[Turias]

When asked, "Which of the current democratic presidential candidates do you support?", I continually hear people say, "I don't care. Whoever can defeat Bush."

This is horrible! Why are anti-Bush people doing this to themselves? I have no doubt in my mind that whoever wins the Democratic primary has a damn good chance of beating Bush, whether it be Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Sharpton, or anyone else! But, because of this fear of losing to Bush that so many people seem to have, the Democratic primary has turned into what I fear most: a popularity contest where people look away from the important issues and instead look for a candidate who won't offend anyone; a candidate who isn't too far left; a candidate who doesn't necessarily believe what they believe, but who can instead get those fence-sitters to vote democrat in the 2004 presidential election. Credentials? Hah! Instead, let's pick the most charismatic, least democratic Democrat that we can find!

This goes against everything we should believe in and everything that our political system stands for. We're not supposed to vote for who we think is going to win or who we think other people will elect. We're supposed to vote for whoever we think can do the best job... for whoever has views that are closest to our own. In doing this, the winner should be the best representation of the views of the voting populace.

But now the primaries have gone to hell because we are in a situation where the only thing people seem to care about is beating Bush. And now we have to ask ourselves: since many people don't seem to care about the issues, how are these people going to decide which candidate can best defeat Bush?

Simple.

They are going to turn toward the media. Now I've never been a big fan of the media, but this seems much worse than what I am used to witnessing. If the media says candidate X has a smaller chance of defeating Bush than candidate Y, people will vote Y. Whichever candidate gets the most positive press coverage... whichever candidate is quoted on the television as saying they can defeat Bush... that is the candidate that is going to win. Since people are not going to know crap about the current issues, they are instead going to vote for the person who they have heard the most about. Unfortunately, the major way that most people will hear about the candidates is through the mass media.

What we need to do is to forget the "Anyone but Bush" campaign. Completely forget it. Throw it out and never think about it again. Instead, look toward the issues. Vote for the candidate who best represents you.

[BRussell]

We already tried that in 1968 and 1972. I'm really afraid we're doing it again. Dean might win a couple electoral votes, though.

[thunderous_funker]

Noble sentiments indeed.

Too bad the number of informed voters who investigate the issues and vote their conscience wasn't utterly and totally dwarfed by the number of voters who reflexively vote along party lines, for name recognition or the trivialities of "charisma".

Why are politicians shallow, hollow and insincere? Because such qualities are rewarded by the electorate rather than punished.

Campaigns have become a marketing exercise because once they are elected they can do whatever they want with virtual impugnity. In fact, those who voice displeasure are usually branded malcontents, traitors or cry-babies who are told to shut up until the next election when we repeat the whole farce once again.

[daimoni]

.

[Turias]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Noble sentiments indeed.

Too bad the number of informed voters who investigate the issues and vote their conscience wasn't utterly and totally dwarfed by the number of voters who reflexively vote along party lines, for name recognition or the trivialities of "charisma".

Why are politicians shallow, hollow and insincere? Because such qualities are rewarded by the electorate rather than punished.

Campaigns have become a marketing exercise because once they are elected they can do whatever they want with virtual impugnity. In fact, those who voice displeasure are usually branded malcontents, traitors or cry-babies who are told to shut up until the next election when we repeat the whole farce once again.

I agree with a lot of what you say. The question is, though, what do we do about it? Are we doomed to a life where hollow, insincere politicians are voted into power by the uninformed masses? How can we change the media which is biased and controlled by the few? What changes can be made to our corrupt political system where presidents do seem to have, as you say, virtual impugnity?

I used to believe that everyone should vote. That people should not take our "freedom" for granted. But now I almost think that fewer people should vote. How would the system change if only those who took the time to understand the issues voted?

Should we, as the informed minority, discourage all of those people from voting?

Sadly, I think I am leaning toward "yes".

[thunderous_funker]

Its hard to not give in to cynicism about the electorate or fatalism about the future.

I do think there are glimmers of hope, however. Consider the recent public outcry about the FCC's rule changes allowing further media consolidation. What was essentially a backroom, bereaucratic blip, became a national campaign that eventually got bipartisan support to undo.

People do care. And they aren't completely gullible. Not completely. Given the facts and a healthy discourse of the options, people generally see to making a reasoned opinion.

So activism becomes a process of raising awareness and enabling healthy discourse.

This has become increasingly difficult in an era when powerful interests would rather supress information and lower discourse with reactionary wedge tactics.

Voter apathy is harder to overcome. I think the main obstacle is the fatalism that all politicians are scum and why should we pretend that our efforts matter? The only way to fix this and restore a real sense of accountability and voter confidence, IMO, is fundamental campaign reform.

Once that happens, I believe a lot of the other problems will fix themselves.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Too bad the number of informed voters who investigate the issues and vote their conscience wasn't utterly and totally dwarfed by the number of voters who reflexively vote along party lines, for name recognition or the trivialities of "charisma".

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Governor of California....Arnold Schwarzenegger!!

I can still hardly believe it. It's hard to watch the news without thinking I've stumbled on a bad, bad movie.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Governor of California....Arnold Schwarzenegger!!

I can still hardly believe it. It's hard to watch the news without thinking I've stumbled on a bad, bad movie.

It really is surreal.

I was really fighting a sense of doom about the whole thing and oddly enough an article at Mother Jones actually put things in perspective for me. There may be hope for him.

[vmpaul]

That was a good read. I'm not really as distressed as I make out to be. Hey, a dip in in a ice cold lake can be invigorating too! I just find it surreal. For perspective, I still find it funny that Ron 'Bedtime For Bonzo' Reagan was president of these United States. So, don't mind me.

It's too early to tell how this will turn out. In the meantime I'll be happy for getting that refund on my car registration.

[Face Ache]

Check this out.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Check this out.

Cute, but true Enron-style accounting began much earlier- in Congress, in the 1930s.

The notion that people can have their wages garnished in part into a fund ostensibly held for them to be paid in the future, and have Congress rob that fund for general expenses including wages for themselves, that is Enron-accounting. But wait, that was Dean's favorite Democrat, whom he quotes in the page you cite, whose economics and plans actually hindered recovery and instituted such theivery from the American public.

Enron's murky "off balance sheet" accounting practices highlighted its assets and downplayed its debts - as does Social Security's "trust fund" accounting. While the trust fund's trillion dollars in government bonds are "assets" to Social Security, they are debts to the rest of the government - which will have to raise taxes or cut other programs to repay them, just as if there had been no trust fund at all. That's why the non-partisan Congressional Research Service stresses that "the trust funds themselves do not hold financial resources to pay benefits." Making matters worse, politicians regularly exclude liabilities to the trust fund when referring to the public debt; the Social Security trust fund is apparently an asset to everyone but a liability to no one. The fund is like a private corporation financing its pension plan with bonds issued to itself - a practice that is illegal in the private sector.


Making matters worse, Enron's employees were dangerously undiversified; some held all of their 401(k) contributions in Enron stock, a step no financial advisor would recommend. Similarly, 60 percent of Americans receive the majority of their retirement income from Social Security benefits; one third receive 90 percent or more from Social Security, and for almost 20 percent, Social Security is all they've got.


Worst of all, Enron itself went bankrupt, taking many workers' pensions down with it. Likewise with Social Security: Its own trustees declare the program insolvent. And Social Security's bankruptcy won't just affect the very young: A 49-year-old woman today can expect to see her benefits cut by one-quarter during her lifetime. Younger workers will not receive even a single year of full promised benefits. For Social Security to pay full benefits payroll taxes must rise by 50 percent, yet payroll taxes are already the biggest tax burden for most households.

Fix Congress' murky accounting and reduce the tax burden to ALL Americans before stating something ridiculous like 'Enron-accounting in Government began with President Bush' - the truth is, it started decades ago and set the example for Enron.

[Y3a]

<< Why are politicians shallow, hollow and insincere? >>

Assumptions stated as fact. Your logic is faulty too.

The value of your comments is ZERO.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Turias:
What we need to do is to forget the "Anyone but Bush" campaign. Completely forget it. Throw it out and never think about it again. Instead, look toward the issues. Vote for the candidate who best represents you.

...and that would be anything but Bush.
Don't misunderstand, I am still going to vote in the Democratic primary for the democrat who best suits my issues, but there is absolutely no one who could be more dangerous or damaging to this country and the world than Bush has been or will be.
You assume to vote against Bush is mindless, but in fact, it might just be the most heartfelt and thought out vote I'll ever cast.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Why are politicians shallow, hollow and insincere? >>

Assumptions stated as fact. Your logic is faulty too.

The value of your comments is ZERO.

I think I could say the same about your comments...

Please, in this forum, much of what is said is simply opinion. Why not give yours instead of merely arguing just to argue?

[Turias]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...and that would be anything but Bush.
Don't misunderstand, I am still going to vote in the Democratic primary for the democrat who best suits my issues, but there is absolutely no one who could be more dangerous or damaging to this country and the world than Bush has been or will be.
You assume to vote against Bush is mindless, but in fact, it might just be the most heartfelt and thought out vote I'll ever cast.

I agree that out of all of the current runners, Bush is the worst, but you miss my point. I am simply saying that one shouldn't vote for the candidate who has the greatest chance of beating Bush given the current voter demographics. Instead, they should vote for who best represents them given the issues.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...and that would be anything but Bush.
Don't misunderstand, I am still going to vote in the Democratic primary for the democrat who best suits my issues, but there is absolutely no one who could be more dangerous or damaging to this country and the world than Bush has been or will be.
You assume to vote against Bush is mindless, but in fact, it might just be the most heartfelt and thought out vote I'll ever cast.

And good on you for knowing your own heart-

And I consider damage through inaction to be just as wrong as damage through deliberate action. However, there are past presidents who were far more damaging to the freedom of the American people. You overlook them because you adore them for their actions, or because they remain in the past while you're excited and enraged about what you perceive today.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'll be voting for Dubya.



So you liberals better get to the polls...

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'll be voting for Dubya.

Unless you live in Maine or Vermont, I highly doubt it.

Why SD can't vote for Dubya, thanks to other conservatives!

[Spliffdaddy]

What's your point?

Convicted felons should be allowed to vote?

I don't think they should.

But anyways, you can count on my mom, dad, sister, ex-wife, girlfriend, and several of my co-workers to vote for Dubya.

[BRussell]

There's nothing strange or nefarious about being attracted to a candidate who you believe has broad appeal. I think that was Clinton's appeal in the 1992 primary - there were more liberal candidates, who you'd think might have been more appealing to the Democratic base, but he was viewed as someone who was going to take the Democratic party in a direction that would be appealing to larger portions of the country than other Democrats would.

In some ways, I think it's the sign of a mature democracy. In Iraq and many new democracies, the problem is that everyone may simply vote their own "tribe" and then exert as much influence over the system to just get their way at the expense of others.

I'm afraid that we're going into that same sort of solipsistic self-destructive mode, where we as Democrats think "screw-them-I'm-so-mad-at-Bush-I'm-going-to-vote-for-the-most-anti-Bushcandidate" ! I'm really afraid that nominating Dean will blow a pretty decent chance at getting a Democrat elected in 2004.

[Spliffdaddy]

Don't sweat it.

Gephardt will be running against Dubya.

Look no further than big labor's desire - and you will find the DNC nominee everytime.

Mark my words.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Don't sweat it.

Gephardt will be running against Dubya.

Look no further than big labor's desire - and you will find the DNC nominee everytime.

Mark my words.

You don't follow the race very closely, eh?

You'll find these images on the front page of Blogforamerica:
<- the most politically active union (Government employees)

<- the largest union





Geppy has the teamsters, the leadership of the AFL-CIO, and a lot of the more stereotypical unions, but union support is split overall.

I, personally, think that BRussel's fears are unfounded because Dean isn't nearly as left as some like to paint him, nor is he as right as Geppy and Kerry are making him out to be (likening him to Newt Gingritch for supporting measures in the early 90's to keep Medicare growth under control - supporting gun control as it is now + background checks at gun shows, but otherwise leaving it as a state issue, etc).

His support base is also very committed to him, and in many ways that's what it takes to win the primaries.

We'll see if he can turn it to his benefit in the general elections.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Let's see....

The Greens are blasting Dean for being too conservative and the DLC is blasting Dean for being too liberal.

Hmmmm...he must be doing something right.

He's got a great platform and real shot at it. Win or Lose, he has started something bigger than himself. He has really stirred the pot and I think the long term results will be positive.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And good on you for knowing your own heart-

And I consider damage through inaction to be just as wrong as damage through deliberate action. However, there are past presidents who were far more damaging to the freedom of the American people. You overlook them because you adore them for their actions, or because they remain in the past while you're excited and enraged about what you perceive today.

Just curious, what makes you think you even have a clue as to my thoughts on previous presidents?

Just what IS your point beyond condescension?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And good on you for knowing your own heart-

And I consider damage through inaction to be just as wrong as damage through deliberate action. However, there are past presidents who were far more damaging to the freedom of the American people. You overlook them because you adore them for their actions, or because they remain in the past while you're excited and enraged about what you perceive today.

I had stopped reading your posts, so I didn't see this till Lerkfish replied. There's a reason to be steamed about present injustices more than past injustices: you can do something about the present, the past is, objectively, immutable.

Then there is also the possibility of genuinely disagreeing with your sentiments.

BlackGriffen

[Spliffdaddy]

inaction, present or past, can be an injustice.

I want a president whose words mean something. Not a president who everyone KNOWS isn't gonna strike back.

The worst possible scenario is having a president that is a peacenik.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Spliffdadday:

The worst possible scenario is having a president that is a peacenik.

"We are a peaceful people." -- G.W. Bush

"Peaceniks sure are a strange breed." -- Spliffdadday.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The worst possible scenario is having a president that is a peacenik.

Congress declares war and ratifies treaties, not the president.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Congress declares war and ratifies treaties, not the president.

Actually, technically, no. With respect to treaties, it is acually the president who ratifies them, not the Senate and certainly not both houses of Congress.

The actual sequence of events for a formal treaty in the US is:

The president negotiates.
The president signs.
The president transmits it to the Senate.
The Senate gives its advice and consent (or withholds it as in Kyoto). Giving advice and consent requires a vote of 2/3 or those senators present. The Senate may also attach reservations or understandings to the treaty whcih modify it providing the treaty text allows reservations and understandings.
The Senate transmits the treaty to the president.
The president ratifies the treaty by signing it. Or he can refuse to ratify it by not signing it.

There are a number of ad hoc variations on this. One is the executive agreement. Presidents negotiate and sign those, and they stand on the president's authority alone. They are not called treaties for US domestic purposes, but they are treaties (actually, binding international agreements) from the point of view of international law. Within the US, they have approximately the precedence accorded regular treaties. I.e. the same precedence as federal statutes, but below the precidence accorded the Constitution or below later inconsistent federal statutes. Executive Agreements are vastly more common than treaties, but they tend to be used for more mundane things than full treaties. For example, they are used to negotiate basing rights or routine bilateral trade agreements.

Another variation is the Executive-Congressional Agreement. This is like an Executive Agreement, but is negitiated jointly by the president and Congress which means it carries more weight. NAFTA is an example. It was negotiated, then enacted into law by a regular statute. The sequence of ratification is the same as passing a regular statute into law. That means that BOTH houses of Congress have to pass it, not just the Senate. On the other hand, you only need regular majorities, not supermajorities as with a formal treaty.

Bear in mind also that even regular treaties are divided into self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. A non-self-executing treaty is one that requires legislation to implement. Until then, it has no real force of law. An example of non-self-executing treaties is the Genocide Convention. A treaty can't create criminal law under the US Constitution. That requires Congress as a whole to legislate.

The war powers are similarly split between Congress and the President. Congress declares war, but the president is Commander in Chief and can take the country to war subject to Congressional approval (or acquiecence). That is, of course, the norm now as there hasn't been a declaration of war since 1941. Also, presidents have in practice gone to war without Congressional approval. The most recent example was in 1999. Clinton did not ask Congress for approval to go to war against Serbia. Even formally, the president also has the power to respond to attack until such time as Congress can assemble. Remember, Congress goes on recess. You can still have a war when Congress is in recess.

Sorry for the lecture. I just dropped by and saw your comment, which reflects common misunderstandings.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
inaction, present or past, can be an injustice.

I want a president whose words mean something. Not a president who everyone KNOWS isn't gonna strike back.

The worst possible scenario is having a president that is a peacenik.

peace really frightens you.

[Spliffdaddy]

Weakness frightens me.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[...]

Welcome back, Simey. The intelligence of the "other side" was sorely lacking without you here.

BlackGriffen

[djjava]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Unless you live in Maine or Vermont, I highly doubt it.

Why SD can't vote for Dubya, thanks to other conservatives!

Clinton was the first pardoned felon ever elected president. Here is his track record:

BILL CLINTON's Service Record before becoming Commander in Chief

The truth must be known. You should see Hillary's file.

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective
Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes. Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) 'registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction.'

Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December
1,1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from Carter.

Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Kohlrabi Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

so with your logic, Clinton couldn't be president either.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by djjava:
Clinton was the first pardoned felon ever elected president. Here is his track record:


so with your logic, Clinton couldn't be president either.

Disregarding your Clinton BS (Urban Legend/Myth-time in djjava land)

The original post was a joke which apparently went over all your heads. SD said he would vote for W to which I replied he couldn't because felons can't vote.

Do you get it now?

And it's not my logic, it's called fact. Many states do not let felons, past or present vote.

Bringing Clinton into this, where he obviously has no relationship to the topic at hand, shows that you are really hanging on, obsessing about this man. I don't know if it is love or hate, but move on.

[djjava]

Clinton is a pardoned felon... you can't deny that. If you are, you are a revisionist.

Urban legend.... suck it.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, technically, no. With respect to treaties, it is acually the president who ratifies them, not the Senate and certainly not both houses of Congress.

My understanding was that, constituionally, a treaty is not valid until it has been ratified by Congress (the Senate, whatever), and that there is no state of war until it has been declared by Congress. Obviously various loopholes and such have been found and used, but my general impression has been that these were pretty much power grabs by the executive that defy the whole separation of powers ideal.

Yes the president is Commander-in-chief so he can move troops around, but that should be complementary to, not a means to sidestep, the legislature's power as the sole body able to declare war.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I want a president whose words mean something.

Keep looking then. Some choice Bushisms:

"I'm a patient man. And when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man." Crawford Texas, Aug 21, 2002

"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!" Bellevue Community College 2 Nov 2000

"They said this issue wouldn't resignate with the People. They've been proved wrong, it does resignate." Bellevue Community College 2 Nov 2000.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"We cannot let terriers and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." De Moins, 21 Aug 2000

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are. We're very generous."—Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003

"I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances." Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like." Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2002

"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." Speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002

"...on too many issues, especially those dealing with the wider world of global affairs, Bush often sounds as if he's reading from cue cards. When he ventures into international issues, his unfamiliarity is palpable and not even his unshakable self-confidence keeps him from avoiding mistakes." Time Magazine, 15 Nov 1999

[petehammer]

Originally posted by djjava:
Clinton is a pardoned felon... you can't deny that. If you are, you are a revisionist.

Urban legend.... suck it.

Here's the sucking:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp

Urban Legend Number One.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Urban Legend Number Two.

I guess I'm a revisionist, if by revisionist you mean I believe in facts.

Strange how you took the text of TWO urban legends and merged into a SUPER urban legend!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I want a president whose words mean something.

That's gotta be the funniest thing you've ever posted.

[Turias]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Here's the sucking:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp

Urban Legend Number One.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Urban Legend Number Two.

I guess I'm a revisionist, if by revisionist you mean I believe in facts.

Strange how you took the text of TWO urban legends and merged into a SUPER urban legend!

2 points, Pete.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Weakness frightens me.

injudicious use of force
a sign of weakness, too.
A foolish king waxed arrogant
more dangerous than an elephant
escaped from neozoo.

Another weakness leaders show:
hoarding truths only they know
and shoveling out half-baked lies
to misdirect their own allies
to make their cronies dough.

---a poem off the cuff by lerkfish

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry for the lecture. I just dropped by and saw your comment, which reflects common misunderstandings.

Are you back with us to stay?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
There's nothing strange or nefarious about being attracted to a candidate who you believe has broad appeal. I think that was Clinton's appeal in the 1992 primary - there were more liberal candidates, who you'd think might have been more appealing to the Democratic base, but he was viewed as someone who was going to take the Democratic party in a direction that would be appealing to larger portions of the country than other Democrats would.

In some ways, I think it's the sign of a mature democracy. In Iraq and many new democracies, the problem is that everyone may simply vote their own "tribe" and then exert as much influence over the system to just get their way at the expense of others.

I'm afraid that we're going into that same sort of solipsistic self-destructive mode, where we as Democrats think "screw-them-I'm-so-mad-at-Bush-I'm-going-to-vote-for-the-most-anti-Bushcandidate" ! I'm really afraid that nominating Dean will blow a pretty decent chance at getting a Democrat elected in 2004.

As usual I'm with BRussell on this particular issue. Supporting a mainstream candidate isn't very exciting but the odds of getting him/her elected and getting amenable policies advanced is higher.

That said, I'm not prepared to say whether Dean is nationally viable or not. It seems iffy to me but it's still early. Clark has better credentials on paper (Southern, military) but has failed to rise to the occasion. Kerry and Lieberman are old-hat and from the Northeast and don't inspire people. Gephardt is, well, Gephardt.

Despite his sordid past, I've come to like Al Sharpton. He's a snake and probably couldn't run a dog pound but, having little to lose, his remarks are funny and pointed, a welcome relief from the usual smarm.

I think it's mostly wishful thinking anyway - if the economy improves it will be difficult for anyone to defeat Bush.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I want a president whose words mean something. Not a president who everyone KNOWS isn't gonna strike back.

HAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAha, eeeheeheheheeeee, eheheheheh, ahhh, *poof*.
Thanks, that was great.

- H

[Spliffdaddy]

I know it's hard for liberals to understand why the president of the most powerful nation on Earth shouldn't be a peacenik.

The mere fact that a person is WILLING to use force makes their words mean so much more. Think of all the people Dubya has saved by scaring them into submission with mere words - not weapons. After all, there's little doubt that he would back up his words with force if need be.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I, personally, think that BRussel's fears are unfounded because Dean isn't nearly as left as some like to paint him, nor is he as right as Geppy and Kerry are making him out to be (likening him to Newt Gingritch for supporting measures in the early 90's to keep Medicare growth under control - supporting gun control as it is now + background checks at gun shows, but otherwise leaving it as a state issue, etc).

His support base is also very committed to him, and in many ways that's what it takes to win the primaries.

We'll see if he can turn it to his benefit in the general elections.

BlackGriffen

Originally posted by zigzag:
As usual I'm with BRussell on this particular issue. Supporting a mainstream candidate isn't very exciting but the odds of getting him/her elected and getting amenable policies advanced is higher.

That said, I'm not prepared to say whether Dean is nationally viable or not. It seems iffy to me but it's still early. Clark has better credentials on paper (Southern, military) but has failed to rise to the occasion. Kerry and Lieberman are old-hat and from the Northeast and don't inspire people. Gephardt is, well, Gephardt.

There seem to be two basic approaches to winning general elections, the "energize the base" approach and the "get the soccer mom moderates" approach. And with 50% of the population not voting, maybe the "energize the base" approach does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that the two approaches are mutually exclusive; I think the key is in the ability to do both at the same time. Clinton, Bush, and particularly Reagan were able to.

It's hard for me to imagine Dean doing it, but maybe that's because we're in the middle of the primaries right now and so we're just not seeing his general election strategy yet.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
There seem to be two basic approaches to winning general elections, the "energize the base" approach and the "get the soccer mom moderates" approach. And with 50% of the population not voting, maybe the "energize the base" approach does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that the two approaches are mutually exclusive; I think the key is in the ability to do both at the same time. Clinton, Bush, and particularly Reagan were able to.

It's hard for me to imagine Dean doing it, but maybe that's because we're in the middle of the primaries right now and so we're just not seeing his general election strategy yet.

I always thought the strategy in both parties was to "energize the base" in the primaries and move to the center in the general election. In that sense, they're not mutually exclusive. Whether Dean can pull it off is another question.

[Lerkfish]

whatever works.
I'm firmly convinced that WHOEVER inherits the office from Dubya will have an impossibly hard row to hoe. He's hamstrung any successor with untenable global relations, monstrously huge budget deficits and oppressive civil liberty legislation....all of which will be difficult to overturn in decades, much less 4 years.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
whatever works.
I'm firmly convinced that WHOEVER inherits the office from Dubya will have an impossibly hard row to hoe. He's hamstrung any successor with untenable global relations, monstrously huge budget deficits and oppressive civil liberty legislation....all of which will be difficult to overturn in decades, much less 4 years.

But, hey, as long as I get tax cuts now, who cares?