly if the election can be campaigned on the economy and domestic policies.
Dude, believe me, I'd be *thrilled* to be wrong. My concern is that they're focusing on the sense of outrage they feel with Bush which a majority of Americans just don't seem to have.
And I definitely agree with you 100% about that. That's why I'm voting for the guy who's not focusing on that. He's pushing for a better America. (I know, cheesy and all, but I've been pushing for this guy for awhile)...
Anger cannot win a crowd, only a message of hope can win (very Clintonesque, I know.)
That's why I'm going for who I'm going for.
And for a bit of grins:
Travis
Just wanted to toss in a "me too" on the whole befuddling issue of non-outrage-ness in this country. Between the insider croneyism oozing from the White House, the ever-shifting excuses for the Iraq war, the record deficit and millions of jobs lost since 2000, and the reports from folks like Paul O'Neill, the CIA, and the Army War College that this Administration does whatever the heck it feels like with no regard for reality, I'd almost expect there to be folks camped in front of the White House every day, banging on drums and demanding for immediate change.
And yet... nothing. This perplexes me in a way that nothing in American politics has ever perplexed me before. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person watching the news, while the rest of the nation is in ennui, doped up on American Idol while mumbling "...the terrorists hate us because we have freedom..." As PAD said, where's the outrage?
I don't know, but I do have the same hope that Matt Adler has, that there's a "silent majority" of outraged Americans who will go to the booths this November and make themselves heard.
And I disagree with Peter that the only reason folks are (seemingly) so complacent is because they're shell-shocked. I think a part of it is that a sizable number of folks are simple bamboozled by the White House, and the "liberal" media is quietly going along and spreading their nonsense without a peep of challenge. I still cringe at that pre-war press conference from last March, where the reporters' questions were pre-screened, and the most challenging thing George had to answer to was "How has your faith sustained you during this crisis?"
(And in a related vein, last week's Salon.com had an article comparing Dean's current media coverage with Al Gore's media coverage in 2000. Just as Gore was falsely accused of "exaggeration" and being "stiff," Dean is now being accused of being "angry" and 'unelectable." Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?)
Gee, thanks for brightening my day. So you are resigned to the fact that it's going to be 4 more years of neo-conservatism who justify any form of military action to serve their own isolated purposes, which in turn creates more seething animosity towards the U.S. Not to mention we are going to have 4 more years of Ashcroft debasing our civil rights while implementing his puritan beliefs on our justice system. So there is going to be 4 more years of turning back the clock in achievements towards racial equality, environmentalism, and freedom of speech and I'm supposed to live with this over my fucking head!?!?!
As of now, I can only think of two options of how I can cope with all this:
A. Prepare to move to Canada or New Zealand.
B. You really DON'T want to know.
I think that's possible if you just articulate differences rather than "Bush sucks." Focus on how you can make things better. The problem with anger is that it's sort of depressing after awhile. Everyone was so damn excited about Clinton because he was going to change things and he had a plan. When Dean manages to articulate that, he sounds compelling but he rarely does it. The others don't seem to articulate much of anything other than "I'm a better guy than Bush."
Still, I think the election will be fairly close -- much like last time's but I don't see -- at least at present -- any Democratic candidate doing better than Gore did.
SunWooKong:
You know, I really hate the "move to Canada" philosophy. It strikes me as arrogant because the people *most* affected by an administration's poor policies are those who can't even afford to leave the state (check out this week's New York Times Magazine for an example of this) let alone move to another country. It's also a trifle benighted because U.S. policies affect Canada, as well.
That said, it's not the end of the world if Bush is re-elected. Rebuild. Restructure. But don't run.
OMG, I'm almost agreeing with PAD on something political! Where we disagree is that I want Bush to be reelected, but the democrat candidates aren't going to win until they come up with something other than "I'm against Bush". They are spouting off ideas, but no details. That's what's going to hurt them.
I disagree completely - if the job situation doesn't improve (and it probably won't substantially) and Iraq isn't much changed (and it probably won't be), then I think the Dems have a good shot. I think Clark is very electable, but Dean and Kerry have a decent shot as well. Edwards still seems like a pod person to me, admittedly, and Gephardt is the Democratic version of Bob Dole, and the rest are probably totally unelectable, but also don't have the slightest chance of getting the nomination.
Iowa is not a major part of the process, though; there's no statistical corelation between performance in the caucas and getting the nomination. The real story starts with New Hampshire, and I'm guessing we'll see Kucinich, Lieberman, Gephardt, and a player to be named (or two) all drop out by mid-February at the latest.
Remember, the Dems are actually polling significantly higher now than they were at the same point in 1992. The vast majority of the population doesn't really care prior to about convention time.
You know, I really hate the "move to Canada" philosophy. It strikes me as arrogant because the people *most* affected by an administration's poor policies are those who can't even afford to leave the state (check out this week's New York Times Magazine for an example of this) let alone move to another country. It's also a trifle benighted because U.S. policies affect Canada, as well.
Not to mention the rest of the planet, given both foreign policy concerns and the environmental policies at work.
For me, the "move-to-X" option would simply be one of mental self-preservation: I'm not sure I'd be able to look in the mirror every day knowing that I live in a country that put these SOB's in power a second time after seeing the results of the first one.
I agree that it wouldn't solve the bigger problem -- but frankly, if Bush wins a second term I may have to personally consider the problem unsolvable for a while, simply for my own sanity.
TWL
As just one example ... people around here are aware that the Selective Service is ramping draft boards back up, yes?
I hadn't heard that, but I do remember last year one particular congressman going around on the talking heads shows fighting for the draft to be reinstated.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D), NY 15th District.
But if you listen to any military leaders, they don't want the draft back. They would rather have the volunteer fighting force (even if some are too stupid to realize when they signed up, it wasn't just for school and medical benefits).
Since PAD has shown himself to be worth the benefit of the doubt I'll believe it when he says that he doesn't see any way that Bush can lose.
Usually when you hear someone say that about something so fraiught with uncertainty as a presidential election its because they want to play the "I can't lose" game. They predict the worst case scenario and then they either are proven right ("I was right. Yay me!") or they get the outcome they actually were hoping for and secretly thought might happen but didn't want to go out on a limb predicting ("I've never been happier to be worng! Yay me!")
reality check-- so much can happen between now and november. If anyone hear thinks they can know with utter certainty which way the economy will go in that time they should write a book on investment strategies. Suppose the terrorists strike again? It might rally people around the president...it might not. Bush might be caught in a real scandle though by now the liberals have devalued that to the point that eveyone might yawn (I mean really..."Bush wanted Sadam out in the first place"??? Holy Heck! My God! The man actually was continuing the previous administration's policies? Who knew?
Now it might be fairly said that these particular Democrats might not be up to the task. A rundown:
Dean- obviously not much of a shelf life. Very good committed core of followers, the Moveon.org folks love him but they will turn off the electorate big time. Bush by a blow out.
Kerry- has sleepwalked through this and is only now showing signs of life. Hard to see him connecting with the common man but probably has more potential than he has shown so far. Personally I see him as the one most likely to beat Bush.
Edwards- An empty suit. I live in North carolina. he would have to campaign heavily here to win. The last time a president candidate lost his own home state...well, you know. Might get the VP nod in the hope of peeling off a few southern states (the big joke here in NC is how pronounced his drawl has become since he left us for Iowa).
Leiberman--The most ethical guy in the race. has a better chance of winning the republican candidacy than he does the democrat. Would lose to Bush handily.
Clark- A serious nutcase. people see Dean as the ruination of the Democrats but I'd be more fearful of this guy. Choosing him would be a hail mary pass. However...given the right set of circumstances (terrorist attack, troubles in Iraq) I can see him pulling off a win.
Gephart-- Decent guy, not a fake, would run a Dem version of Bob Dole's campaign, with about the same outcome.
Sharpton-- ha ha, it must suck to be a democrat and have to pretend this guy is a legit candidate. Remember how funy it was when the repucbl;icans had to do that with pat Robertson? Remember how hard you laughed? Karma, man, karma.
And The Rest--- are here on Gilligan's isle.
Yes, Bush is the man to bet on but given the closeness of the last election and the electoral realities of a closely divided country it would be foolish to discount the possible roads to a Democrat victory. Harkin as a VP could peel off Florida. A Kerry/Gephart ticket would walk out of the convention with 43% support, minimum. I can think of a dozen scenarios that could get them the needed points.
I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.
A self indulgent point of view when public opinion doesn't go your way. Actually, people seem to have a much better sense of how things are going than they did just a short while ago. Bush is benefiting from this, which is why I think another attack could hurt him.
The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country. An unenviable position.
I thought Ellen Goodman pretty neatly summed it up this morning in her column headlined "Fighting for Second," or something to that effect.
Basically, the Democrats are simply struggling to stay relevant.
My problem with the surrent crop (and I'm not thrilled with any of them, not even Dean), is that I haven't had a candidate make me feel good about being a Democrat, make me believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party, since Mario Cuomo addressed the convention in, what 1988?
The last time I voted for a Democrat I totally felt good about was when I voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 primary.
Otherwise, I feel like I'm voting for JV Republicans.
Still, I think the election will be fairly close -- much like last time's but I don't see -- at least at present -- any Democratic candidate doing better than Gore did.
So long as said Democratic candidate does as well as Gore did, he’ll win. (The popular vote anyway. I can’t comment on judicial appointments to the White House though. :)
I think we need someone who is truly on the left, not the middle, look where the middle to the right has gotten us...
It got Clinton elected twice...
It got Clinton elected twice...
What got Clinton elected (and this is not a commentary on his political merits) was his personality, his ability to connect with younger voters (boxers or briefs anyone) versus Bush Srs taciturness (is that a word?)
What got him re-elected was the economy. (As a side note, presidents as a whole do VERY little to affect the overall economy, they just tend to take credit and/or blame for it).
Having hit send too early...
The problem with the current 'crop' of dems (the term crop seems very appropriate) this year, is that for the most part, they have the personality of a plank. The few who don't (Sharpton, mebbe Dean) are considered 'fringe' and non-electable. I think part of the reason Dean has become as popular as he has is that he was able to start out as a 'What the hell' candidate. Since he had no reasonable prospects of election when first announced, he could say whatever he wanted without fear of angering special interests, etc. That freedom earned him the rep as being able to challenge 'the establishment'.
Quite frankly my other beef is that, even tho I loath Mr. Bush with a passion, not ONE of the democratic candidates excites me as a president either. I'm hoping this will change as the primaries progress and into the general election.
The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country.
You mean something besides the deficit, the unilateral Iraq war, the nonexistent WMDs, Osama bin Laden running around free, 2 million jobs lost, etc. etc. etc.? Pray tell, what good things have happend in the last four years, other than a bunch of billionares have gotten richer?
Sometimes I think the Dems could easily win the election if they simply re-used the slogan "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
From what I understand, it's always about numbers. Conventional wisdom states that only about 50% of the population votes. Of that half, it's estimated that approximately 38% ALWAYS votes Republican, 38% ALWAYS votes Democrat, and about 3% (this one's the most prone to fluctuation) ALWAYS votes third-party. Which means that the only ways to win are to either a) appeal to the 20% of voters (10% of the population) who'll swing from election to election or b) appeal to enough of the 50% non-voters.
The middle-of-the-road approach (as favored by Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and (maybe) Clark) follows strategy a. The polarizing talking points (as favored by Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Bush) follows strategy b.
So do any of the Dems have a shot at taking the White House? Absolutely! If nothing else, the early polls (such as Iowa and New Hampshire) will show whether Democratic voters prefer path a or b, and the ultimate nominee can adjust their course accordingly.
Oh yeah, lest I forget: The most recent CBS/New York Times poll doesn't show things as that terribly good for the President. Here's the money quote from a Washington Times story on the poll:
Democratic voters held a 2 point edge over those who would vote for President Bush if the U.S. election were held now, a CBS/New York Times poll said.
The poll published Saturday found that 45 percent of voters said they would vote for a still unspecified Democratic candidate and 43 percent would vote for President Bush.
So all is not lost...
You people crack me up. All this hand wringing, and arrogance. It's almost as funny as the Republicans and Religious Right and their "Clinton Hired Hitmen To Kill A DOZEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE!" home videos in the 90s.
You're the Democratic equivilent of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson followers. You sicken the rest of us(those of us who hold no alliegence to a party) in the same way they sicken us.
When will both sides learn that the people who actually make the decisions that matter in this country are not impressed by this kind of stuff? Dean wouldn't win not becuase he's too far to the left(because he isn't) but because his entire campaign is based around "That guy sucks! And he's EVIL! And He's gonna EAT YOUR CHILDREN!" type rhetoric.
The 'moderates' as you call them, are outside both parites(or on their fringes) because the idealogs are disgusting to them.
And the arrogance throughout this thread is almost sad. You people act as if everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot or a sheep or just plain evil.
Yeah, well, I don't agree with 90% of PAD's politics.
But I don't think he's an idiot. I think he's just far too passionate about things that truly do not matter. Why, I don't know, but that's how I see it.
Yes, please. let the Dems be Dems.
They've been complaining since 2k that their message hasn't gotten out. They're message of...
1. our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone.
2. everyone needs to pay over 50% of their payroll to the government
3. the government is all the solution to their problem.
People who complain about what has happened to this country since 2k simply don't have a clue.
How many attacks happened against the U.S. from '92 to 2k? Now, how many since 9-11?
What was the gdp growth the last time it was announce? how about productivity? When was the last time those #s were so high? What's the correlation?
The biggest problem with the eight embiciles(sp?) is that they haven't once expressed how they're going to do anything different except raise people's taxes, and allow the u.n to take over the rebuilding of iraq, which makes as much sense as voting for one of them. (Hello? how long is it taking the U.N. to create a new government in Bosnia? How long is it taking us? Not to mention they've whined and moaned about this being "unilateral" when we have around 60 countries helping us.)
I find it humorous that they keep talking about "rolling back" the Bush tax cuts, creating a correlation between them and the wal-mart phrase of rolling back prices. Unfortunately, those numbers go up and not down. (Which, it seems, there are a lot of _stupid_ people who seem to want that. They even cheer when it's suggested that the tax cuts get moved back to what they were paying before.) And then there's the age old, page 2 from the playbook complaint that only the rich get tax cuts. Guess what -- THEY SHOULD! If you make $100k and another guy makes $10k, then you're easliy paying 16% more in taxes. (http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html) Don't you think you should pay less in taxes so that you can keep the money you earn?
it's laughable that people think any one of these guys are electable.
You know, all these Republicans talking about how the Democratic candidates are unelectable have a number of precedents in people a) who said Clinton was unelectable and b) people who said Reagan was unelectable.
All those Republicans salivating at the prospect of a Dean nomination should remember the Democrats in 1980 hoping for a Reagan nomination. And comparing Bush to Jimmy Carter isn't really that much of a stretch.
Bush might be caught in a real scandle though by now the liberals have devalued that to the point that eveyone might yawn (I mean really..."Bush wanted Sadam out in the first place"??? Holy Heck! My God! The man actually was continuing the previous administration's policies? Who knew?
You must be joking to say that Bush was sincerely attempting to follow Clinton’s footsteps. Ever since he took office, Bush has almost reflexively done away or ignored anything with Clinton’s name on it. Now he’s claiming that he was just following Clinton’s lead?
None of Clinton’s policies advocating “regime change” ever included armed invasion of Iraq. The fact that invasion of Iraq was first choice rather that last resort and it was planned from virtually Day One is what makes the current administration that much more scandalous.
And for the record (IMHO), it wasn’t liberals who devalued the concept of government scandal, it was partisans that blew-up every inconsequential muck-up (most of which turned out to be untrue – consider Haircut-Gate and Travel-Gate) to 48-point type headlines. After story followed story of yet another supposed and utterly trivial “scandal,” I’d imagine that the American populace would become somewhat inured of anything labeled a scandal.
Now it might be fairly said that these particular Democrats might not be up to the task. A rundown:
Living in Florida, I really can’t get too excited about who and who might make take Iowa. By the time they reach here, at least half of them will drop out. A few comments.
Dean- obviously not much of a shelf life. Very good committed core of followers, the Moveon.org folks love him but they will turn off the electorate big time. Bush by a blow out.
Although Dean has been accused of being “angry” and that’s his selling point, it is by no means a losing strategy. Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage by milking outrage. It’s after (assuming) he gets the nomination that we’ll determine whether or not the electorate will be alienated by him.
And I don’t believe Bush can blow out anyone. There’s enough discontent to make any race a serious one.
Kerry- has sleepwalked through this and is only now showing signs of life. Hard to see him connecting with the common man but probably has more potential than he has shown so far. Personally I see him as the one most likely to beat Bush.
Kerry hasn’t shown much until now. It’ll be interesting to see how much more life he’ll show in New Hampshire.
Edwards- An empty suit. I live in North carolina. he would have to campaign heavily here to win. The last time a president candidate lost his own home state...well, you know. Might get the VP nod in the hope of peeling off a few southern states (the big joke here in NC is how pronounced his drawl has become since he left us for Iowa).
Edwards seem like a nice guy, but unless he can get himself out there, he’ll drop out after NH.
Leiberman--The most ethical guy in the race. has a better chance of winning the republican candidacy than he does the democrat. Would lose to Bush handily.
Really nice guy, but as been mentioned, he’s considered Bush Lite. What’d be the point of electing him if the real thing’s on the table? Unless he somehow is able to distance himself from Bush further, he really hasn’t a hope.
Clark- A serious nutcase. people see Dean as the ruination of the Democrats but I'd be more fearful of this guy. Choosing him would be a hail mary pass. However...given the right set of circumstances (terrorist attack, troubles in Iraq) I can see him pulling off a win.
Clark? A nutcase? Unless you’re confusing him with [President] Clark from BABYLON 5, I really can’t see how you can seriously think of him as a nutcase. His articulate, intelligent manner would be a refreshing change from our current leader. He’s a Rhodes Scholar, 4-star general, and former commander of NATO (who’s work in Sarajevo is touted by the administration as what they’d like to see in Iraq). Quite frankly, he’s Bush’s biggest threat. I suspect that the reason that we haven’t seen any preemptive attacks on him from the right is because the RNC have no idea how to counter him.
And I don’t know which people you’re thinking of, but I doubt that many of the citizens-at-large see Dean as “the ruination of the Democrats”. He’s energized the party like no one’s done in an age, he’s gotten youth involved in politics, and he espouses core Democratic values that, until recently, no one on the Left have had the backbone to voice. (IMHO, the reason that Republicans have done so well recently is because Democrats have just been nodding along with Bush’s policies. If you’re gonna choose between two folks who agree with the Right’s agenda, why would anyone choose anyone but a Republican?)
Gephart-- Decent guy, not a fake, would run a Dem version of Bob Dole's campaign, with about the same outcome.
Gep’s cool. He’ll probably be among the last to drop out. Perhaps he’ll take a VP nomination.
Sharpton-- ha ha, it must suck to be a democrat and have to pretend this guy is a legit candidate. Remember how funy it was when the repucbl;icans had to do that with pat Robertson? Remember how hard you laughed? Karma, man, karma.
The only problem is that Robertson has a very long arm in terms of influence with the current administration. He’s probably better off effecting policy behind the scenes than if he were president.
Yes, Bush is the man to bet on but given the closeness of the last election and the electoral realities of a closely divided country it would be foolish to discount the possible roads to a Democrat victory. Harkin as a VP could peel off Florida. A Kerry/Gephart ticket would walk out of the convention with 43% support, minimum. I can think of a dozen scenarios that could get them the needed points.
The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side). Furthermore, if he decided to take off the kids’ gloves, Clark could probably shred Bush in debate. Dean would be able to draw in his enthusiastic supporters and their fantastically efficient recruiting. And as VP, any Dean-bashing would fail (if Bush tried to make this election about presidential candidate vs. vice-presidential candidate, he would look weak and desperate).
I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.
A self-indulgent point of view when public opinion doesn't go your way. Actually, people seem to have a much better sense of how things are going than they did just a short while ago. Bush is benefiting from this, which is why I think another attack could hurt him.
I’d argue that public opinion not going PAD’s way is wrong. Many polls suggest that, although people like Bush, very few of them would want him to have a second term. (Like the man, don’t like the man’s performance. Arguably, the opposite of Clinton.)
The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country. An unenviable position.
The only slam-dunk, utter blow-out reelection Bush could have is precisely if something unthinkable happens to the country (major terrorist attack). That, more than anything, would convince undecideds not to “switch a horse mid-stream.” Bush was cruising to a single term before 9/11 (he was very unpopular if you remember the polls of the time). That day helped his administration more than any amount of money or policy.
If the economy continues to tank or the excrement smothers the fan in Iraq, then yes, Bush is very potentially screwed.
Balder: our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone
Okay, I'll take the bait on this...
Please, please, please look at the pay rates of Servicemen/women during the Clinton years vs. now. Please look into who wants to cut benefits for Veterans. Please tell me that the military didn't need paring down? It doesn't need to be weak, and it will never be weak again after 9/11, but that's just a blanket statement that's about as ruthless as saying "Every Republican Politician is in the pocket of big business."...
nevermind. Bad analogy.
Getting along with everyone takes someone who wants to get along with everyone, instead of being a bully.
Anyway.
On a different note. PAD called me Dude. heh.
Travis
I don't think the Democrats can attack Bush on foreign policy. The economy is a question mark. His spending policy is his Achilles' heel.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm
The Fiscal Conservatives are starting to revolt. To my mind, that is what gives the Dems their best chance - by hoping that the die-hard shrink-the-government types (like me) stay home on election day. We won't elect a Democrat, and Bush sure hasn't figured out how to control spending either. If Bush continues to roll out more spending and bigger deficits, the Democrats may win by default.
Not that they would necessarily do better, but at least the Democrats would be energized.
On the Democrats, we hear...
They've been complaining since 2k that their message hasn't gotten out. They're message of...
1. our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone.
Your interpretation. Certainly not mine. I think there's a rather large difference between "we should be able to defend ourselves" and "we should be invading countries we don't like and can feel free to delude the public about our reasons."
2. everyone needs to pay over 50% of their payroll to the government
Certainly not my interpretation, nor that of any Democrat I happen to know. How's that house of straw coming along?
[It is worth pointing out, however, that we're probably the least-taxed of all industrialized nations, and that our health care system is appropriately in tatters. I would happily pay higher taxes in exchange for a good single-payer system -- in a heartbeat.]
3. the government is all the solution to their problem.
(a) No. It's part of a solution, but certainly not all of one.
(b) Gee ... it certainly seems to have solved all of Halliburton's problems.
People who complain about what has happened to this country since 2k simply don't have a clue.
Don't we?
Here's what I see.
1) We have gone from having the respect of most countries to having most countries regard us with some mixture of fear and contempt. If you're into "Yeah! Go America, screw everyone else!" you may consider this a good thing. I don't.
2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.
3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.
So please -- explain to me why I should be sleeping soundly at night. I'm honestly curious.
For what it's worth, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or evil. I think true conservatives have usually thought out their positions pretty seriously, and I respect that while I disagree with them.
[David Brin once noted that Republicans fear the aggregation of too much power in the hands of the government, while Democrats fear the same thing happening with corporations. Both fears have merit.]
The crowd currently in office does not in my view represent true conservatism. True conservatives aren't generally interested in taking over the world. The PNAC crowd is interested in seeing its worldview writ large, and in holding on to personal power for as long as possible by whatever means.
These bastards are ones I will oppose to my last breath ... and ideally to theirs.
TWL
Very well said, TWL. Much better than my response.
I am a politcs aficionado, and I usually write better than I did earlier. Now I do have a question for you, that you might be at least inclined to answer.
There's a saying that goes "Tax and Spend Democrats."
What really is so bad about that? I mean, shouldn't we tax to get money to spend? Isn't that fiscally responsible? Isn't that better than spending money that we don't have?
Really... I am wondering about this. It just doesn't make sense.
Travis
Travis writes:
======
There's a saying that goes "Tax and Spend Democrats."
What really is so bad about that? I mean, shouldn't we tax to get money to spend? Isn't that fiscally responsible? Isn't that better than spending money that we don't have?
======
Of course it is.
The phrase is presumably so derisive because it means "oh, they want to give all your money to the government and let them do things with it" as opposed to letting us keep our money.
Unfortunately, there's this whole "no free lunch" concept which people seem to have lost sight of -- huge numbers in both parties, really.
"Borrow and spend" doesn't have the same cadence to it that "tax and spend" does -- hence, it's not as good a sound bite. Alas.
TWL
Tim said:
1) We have gone from having the respect of most countries to having most countries regard us with some mixture of fear and contempt. If you're into "Yeah! Go America, screw everyone else!" you may consider this a good thing. I don't.>>
When did we have the respect of most countries? The mixture of fear and contempt you describe is pretty much the norm (either deserved or not -- that's what you get for being a Super Power, like it or not). There was a brief period of affection post 9/11 but unlike many people I never thought that was going to last. Did Pres. Bush squander that goodwill? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it ultimately had a limited shelf life.
2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.>>
This has nothing to do with the President. I would focus on the smaller races (Congressionally speaking) if that concerns you. Also, the President's tax cuts were mostly boneheaded ("Yay! I got $300 back but I lost my health insurance!" and so on) but that doesn't affect who does or doesn't get jobs. I don't think the next person in office can wave a magic wand and fix it. It's sort of like driving in inclement weather. The driver can't make the weather go away, but it's obviously better to have a professional driver rather than some guy drunk off his ass behind the wheel.
I lived in NYC during 9/11. What I noticed was that more people were afraid of being killed than of not being able to pay rent (though more people lost jobs in the wake of the attacks than lost their lives).
So, I don't think the economy will be as big an issue as national security (the President would be foolish *not* to focus on the latter). This will make it difficult for the competition to challenge him. The best method would be to point out the failures in Homeland Security and that dismantling Al-Qaeda is more important than the war in Iraq (though I supported Iraq on the "stop dicking around with the bad guys" principle -- I just wish the administration had been as upfront about it). What the Democrats can't do is make bin Laden an issue -- they don't want a Saddam Hussein situation happening. Just focus on how they could do a better job with national security. I think Clark and Kerry would have a better shot articulating that overall.
3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.>>
This just seems a tedious complaint to me. I don't like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn't like it) but it's not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say. I can deal with a little name calling.
That sort of thing happens on both sides of the aisle. How many people were called "bigot" or "racist" for opposing Affirmative Action or for not supporting gay marriage. I think it's intellectually lazy to call people nasty names because they disagree with you, be it "unpatriotic" or "racist." Sharpton, for example, does a lot of the latter. Both needs to stop and quickly.
SER asks:
When did we have the respect of most countries? The mixture of fear and contempt you describe is pretty much the norm (either deserved or not -- that's what you get for being a Super Power, like it or not).
I don't recall that, pre-2002, countries nominally considered our allies had leaders run for reelection specifically on the grounds that they would block our policies or try to.
I think our blocking of the Kyoto Accords and Bush's statement that "the jury is still out on evolution" did a lot to affect international sentiment, as well. We're pretty much the only major industrialized nation that still flirts with creationism and has people in charge who expect the Rapture to come any second.
Me:
2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.
SER:
This has nothing to do with the President.
Not directly, no -- agreed. It's sure as hell a record leaders tend to run on or against, though. (Please don't tell me that Bush wouldn't take credit if the employment numbers improved: neither one of us is that stupid.) And Presidents do have an effect on overall economic policy, which can affect the job market.
So far as his policies have made it clear, Bush does not seem to care a whole lot about the unemployment rate except as it affects his political status. I dislike that.
Also, the President's tax cuts were mostly boneheaded ("Yay! I got $300 back but I lost my health insurance!" and so on) but that doesn't affect who does or doesn't get jobs.
Agreed on the jobs situation. We're leaving out the whole issue of structural deficits and the absolute Everest of debt we're passing along to the next generation, but that's a conversation for another time.
I don't think the next person in office can wave a magic wand and fix it.
Nor have I suggested such -- but the next person in office can go a long way towards not making it worse.
I lived in NYC during 9/11. What I noticed was that more people were afraid of being killed than of not being able to pay rent (though more people lost jobs in the wake of the attacks than lost their lives).
Most of my immediate family lived in and around NYC during 9/11, too. Not one of them supports Bush's policies, be they economic or otherwise.
Me:
3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.
SER:
This just seems a tedious complaint to me.
Sorry to bore you. You haven't been termed an "enemy combatant" and tossed into jail w/o benefit of counsel, it seems. (Neither have I, of course -- but it's the same principle at work.)
I don't like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn't like it) but it's not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say.
Yet. And I mean that quite sincerely.
I can deal with a little name calling.
From average people, yes. Online, sure. From folks in the street, sure. From fellow citizens, no problem.
From the people directly in charge of my government, who have the ability to screw with my life and my freedom? No, I don't agree.
I've been told that I'm not a citizen (in one of the first Pres. Bush's announcements). I've been told that I need to "watch what I say" lest I impede the war effort. I've been told that what I really want to do is destroy the country.
And these are the alleged "good guys" saying this.
Sorry -- to me, that's more than "a little name-calling."
I think it's intellectually lazy to call people nasty names because they disagree with you, be it "unpatriotic" or "racist."
No argument, and I agree that both sides are fairly guilty of it. The asymmetry to me is that it's actively threatening when the people in power are the ones doing it. From Sharpton et al., it's unpleasant and reprehensible -- from Ashcroft, it's dangerous.
TWL
Something neat.
You might remember that Clark got a drubbing in the press a little while ago over his choice of sweater. (A ridiculous issue, but typical.)
Clark has donated said sweater to Liberty House, a transitional shelter that is opening for homeless veterans in Manchester, New Hampshire. It's on eBay and, with five days to go, it's nearly up to $13,000.
Check it out.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3655267737&category=39721
I have to wonder if the folks touting Wesley Clark have actually listened to him out on the stump. Seriously unimpressive. When he speaks off the cuff he's sound bite central for any future negative ads.
And the impression I've gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don't know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women. But we shall see...he might make an interesting choice for VP. I personally don't like it when folks enter politics as President, I always feel they should start a bit smaller and get chance to demonstrate that their preturnatural brilliance can be transferred to the political arena.
OK, let me just point out first that as a British citizen I just get to suffer your lot's choice of 'Leader of the Free World' with no say in the matter. It almost makes me wish I could dress up as an Indian and go throw some American tea in a harbour.
Alas, my gut feeling is that PAD is right. I'd love to see Bush loose again and this time see the result stick. I don't think it's going to happen.
I suppose there are things that might happen and make people change their minds. Maybe.
1: At some point someone's going to convince people the honesty is a good thing. You only have to look at the back Iraq coverage to see how much Bush and Blair lied about what they were going to do, and why they were doing it. At least I think they lied. Perhaps their judgement is so shot that they honestly thought they were telling the truth. But no-one really seems to care. Bush lied in the State of the Union FFS, and got our squddies and your GI's killed. Surely that's got to be at least on a par with shagging an intern? But no-one really seems to care.
2: At some point the galloping inflation is going to come home to roost. I don't really understand why the dollars value has held up as well as it has (which is pretty badly) and as soon as the oil and consumer electronics prices start to shoot up then things will get messy. A trip to Mars isn't going to help the deficit either.
3: Some more apparent couruption that no-one really seems to care about - Enron & Halliburton.
But so far none of these things have really laid a glove. Perhaps they'll manage it in the next nine months and then we get a new Leader of the Free World. But I don't beleive it's going to happen
Where's the outrage?
Sorry, but I'm not shellshocked at all nor do I have any reason to be outraged (well, except at the pettiness and lowdown dirty tactics of the Left). Re-elect Bush in 2004!
Firstly I am no Bush blind supporter, but I certainly get confused about him being the equivalent of Satan to some folks.
Bush quite simply is a rich kid whos grown up with privilege and a sense of entitlement his whole life. He is not interested in HOW Government works and is not the micromanager that Clinton was. Instead he has some basic Republican Party Go-To guys that feed him info and he decides. Problem is - he's probably not the guy that will fight tooth and nail for your average american when it comes to jobs etc.
The closest is his tac break - which to me is just a sad version of trickle down economics. The average american got $400. That doesn't do a whole lot. The theory when millionaires get tens of thousands back is that they PAY more so they get more. ANd then they will take it and create jobs and dump it into the economy.
Yeah? Well it's not helping the average Joe. They might just buy a preoprty and rent it out - while the previous owner then buys a house or a vacation home and so the line continues.
You want to help middle man Joe America - don't trickle down the money - give it to him. Do a tax cut that gives the middle guys MORE of a break. Maybe don't cut taxes for the highest percent.
Frankly, I don't know the answer - but I know when it's none of the above too.
SO I am NOT a Bush soldier - BUT I do think the guy is honest and he's the right kind of war time President.
But I don't get how people just HATE him b/c he's what? A Republican? The War on Iraq was his giant devious plan? Well most of the guys running on the Dem side SUPPORTED the war EXCEPT Dean.
I'd have a hard time choosing between a Bush/Lieberman race - but the rest of AMerican wouldn't and Bush would win. But I still don't see the giant conspiracy here.
Bush NEVER made it into a complete 9/11 connection. THey tried SOME 9/11 connection - but the war was based more on the following:
Saddamm is not abiding by the UN sanctions.
He refuses to let inspectors in.
When pushed on WMD's he does NOT cooperate.
That is all you need. It doesn't really matter if they ever found them -except to the question of 'if he had them and he doesn't now - WHERE ARE THEY and ARE WE WORSE OFF?'
But you can't have it both ways. You can't condemn him b/c he didn't find any and they were never there and then also claim that 'Oh look - NOW who's got them and we need to worry.'
Bush laid it out very clearly that this was a new world that we live in and we would do anything that we had to in order to protect ourselves. Granted I can't reconcile this policy with his immigration stance, but nevertheless - you have a known Human Rights violating Dictator that violates UN rules and sanctions and then DOES NOT COOPERATE when inspectors need to check certain places for WMD'S.
That's enough to get you into a war - whether you did something or not.
If I walk into a Department store and look nervous and then BOLT out and an office rtells me to stop and I don't. Guess what?
I'm going to be chased and apprehended whether I did something or not b/c I ACTED like I did.
Well, in this new world we did the same thing. We were pushed into ACTION. Unfortunately you can't just CATCH him - you have to GO IN and TAKE HIM OUT.
It was silly behavior if the guy didn't have anything.
I fault Bush for trying to appease the world so much that the war was basically announced months before we took action thus giving Saddaam all the time he needs to get the WMD's or other weapons OUT of IRAQ and into I don't know . . .Syria?
So I'm not SUPER PRO-BUSH - but I also think it's silly to nail him on Iraq as if he just wanted to finish Daddy's war.
Saddaam acted idiotic at a time where the US and other freedom loving countries will not tolerate the risks of terrorism. The bottom line is the world is a safer place without Saddaam and there's no repurcussion with the Arab world of note.
WHo hates us more n ow? Islamic fundamentalists? They weren't singing Yippity Doo Dah before Iraq either and as long as the situation in Israel continues we will always be a target anyway.
So yes, There were items like the intelliggence report with enriched uranium in Africa and the Al Queda connections that proved less than perfect - but that doesn't change the fact that we did the right thing.
Saddaam ACTED guilty so we HAD to take action to prevent any further possible attacks.
It IS fact that he's trained terrorists there - given shelter to terrorist - and now he's defying UN orders concerning WMD's. Sorry - if you're told to freeze and take it upon yorself to start tap dancing - you will be shot at.
And all those intelligence failures - well maybe someone would want to ask Clinton and Senator Toricelli about it. B/c the Toricelli principal which Clinton helped pass made it illegal for the CIA to use as informants anyone who has been guilty or suspected of human rights violations OR of any crime UNLESS specifically authorized.
So business as usual for the CIA was stopped and of course we now had to rely on law abiding citizens to tip us off about terrorist plots.
Can't talk to an ACTUAL terrorist greedy for money - nope. Talk to a nun or the head of the PTA.
SO this Iraq situation is much deeper than Bush is a war monger right wing conservative.
Yes - he's got his faults - but tell me why some of the Democrats running are better - especially Dean who got panic attacks when he won governor - what will he do running a country?
-
Sasha said:
The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side)
Oh my...Clark is infinitely assailable on these fronts.
Patriotism: just last week Clark was saying Bush was unpatriotic. Need anyone be reminded the slams Repubs got when anyone dared suggest someone was unpatriotic? Now we've got Clark doing what Dems constantly said they were too good for.
War on Terror: He's flip-flopped so many times on this issue, had the quotes shown to him, and still insists he's been consistent. Before the war started, he said there were WMDs and we had to get in there. After the war he praised Bush and Blair for standing strong. Now he's backed off it all.
Character: Just off the top of my head, remember all the flak regarding him being contacted by a Washington think-tank...a Canadian think-tank...make that an Isreal think-tank...whatever it was, and all the "confusion" on what happened. And the whole "Dean called me up" "No I didn't" thing. His own words damn him repeatedly. "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my phone calls." Then "He never REALLY called me."
Armed Forces Love Him: Oh Dear God no. Remember, he was REMOVED from his positions, blamed for fiascos, and trust me, hated by the average soldier.
You're right...Clark/Dean is a dream ticket. Bush will have a FIELD day. You think Bush says weird things...Clark and Dean have flubbed in public enough times to make me happy to see Bush debate them.
Dennis:
Sorry, but I'm not shellshocked at all nor do I have any reason to be outraged (well, except at the pettiness and lowdown dirty tactics of the Left).
So you're fine with ...
-- Lying to the public about the reasons for getting us into a war
-- Letting Iraqi citizens get killed and museums looted while we head right on to protecting the oil ministries
-- Insisting that global warming isn't happening, or that it "needs more study"
-- Giving preference to those prison reform groups that mandate Christianity
-- Creating alleged "free speech" zones for protest which actually insulate the president from having to see disagreement.
Just checking. Have I read you wrong, or are all of those things just fine and dandy in your book?
TWL
Udog says a great deal, only one or two points of which I'm going to comment on:
Bush NEVER made it into a complete 9/11 connection.
Never explicitly, no -- but the implied linkage was very strong on many, many occasions. How else do you explain that something like 60% of this country now believes Saddam was personally involved with 9/11?
THey tried SOME 9/11 connection - but the war was based more on the following:
Saddamm is not abiding by the UN sanctions.
He refuses to let inspectors in.
Except, of course, that the latter is a complete and utter lie -- and one your president repeated, I'll note.
Saddam let inspectors in. WE told them to leave because we were about to move in.
For Bush to claim otherwise is frankly mystifying.
TWL
TWL - this is really the issue - did he LIE to the public to get into war?
I don't think so - and you have no proof he lied. Unless the Shadow appears and tells us the evil that lurks in the hearts of men I really don't believe he LIED - meaning he KNEW OTHERWISE and just MADE IT UP or had someone beneath him MAKE IT UP.
I think it is simple: There was an agenda to oust Sadaam after 9/11 - no doubt and I DO NOT have a problem with that, per se - once Sadaam acted like an ASS with the WMD's he gave us a red carpet to his palace.
I see no problem with that either.
TWL you claim that Sadaam WAS letting us in to all of the places on the UN list and we simply WITHDREW the inspectors to go to war.
Seriously, review some of the history - that is NOT how it happened. Sadaam REFUSED to let us in to certain places and others gave unnecssary delay which rendered the visits useless.
In fact - NO ONE - not even the -we would be speaking German if not the US- France claims this. No claimed they DID COOPERATE. They just wanted to wait more and more which we refused to do.
One of the sticking points were his own palaces which had been known before to house weapons - yet he claimed he would not sully his palaces with our visits or something to that effect.
But alas - so many just go back to War Monger. No one is all over Clinton when he summarily went into Bosnia or lobbed some harmless missles at an Aspirin factory in Iraq - but when Bush goes to war when sufficient reason arose APART from 9/11 - he's a war monger.
You point out that 60% of the American public believe the 9/11 connection so that somehow is Bush's fault?
That's irrelevant. The American public by and large has the attention span of a hyperactive Gnat on their best day. It's fifteen minutes of fame and next news story - you should know that.
But while Joe AMerican may not follow the exact reasons for everything - they do have an inner guidance that's not all that dim witted - for instance - they know Sadaam has DONE bad things - they also know that Sadaam was not cooperating with UN inspections with weapons - they also know that we lost over 3,000 lives to terrorist - so in the end Sadaam's removal can only be a better place and not worse.
To them they are not caring about whether or not Sadaam was responsible or part of 9/11. It really doesn't matter and was never the SOLE reason for the war.
You point out the Museum looters and blame the US b/c they wer protecting the oil fields. Um, . . .I don't see the issue. I don't advocate burning books and artifacts but it is Iraqo OIL that will lift these people into this century economically NOT fancy art - so when the thought was that a spiteful Sadaam or his Baath party supporters would destroy the oil fields when all hope was lost - the US reacted appropriately.
I mean what is the point here? Was there an Executive Oreder that said we don't care about the museum's?
If you'll remember there was also an issue with how to POLICE the citizens. WE were reluctant to do anything against them since we weren't at war with them. How can you blame the US for the actions of irresponsible Iraqi's?
And Global warming needing more study? So do we know EVERYTHING about global warming? I've been in below freezing weather the last few weeks so I don't think there is an immenent danger that we ought to tie the hands of industrty SO tightly. A middle ground while we search further is reasonable and if it is not in line with your views - it does not show that Bush is some evil, low brow war monger.
And about Free speech - yeah, well I guess creating these zones is not a great idea - but guys like Clinton - they did it differently.
Anyone who had a disagreement foudn themselves audited. This includes former women who came forward about alleged sexual assaults as well as talk show hosts like Bill O Reilly.
There's a lot of dirt on both sides of the political fence.
Again - I think Lieberman is the most stand up guy amongst them and who can be in touch with more Americans - but I don't know if I'd agree with all of his fiscal policies - but Bush is not the evil gremlin his detractors make him out to be.
The many points against Bush seem to forget things guys like Clinton has done.
One thing everyone is missing is how meaningless the Iowa Caucus is. The last time the winner of the Iowa Caucus went on to actually become president was 1976 (not counting years when the incumbent was unopposed for his party's nomination). Most of the time, the winner even fails to get his party's nomination.
This is just an excuse for Iowa to get more attention than its population warrants.
<< TWL - this is really the issue - did he LIE to the public to get into war?
I don't think so - and you have no proof he lied. >>
Absolute hard proof?
No, I don't -- and so long as all the various investigations into intelligence doctoring (and Tom Kean's 9/11 investigation, for that matter) are held up by administration stonewalling, all we have are well-founded suspicions.
But consider that Paul Wolfowitz has flat-out said that (a) the WMD issue was "the one we could all agree on" to use to whip up the country, and (b) invading Iraq was in fact a violation of international law. Okay, that's not a flat-out admission of guilt ... but that's due to the fact that these guys feel no shame, not because wrong wasn't done. It's certainly bordering on an impeachable act -- far more so than lying under oath about a blowjob.
The rest of your points may get responded to later -- right now I've got some work to do. Suffice it to say for the moment that your attitude towards many of my points seems to be "so what?" -- in which case you clearly have the president you deserve.
"What's the difference?" -- Bush, when asked about his claim that Saddam absolutely has WMD's ready to aim at us as opposed to the inklings of the consideration of restarting WMD programs.
"I think the families who have dead or wounded children might see a difference." -- Diane Sawyer's response in my dream universe
TWL
Tim said:
So you're fine with ...
-- Lying to the public about the reasons for getting us into a war
There was no lying to the public. I might...MIGHT be able to grant they made some statements and let the public interpret them incorrectly, but remember, even Clinton and Clark said that all the intelligence they had said Iraq had WMDs. And as that was never the sole primary reason, it's a non-starter.
-- Letting Iraqi citizens get killed and museums looted while we head right on to protecting the oil ministries
Seems to me the war STOPPED the killing of Iraqi citizens. Regardless, your use of the word "letting" is obscene. Bush never LET anyone get killed. Furthermore, lest we forget, the entire museum-theft thing never truly happened. The New York Times revised its estimate of thousands of artifacts stolen to less than 50. And some of THOSE were taken for safekeeping by curators and have been returned. I remember hearing the number "34" thrown around, but I can't remember since it's been six months or so since anyone even THOUGHT about this story, since it was more or less a hoax to begin with. But even beyond THAT, what the heck is wrong with protecting the oil fields? My God, can you imagine the flak Bush would have gotten if the wells were destroyed? The environmental groups would go ballistic, the world economy would have suffered, and it would take DECADES for Iraq to recover.
-- Insisting that global warming isn't happening, or that it "needs more study"
Not like THIS is a new issue. Some scientists have been saying global warming is a myth for a long, long time. And since you are so passionate about incontrovertible evidence, I expect you agree 100% that it should be studied more. Find those Weapons of Mass Global Warming!
-- Giving preference to those prison reform groups that mandate Christianity
-- Creating alleged "free speech" zones for protest which actually insulate the president from having to see disagreement.
I confess ignorance on these two issues, but I'm sure your non-biased take on and understanding of the issues is enlightening.
You know, I think we've all learned something during the last few years...Democrats have learned how easy it is to get caught up in the craziness of thinking a political opponent is the epitome of evil and Rpublicans have learned just how unappealing that looks.
It amazes me that Democrats have repeated so many of the excesses of the right wingers in their quest to send Bush home. The sheer ugliness of the spectacle has turned off a lot of folks who might otherwise have been sympathetic. It has, admitedly, stirred the blood of the radical left but they are not sufficiant for victory.
If the Moveon.org gang don't learn to tone it down they will be an albatross around the neck of whoever the eventual candidate is.
BTW, howcum nobody is predicting teh winner of the caucas? No guts, no glory...I'm going out on a limb and predicting a surprise come from behind victory for Gephart. Not that he will be the nominee or anything.
And by gephart I actually meant Kerry, with Edwards close behind. yeah, THAT'S the ticket..
Wow, did Dean fold up like a cheap tent or what?
Randal writes...
There was no lying to the public [about the reasons for war -- TWL]
Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.
Now, if you mean the 9/11 links ... it's all been tricks with mirrors and lies of omission. I agree in that I don't know of any demonstrably false statements, but lying by implication is still up there on the list of Things I'd Like My Leaders To Not Do.
And as that was never the sole primary reason, it's a non-starter.
Wrong. It was THE primary reason given to the public for months. After we didn't find weapons, it turned into "well, we liberated the Iraqi people." Then it turned into "now we can get troops out of harm's way in Saudi Arabia" (which, let's remember, was one of bin Laden's stated goals in the first place). Now it's just "Saddam was a bad bad man and it's good that we got rid of him."
Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.
Look -- the PNAC documents with the plan for toppling Saddam have been out there since '98. It's no secret that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. wanted Saddam gone gone gone, and it certainly looks like they were more than willing to bend intelligence to make that happen.
Call that justified if you like, and I'll respectfully disagree. But don't insult my intelligence by claiming no lies have been told.
Seems to me the war STOPPED the killing of Iraqi citizens.
The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.
Regardless, your use of the word "letting" is obscene. Bush never LET anyone get killed.
The families of those killed after Bush dared insurgents to "bring 'em on" might humbly beg to differ on that.
I vaguely recall the musem-theft numbers being downgraded somewhat -- not to the extent you claim here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to bad memory on my part. My apologies -- it was one of the first examples that popped out of my head, and shouldn't have been.
On global warming, however...
Not like THIS is a new issue. Some scientists have been saying global warming is a myth for a long, long time.
Yep. About as many as those who say evolution's bunk. (Have you heard of the "Steve List"?)
In both cases, the debate is over the specifics of the process (and in global warming's case, over exactly how big a temperature change is at issue here). Nobody with any credibility is denying the basic trends.
And since you are so passionate about incontrovertible evidence, I expect you agree 100% that it should be studied more.
Absolutely.
However, the difference is, despite the Bush administration's insistence on making it an either/or question, it's possible to do both: you can devote further study while taking action in the face of the evidence we have. If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.
The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."
I can provide a reference to that quote if you like, though it may be a day or two. That's the sort of mentality running the country.
On two other issues...
I confess ignorance on these two issues, but I'm sure your non-biased take on and understanding of the issues is enlightening.
Oh, I make no bones about being biased. The feelings I have about the last three years are deeply rooted and very passionate: they ain't going away easily and they ain't easily stifled.
I'd like to think, however, that I can admit error and correct my arguments in the face of an error. I'd also like to think my fifteen years of Usenet experience is evidence of that.
In other words: sure, I'm biased. That doesn't make me wrong. :-)
Seriously ... there's nothing about this administration's actions or attitude that bothers you? You think the country's been perfectly justified in all of its actions both domestic and foreign?
If so, I'm stuck scratching my head. I absolutely don't get it.
TWL
It amazes me that Democrats have repeated so many of the excesses of the right wingers in their quest to send Bush home. The sheer ugliness of the spectacle has turned off a lot of folks who might otherwise have been sympathetic.
Change that to "a lot of Democrats" and I'll wholeheartedly agree.
Personally, I oppose this administration because it's not been particularly competent. Their use of intelligence circumvented the vetting process that separates the reliable from the unreliable sources (which led to the WMD imbroglio), their unpreparedness for running Iraq once the war was over (the looting, their losing the Iraqui army [who would have been ideal in implementing policy], their inability to control terrorist infiltration (terrorists operate quite well in a chaotic situation' they're drawn to them. Invasions will create chaos. Duh), and so forth makes it quite clear that this administration has no business running the country.
And we're not even getting into the abuses of civil liberties and the economy....
Whoa! Nice to see that there's somewhere where Tim Lynch still lurks. Well, I guess this is a lot shorter than writing reviews.
Anyway, I'm going to avoid most of the political issue, since I can only rehash what Tim's been saying, but I wanted to let you all know about another global warming twist...
It seems NASA will be scaling back all programs not related to the new Moon-Then-Mars mission. Now, I'm not saying that manned missions in space again is a bad thing; anything but. I'm completely in favor. But when they scale back everything else, that includes all the global warming research:
"Setting up operations on the moon is affordable, as long as it is taken as a primary goal for the American space program and not larded onto all of the other things that NASA does," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), chairman of the House subcommittee on space and aeronautics. As an example, he cited NASA's efforts to assess global warming, saying: "Over the years, we have spent tens of billions of dollars of NASA money proving global warming is occurring, which I think is suspect and debatable."
Whee.
In retrospect, I should have known Dean was in trouble when Gore endorsed him. The man is the freaking Angel of Political Death. Even the very Gods are against him--he gives a speech on global warming and the temperature drops to the point where street urchins are making ice cream on the sidewalks.
I didn't even vote for the guy and I'm sort of wishing he would catch something like a break.
My own response to "Where's the outrage?"
The American public *should* be outraged. Livid! But it's not as if it's simply hearing these news bits and shrugging them off. No, it's the fault of the media here. When george pushed hard to derail *any* investigation into those attacks, the press found something *else* to report that day. The same holds true for Paul O'Neil, and the subsequent "whistle blowers" who have stepped out and backed him up -- instead, the media is all about Michael and Brittney, Brittney and Michael.
"Liberal Media" my arse.
Clinton got his knob polished, and that's impeachable. But when Dubya lies, people DIE, and that's okay, because violence is far more tasteful and acceptable than sex.
This is just an excuse for Iowa to get more attention than its population warrants.
Now there's a silly and baseless comment.
After the BS in California this past year, I don't think anybody can say that any single state's population gets more attention than it deserves.
I lived in Iowa during the 2000 election, and I recall how close the race was (as it was in a number of states).
The fact remains that the caucus allows people to get together and rally behind those they wish to see in office.
Of course, if Iowa means so little, you can pitch it from the Electoral College, along with 20 other "meaningless" states (New Hampshire immediately springs to mind).
Results from the Iowa caucus are apparently in.
Gephardt is already said to be dropping out of the race after his 4th-place finish (hmm, I didn't even know that he won the Iowa caucus in '88).
Again, it does say something about the process though.
I mean, here was Dean, going into this as the front runner, the only guy making headlines. And he finished third.
Amusing.
I told my liberal father-in-law this summer that Edwards scared me, as a conservative, more than any of the others. Why? He is Bill Clinton 2.0!
Oh, and I love that "No one can beat Bush" attitude! I hope a lot of Dems think that and stay home on election day.
Well, looks like we're at a four person race; Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark. With his Iowa standing, the smartest thing for Gephardt to do is bail now (assuming the candidates do recall the more important thing is to beat Bush). New Hampshire and the following big week (I believe 7 primaries) should knock out another one or two of the four.
My thinking on November? It really does get down, for a re-election, to the question "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (with a side order of "And do you think the incumbant's opponent will improve things or not?" As a ridiculous sample of the latter, if it were Bush-Sharpton, I'd be checking out my company's foreign offices despite my intention to vote against Bush).
So. My advice to the Democrats is to remember James Carville/Bill Clinton's campaign against Bush Sr.. Namely "It's the economy stupid". Pick 1-3 things to focus on, and just drive those puppies home. Said focus needs to be couched in how it affects individuals...and how you plan to fix them (a big weakness of candidates like Bob Dole, and to a degree Al Gore, was the feeling that they felt they were the candidate because, well, it was their turn. The voters need to think *they* *want* you to be President, not that you want to be President.)
The other bit is to remember the general polarization of the electorate i.e. the red states vs. blue states. Your commercials and campaign statements have to get people on the fence, or only somewhat committed to Bush, to *think*. Ask questions, to which the answers are shocking (jobs lost, last time we had civil liberty attacks ala Ashcroft, etc.) so that people have to consider things rather than just blowing them off as propaganda.
For example, while the winning MoveOn ad isn't too bad, most of the finalists were terrible in that they preached to the choir. You've got the core anti-Bush vote already, with people motivated to go to the polls. You've got to work on the ones who aren't yet or as convinced what a horrible job this administration has done.
Assorted comments:
1) PAD, I thought the "where's the outrage" catchphrase was trademarked by Dole? It didn't work when Clinton was committing perjury in office, I don't know why it would work now.
2) The last time a Senator won the Presidency was 1960. Someone asked, possibly rhetorically, but there ya go.
3) I'm all in favor of a true leftist Democratic renaissance, because it would mean Republican victories for 20 years.
Y'know, come to think of it, there's a very strong possible campaign aspect that the Dems could use.
Namely, is Bush a Republican a Republican can be proud of? Treatment of people actually in the armed services? Stomping on basic civil liberties? Blowing up the deficeit (sp?)? There are already some cracks in Bush's armor from the right, where it's starting to be recognized that this admin isn't driven by traditional conservative views but by who's buying them off and the odd neocon/religious fanatics (Wolfowitz (sp?) and Ashcroft).
It seems NASA will be scaling back all programs not related to the new Moon-Then-Mars mission.
And the three states which are the centers for robotic and manned research are California (with a ton of electoral votes), Texas, and Florida.
Probably a coincidence.
PAD
Oh, and I love that "No one can beat Bush" attitude! I hope a lot of Dems think that and stay home on election day.
I never said "No one can beat Bush." I said I don't think anyone at the Iowa Caucus can. I'm not sure why, but I have this gut feeling that Clark might be able to. Although even that would be problematic.
Notice that the Clintons have carefully made sure not to ally themselves with anyone. I think it may be because they're politically savvy enough not to want to be tied to a loser...which would translate into their thinking none of these guys is a winner. That they've basically written off 2004 and are looking ahead to 2008.
PAD
And the three states which are the centers for robotic and manned research are California (with a ton of electoral votes), Texas, and Florida.
Don't remind me. This is what I don't like about President Bush--he says the words I've wanted a president to say for as long as I can remember, rekindles the dream that I thought dead for longer than I've been alive, and it's still a political power play. Everything's politics with him--no dream, no hope, no morality, no humanity, just expediency as far as the eye can see.
My President, whom I voted for and will vote for, has a shot at losing the Presidency.
That said, whomever wins the Democratic primaries has a narrow shot at getting the Presidency. In order for one to win, the President has to make a mistake.
No matter how good any one of them is, the President in his current state isn't presenting a poor enough position to be beaten so handily.
One problem is that most of the Democrats have large, glaring weaknesses.
Dean would be the most apropriate nominee and so far is the one most likely to get nominated thus far. Dean is as far to the left and even farther to the left as Bush is to the right. It is important that in a sense that the Democrat and Republican be far enough to apart to signify the differences between the parties. I shudder if Dean wins. His rhetoric is dangerous. He's like Governor GW Bush in 2000 only more pro-active... that makes the wierd things he says more aggressive and provocative.
Unless the President screwed royally former Governor Howard Dean would have no chance of winning. He has as much foreign policy experience as pre-President GW Bush. I doubt Texas Governor Bush could win a Presidential bid against incumbent Bill Clinton if HE could have ran for a third term. I doubt former Vermont Governor Dean can take the current incumbent.
Lieberman is the most centrist of the Democrats in the current bunch. That's why he won't get nominated in a Democratic Party that is slowly shifting left. I think in an election he'd have the best chance against the President, being the most proper and the least negative. That's also a dangerous position, because right or wrong win or lose the closer the Democratic candidate is in ideological position to his opponent the closer actual party-lines get blurred. Strong competition is important for the integrity of both parties.
Clark is a waffler. He can't make up his mind. He refuses to answer hypothetical questions. He fought an air war in Europe, not a land war, and we still had three guys captured. They were freed by Jesse Jackson of all people. Some military genius. He was also not very well respected by his contemporaries and peers at the time or the then-current President, Bill Clinton. That makes me wonder what they saw that was so bad.
Gephardt I can't respect. He misses out on voting and doing the job his constituents elected him to do. He avoids performing in the very profession that supposedly earns his bloody paycheck and he wants a promotion. SCREW HIM!
I feel sorry for Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, and Dean for having to take Sharpton, that woman, and Kucinich seriously as candidates for the Presidency.
CJA
Notice that the Clintons have carefully made sure not to ally themselves with anyone. I think it may be because they're politically savvy enough not to want to be tied to a loser...which would translate into their thinking none of these guys is a winner.
More likely hoping. If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary's run in '08.
As for Clark, he's got military experience, but keeps flip-flopping on his positions, and isn't an effective speaker.
Whereas Kerry has the military experience, political experience, and has a commanding public presence. He can pick Edwards as his running mate, thus creating a solid North/South coalition. And he'll tear Bush apart in debates... he has a command of policy matters as well as personal charisma (which Gore didn't). So I'm not sure why you're so down on Kerry, at least.
I'm down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article.... I think in order to get attention or seem more relevent or something.
You can't sell me on the notion of his politcal charisma if the most notable thing he said to Rolling Stone is the F-word.
Also, on Clark the waffler:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401190949.asp
Politicians have a tendency to change positions, I accept that. However, doing it this early in his supposed political career (not to mention starting a career by aiming for the top spot) is a scary thing. It scares me. That and to start any career by running for the top position stinks of arrogance to me. At least everyone else is a former Governor or a current legislator, and that includes the incumbent.
CJA
And the impression I've gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don't know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women.
Even President Clinton hates his guts from what I read. And check this out: [Clark] reportedly circumvented both Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton on numerous occasions in speaking directly to the media and the president. In fact, the situation got so bad that Gen. Clark was relieved of his NATO position several months before his term ended, and in a major snub, neither Mr. Cohen nor Gen. Shelton attended his retirement ceremony.
The source: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004060
Read read read.
"I'm down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article"
I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league a**hole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.
Yeah, him.
Privately I doubt the Democrats will do it either, any of them. And as said earlier, I think the Clintons will be quietly happy about that, as it secures Hilary's clear shot in 2008. But this isn't necessarily as clear as that.
Dean I honestly think hasn't a prayer of knocking out Dubbya in November, and quite simply because the message of "I'm anti-Bush", although highly principled, means nothing to an electorate which is being taught to be scared, is being conned into a system of electronic voting which is being slowly rigged, and is receiving mixed economic messages about their future. To connect with Democrats and disgrunted Republicans you'd have to have someone who could wreck Bush in a debate (to be fair anyone can do that), beat him convincingly on the national security issue, and have a positive plan for America that is positive for the candidate, not necessarily negative against Bush. Elections don't win like that. Lastly they'll have to stick at the centre. Gore won in the centre, remember, and following Bush's tactic of running into an extreme isn't a winner.
So is Clark the man to do this? Possibly, but he hasn't motivated as many people and hasn't got the money Dean has. With a few more upsets (Iowa means nothing at this stage) this could yet swing his way, as the real campaign issues start to make themselves felt and the neocons start playing really nasty. He *can* best Bush on national security, intelligence, leadership, background, and appealing to North and South alike, Dean cannot (imho).
Will he get that far? I doubt it but anything can happen, and although I'm desperate for a Hilary run in 2008, I'm terrified of what another four years of the neocon extremists will mean to America and the world.
Incidentally, I don't know if anyone's been reading Boondocks lately, but they've been running a very funny series of strips comparing the Democrats to the Justice League, beginning with comparing Gephardt to Aquaman ("because nobody knows what he does and nobody cares.")
You put forth a very good question in the OP. "Where's the outrage?"
Personally, I think it's the leftist' fault. It's the 'never cry wolf' syndrome at work. They (and the right for their issues) have screamed so long and so loud at the stupidest things that when a good question does arise, the general public thinks "ho-hum, another trumped up charge."
As for who can beat Bush? None of these guys without a GW implosion. I think Clark would be a hoot to run, simply because making the guy self-destruct would be so easy. His "character" is non-existant.
Gary Trudow wouldn't want Clark to win because he's already used the Waffle as a presidential icon in Doonesbury.
Beginning to wonder if they'll try to draft Hillary, despite her probable plans for 2008.
2008 is going to be the most frightening election ever held.
I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league ahole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.**
It's admirable to want attention that badly? In my book someone who wants attention so badly that he'd say any ol' thing is usually listed under "pathetic" not "admirable".
He did win Iowa, and I assume that's not because he called them all F-heads or F-wits.
Personally, calling that guy a "major-league asshole", not in an interview, but in an assumed private moment seemed... honest.
CJA
I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league ahole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.
It's admirable to want attention that badly? In my book someone who wants attention so badly that he'd say any ol' thing is usually listed under "pathetic" not "admirable".
[some snipped]
Personally, calling that guy a "major-league asshole", not in an interview, but in an assumed private moment seemed... honest.
I think you may have missed his point, at least in part.
I don't think I have much of an opinion either way on Kerry's swearing in Rolling Stone -- but the point above was that for Bush to decry Kerry taking such a seemingly low road while referring to reporters as assholes was more than a little hypocritical.
That's not to mention that Bush is always talking about his faith and how the love of Jesus is what guides him in all of his choices. Seems to me someone who actually paid attention to Jesus' teachings generally doesn't go around calling people "major-league assholes." On the other hand, it's been a while since I've read the Bible -- perhaps I'm forgetting the Book of Smackdowns. (Verse Yo:Mama, to be specific.)
And from what I remember of it, I don't think Kerry's statement was proof that he'd "say any ol' thing." It's not like he started swearing for no reason -- he said that he didn't expect Bush to f**k the war up this badly. Perhaps an ill-chosen word, but not out of line with the sentiment.
As for Kerry in general, though -- wish I could get excited about him. I'm not, at least not yet. I prefer Dean, and hope he makes a contest of it in NH.
TWL
Tim writes...
Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.
No. We can argue semantics. II don't know the exact quote, but they said that "British intelligence claims that..." and that wasn't a lie. And when they found out that the British intelligence may have been wrong, they said it was a mistake to put that in the speech. Besides, as I've said before, even the Clinton administration believed that Iraq was sniffing for uranium. That's not a lie.
Now, if you mean the 9/11 links ... it's all been tricks with mirrors and lies of omission. I agree in that I don't know of any demonstrably false statements, but lying by implication is still up there on the list of Things I'd Like My Leaders To Not Do.
Good God...if it looks like a duck...Ok, I did say that there was probably guilt by omission. But there was no lying on the par of, say, Clinton.
Wrong. It was THE primary reason given to the public for months.
No, it was a reason, not the primary reason. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but a lot of people opposed to the war can't even seem to agree what the hidden agenda was. Was it:
A) finishing daddy's war?
B) all about the oil?
C) take over the middle east?
And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor. Yes, WMDs were a reason. Yes, intelligence that turned out to be untrue was a reason, and YES, LIBERATING THE PEOPLE WAS A REASON. Why this is impossible for people to beleive is beyond me...do they hate George Bush so much that if he helped an old lady cross the street they would accuse him of vote-fishing and stealing her purse? That's where I'm scratching my head.
After we didn't find weapons, it turned into "well, we liberated the Iraqi people." Then it turned into "now we can get troops out of harm's way in Saudi Arabia" (which, let's remember, was one of bin Laden's stated goals in the first place). Now it's just "Saddam was a bad bad man and it's good that we got rid of him."
Check the dates. It's always been about the people.
Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.
And there it is. Go ahead, let's talk about all the oil we've stolen. Yes. We're so greedy. We'll rebuild the oil wells and build a pipeline like Mr. Burns did and funnel all the precious, precious oil away. We won't turn it over to those silly, worthless Iraqi people. Prove it.
Look -- the PNAC documents with the plan for toppling Saddam have been out there since '98. It's no secret that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. wanted Saddam gone gone gone, and it certainly looks like they were more than willing to bend intelligence to make that happen.
Bend intelligence? They worked with that they got. That's not bending intelligence. You want to complain about the quality of intelligence, knock yourself out, because they got some damn quirky intelligence and I'm not happy about that. But I'd rather they put me on orange alert and make protect me than stay at yellow and say "my bad" when another building blows up because they didn't act on intelligence. Seriously, think about it, they either go overboard and get yelled at, or they do too little, something happens, and they get yelled at.
Call that justified if you like, and I'll respectfully disagree. But don't insult my intelligence by claiming no lies have been told.
Not insulting your intelligence. Just telling you no lies have been told.
The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.
Thousands? THOUSANDS? Well, I'll dispute that those deaths were caused by George Bush, but, ok, compare that to the TENS of THOUSANDS killed by Saddam.
The families of those killed after Bush dared insurgents to "bring 'em on" might humbly beg to differ on that
Oh please. Draw me a line...a direct correlation. I'm sure the insurgents were sitting in their spider holes thinking, "Ok, if Bush doesn't taunt us, we'll give in peacefully. But if he says Bring Em On, we'll go and kill Iraqis! Spread the word." What a joke.
And the thousands of Iraqis thanking Bush and army because their children aren't being raped and killed would, and have, been loudly differing with your point of view.
I vaguely recall the musem-theft numbers being downgraded somewhat -- not to the extent you claim here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to bad memory on my part. My apologies -- it was one of the first examples that popped out of my head, and shouldn't have been.
According to Spinsanity, which I just checked, initial reports put it at 170,000 artifacts stolen, and says that the number was drastically lower, with 33 significant objects missing. That's where I got that 30-soemthing number from. I don't knoe how many are truly missing, but another article says 11,000. Which is still significant, granted.
However, the difference is, despite the Bush administration's insistence on making it an either/or question, it's possible to do both: you can devote further study while taking action in the face of the evidence we have. If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.
And why do you think they're not? I guess I'm just asking for a link so I can see this for myself.
The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."
I can provide a reference to that quote if you like, though it may be a day or two. That's the sort of mentality running the country.
I don't disbelieve you, beacuse as we both know, people say the wildest things, but yeah, I'd like to see a link. But still, "people with ties to Bush..." Lest we forget, Enron had a heck of a lot of ties to Clinton, and much of their malfeasance occured under his watch (ever look into the German branch that Clinton forced through?) but nobody ever points those ties out, because "ties" is meaningless.
Seriously ... there's nothing about this administration's actions or attitude that bothers you? You think the country's been perfectly justified in all of its actions both domestic and foreign?
If so, I'm stuck scratching my head. I absolutely don't get it.
Yeah, I dislike the immigration policy. I dislike the medicare policy. I dislike the spending.
But the one thing I'm not upset about is the justified war with Iraq. And I have to admit I'm flummoxed by people who hate the man so much that they're willing to ignore the good that has come out of getting rid of a murdering rapist.
Tim (Hi again, Tim!) writes:
As for Kerry in general, though -- wish I could get excited about him. I'm not, at least not yet. I prefer Dean, and hope he makes a contest of it in NH.
Me too! But for different reasons.
YYEEEAEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!
It's the 'never cry wolf' syndrome at work. They (and the right for their issues) have screamed so long and so loud at the stupidest things that when a good question does arise, the general public thinks "ho-hum, another trumped up charge."
Exactly. The combination of ideologues on both sides have lowered the level of debate.
Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.
No. We can argue semantics. II don't know the exact quote, but they said that "British intelligence claims that..." and that wasn't a lie. And when they found out that the British intelligence may have been wrong, they said it was a mistake to put that in the speech. Besides, as I've said before, even the Clinton administration believed that Iraq was sniffing for uranium. That's not a lie.
Then this was incompetence. You simply don't use intelligence of such questionable origins (and it WAS quite questionable and known so at the time) in a major policy speech. Doesn't matter if previous presidents did that kind of thing; aren;t you supposed to be better than that?
And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor. Yes, WMDs were a reason. Yes, intelligence that turned out to be untrue was a reason, and YES, LIBERATING THE PEOPLE WAS A REASON. Why this is impossible for people to beleive is beyond me...do they hate George Bush so much that if he helped an old lady cross the street they would accuse him of vote-fishing and stealing her purse?
I see you're starting to understand the thought-processes of the "BUSH-HITLER" Left.
I find it interesting that almost everyone who's posted here espousing a right-leaning point of view also seems to be an illiterate cretin.
Who says you can't judge people by the company they keep.
Randal and I go back and forth some more. Sorry for what I expect will be some considerable length here.
Me:
Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.
Randal:
No. We can argue semantics.
Isn't that exactly what you condemn Clinton for? Based on the exact text of the question Clinton was asked under oath (and the infamous "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" line), Clinton did not lie.
But hey, you want semantics, let's go for it. The exact quote Bush used is:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"Has learned." Not "claims." Given that the charge is at this point demonstrably false, so is Bush's statement.
And last I checked, lying before Congress is explicitly mentioned as an impeachable act.
You've said you consider the war justified. That is your right. How you can claim with a straight face that everything we did to get there has been totally aboveboard and legit, however, makes me wonder which of us has dropped into an alternate universe.
Here's what I see (limited to 4 items, as we both have other time commitments):
1) Bush's shrug and "what's the difference?" when asked about active WMD's versus WMD programs shows a clear willingness to shift the goalposts.
2) Wolfowitz's admission that we violated international law gives the rest of the world pretty strong justification to consider us a nation to distrust rather than ally with.
3) Days after 9/11, Rumsfeld wrote a memo saying (among other things), "[Want] best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden.] Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related an not." That shows a predisposition to use 9/11 against Iraq regardless of whether it was justified to do so.
4) Early in 2002, Bush dismissed concerns about Iraq with a wave and a statement of "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out". That shows a clear willingness to shape the means towards an already-established end.
You say that "well, a murderous rapist is gone." I will agree with that, and I applaud the fact that Saddam is out of power.
I do not believe the U.S. did it in the right way or for the right reasons -- and for that reason, I will not give Bush credit for getting us into war.
Clinton says Iraq was "sniffing after uranium", you say. True enough. Nowhere, to my knowledge, has Clinton made the claim that Iraq had active WMD's ready to go, nor that he was only days away from striking at the U.S. and/or turning the Middle East into a killing field.
Containment was working.
Containment would have continued to
work for some time. It is now clear, after the fact, that there was absolutely no imminent threat -- and that, Randal, was the main selling point of the war. Had Bush simply said to Congress, "We should remove Saddam because his people are suffering," he would not have had the blank-check resolution he got, nor the public support.
Your claims boil down to "the end justifies any and all means." I do not agree.
But there was no lying on the par of, say, Clinton.
Correct. One person was lying about a consensual sex act that wasn't really the American people's business. The other was lying about policy. Funny how the former is always used to justify the latter.
I'm not going to get into "hidden agendas" with you, because they're not hidden. Read the PNAC statement and our official security strategy unveiled in 2002: they make our agenda quite clear.
And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor.
We are, however, able to spell it. :-) (Yes, a cheap shot...)
I'm not saying liberating the people wasn't A reason. I'm saying it wasn't the reason we were told it had to happen right this instant. I have said that before. You are sidestepping it.
Me:
Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.
Randal:
And there it is. Go ahead, let's talk about all the oil we've stolen.
I don't see a need to. Or would you like to explain how one of the few public documents to come out of Cheney's 2001 energy task force include detailed maps of Iraqi's oil fields and lists of people interested in Iraqi oil contracts?
To paraphrase your own argument ... I'm not saying oil was THE reason. But to deny it was A reason is to intentionally shut your eyes.
Yes. We're so greedy. We'll rebuild the oil wells and build a pipeline like Mr. Burns did and funnel all the precious, precious oil away. We won't turn it over to those silly, worthless Iraqi people.
Um ... you're kind of going off on a frothing rant here.
Bend intelligence? They worked with that they got.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one. Plenty of low to mid-level CIA folks are saying that their intelligence had plenty of disclaimers about how speculative everything was, and that said disclaimers were routinely ignored. Perhaps it's not bending outright, but it's absolutely cherry-picking and consciously choosing only those facts which fit one's chosen ends.
But I'd rather they put me on orange alert and make protect me than stay at yellow and say "my bad" when another building blows up because they didn't act on intelligence.
Ah. And another attempt to link Iraq to 9/11 rears its head.
Randal, Iraq ain't no threat to us. We didn't go to orange alert because of them. Those goalposts won't move.
Not insulting your intelligence. Just telling you no lies have been told.
Sorry, both aren't possible simultaneously.
Me:
The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.
Randal:
Thousands? THOUSANDS?
Yep. For just one reference, here's the Christian Science Monitor:
"Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country."
That was in May. Deaths have obviously continued since then. I think "thousands" is more than accurate -- if anything, it may be understating the case.
Well, I'll dispute that those deaths were caused by George Bush, but, ok, compare that to the TENS of THOUSANDS killed by Saddam.
Over 25 years as opposed to 10 months. Our rate of return is a hell of a lot higher.
On to global warming. Me:
If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.
Randal:
And why do you think they're not?
1) We've withdrawn from the Kyoto Accords.
2) We've done nothing to change fuel efficiency in this country.
3) The Bush administration has reclassified CO2 as "not a pollutant" so as to claim that pollution levels are dropping.
That's the short list. Fire away.
Me:
The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."
Randal:
I don't disbelieve you, beacuse as we both know, people say the wildest thin