Shining, Happy People: The Dems Hit Boston
The Democratic Party is more unified and energized going into this convention than it has ever been.
Say that 50 times in 90 seconds, and you will have an idea of the preconvention message that DNCers–party chairman Terry McAuliffe, convention chair Bill Richardson, and Jon Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter–were pushing the day before the convention opened. Usually, when politicos mouth the same line ceaselessly they are trying to peddle a falsehood. But this time, the spin seems to be true.
As Kerryfest ‘04 opens, there is little conflict in Dem-land. No major tussles over who will get to speak from the podium in prime-time. No battles over the party platform. The protests on Sunday–ghettoized in Boston Common–were small and insignificant. The so-called Social Forum, a gathering of lefties, has produced no sparks noticeable to the thousands of delegates and mediafolk who rush from one reception to the next in this summer camp of politics-and-journalism. At an event honoring the late Senator Paul Wellstone, prominent progressives–Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Jim Hightower–all said Job No. 1 is booting Bush. Once–if–that is done, there will be plenty of time for pushing and pulling with Kerry….
Damn right.
Comment by Jerry M. — 7/26/2004 @ 12:12 am
Actually, things aren’t looking so good for Kerry/Edwards. Since the main reason people are voting for Kerry is b/c he isn’t Bush LOL. 64% of people are voting for Kerry as a vote against Bush. Only 30% of people are voting for Kerry b/c they support him LOL. People, that is no reason to vote for someone being President, you should at least support the person you are voting for in that regard. LOL
And thank God, the 9/11 book came out right before the convention, to the attention of the American people of what the real issue in this election is, The War on Terror. John Kerry can talk all he wants about his military service, but that isn’t going to convince people he’s is fit to protect them when his whole senate career he has consistently voted against defense and intelligence spending. And when he hasn’t learned the lesson of 9/11, since he thinks the War on Terror is primarily a law enforcement action issue and not a military action issue.
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 3:15 am
Says good little Republican drone Tim L. Couldn’t you work in a few more RNC talking points?
Comment by Phaedrus — 7/26/2004 @ 3:34 am
Tim L.,
I’d vote for your next bowel movement, before I’d vote for Bush.
Comment by Hajji — 7/26/2004 @ 4:01 am
Tim L. actually makes a decnt argument for instant run-off voing, but under the present antiquated system, the choices are limited.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/26/2004 @ 6:17 am
voting
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/26/2004 @ 6:18 am
Tim L.,
Actually, voting for Kerry b/c he’s not Bush is exactly a great reason. In its simplest form, presidential elections that involve a sitting president is usually a referendum of how that president has done. because if they are doing great and things are going well, it is really tough to unseat them.
As for Kerry’s “whole” voting career, your comments (like most talking head comments and partisan commercials) oversimplify the matter- though to your benefit it knows no political boundaries. For instance, many, if not, most bills that go to the floor of either house are not only what they are headlined to be- that is, often they have attachments to them that get voted on as well. And, if you look at a lot of the so-called “defense” spending bills– they don’t necessarily equate to cutting money that go directly to troops (for better equipment and the like), but rather they go into futuristic development programs- sometimes covert programs such as the one that was uncovered years back where the military was spending 100+ dollars on toilet seat covers to fund some non-essential secret research. The largest part of our budget is defense spending and, since we are already this hegemonic power with more advanced weaponry systems than any other country in the world, the issue of defense spending does not equate to voting against means you don’t support national defense and voting for means you do- many people make the mistake of looking at it like that but it misses the bigger picture. Moreover, simplifying these issues as you seem to do into left/right, black/white misses so much of the important and nuanced complexities of governing a society such as ours. Though I don’t want to be accusatory, because this type of disussion occurs all to often, particularly on this type of medium and on tv and the like, however, debates that seek to go beyond this black /white paradigm will usually be much more informative for all involved.
Robert- yes Tim L is making a good point for run-offs. Which would be go a long way in helping improve this limping political system of ours.
Comment by John — 7/26/2004 @ 7:22 am
Hajii, Robert, and John;
I think we’re missing the point with many of these posts. Tim L. had no intention of making a point for instant runoffs. That is the last thing he would want. What we are seeing is the conservative reaction to liberals adopting the conservatives own attack strategies.
For the last 30 or so years the conservatives have been blasting the media and colleges as liberally biased, they have been successful to a great degree, but what they have really meant is that it wasn’t conservatively biased. Now you see them coming to websites with liberal views and saying that they are hate filled, conveniently ignoring the fact that they came to them with the express purpose of claiming a monopoly on truth and decrying all deviation from their orthodoxy as “hate.”
The irony is really wonderful to behold, and sadly lost on them. A good comedian should understand his own humor, but they seem to be unable. I laugh my self silly every time I hear “Liberals hate America.” It’s actually quite hysterical, when you parse that whole statement, “We believe in liberty of conscience and thought, as long as you only think and believe what we have certified as acceptable.” The argument stands on it’s head, but the inherent contradiction eludes them. I am unsure if it Monty Python lived large, or the Three Stooges bereft of any intellectual awareness.
Comment by John Benson — 7/26/2004 @ 8:20 am
Tim L:
Thanks, you are the only one here with any sense. Yes, it is the War on Terror that counts. Dems and liberals seem to forget that Bush almost caught Osama bin Laden. Do they really think that Kerry could have almost caught him? And what about Saddam Hussein and all those WMD that he almost had? What if he had given those intentions to develop a weapons program to those terrorists he almost had links to? Do Dems and liberals really think that Kerry could invade a big country like Iraq and almost win the war? (And I bet Kerry looks like a wuss in a flight suit?).
Thanks Tim. You are a smart man.
Comment by don — 7/26/2004 @ 8:21 am
John B.
I certainly wasn’t claiming that Tim L. was advocating instant run-off, only that his comment underscored the deficit in the current system.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/26/2004 @ 8:25 am
Robert;
I didn’t mean to imply that you thought that Tim L. was advocating a run-off system. I looked at his post agreed with your assessment and came to the conclusion that he didn’t mean it that way even if it’s what he said. It seems to be the modus operandi of the “We can’t think of a single thing he’s done wrong crowd.”
Comment by John Benson — 7/26/2004 @ 8:47 am
Don;
Too subtle.
Comment by John Benson — 7/26/2004 @ 9:18 am
John, I just meant something good might have a possiblity of growing from Tim L.’s next BM. Something I fail to find in the Bush presidency. Maybe I’ve been spending too much time cleaning up after my donkey.
Comment by Hajji — 7/26/2004 @ 9:47 am
Yes, very subtle, Don. You had me for a minute.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 10:20 am
Hajii,
I remain convinced that I would not willingly consume any produce of such a garden.
Comment by John Benson — 7/26/2004 @ 10:24 am
The twin parties of the war machine are gathering this summer in Boston and New York City to anoint their candidates for the upcoming presidential election. It is urgent that the progressive movement be in the streets in Boston and New York City.
This is a critical time for all progressives and targeted communities to take a clear stand against the political framework that is championed by the Republican and Democratic parties alike. The Bush administration has engaged in a lawless war of aggression and occupation against the people of Iraq. It is attempting to abrogate civil rights and liberties of all while simultaneously falsely positioning Arab-Americans and Muslims as “enemies within.” It has been engaged in multiple projects to destabilize nations and rob people of their sovereignty and freedom. From imprisoning the Palestinian people within an Apartheid Wall, to occupying Haiti through death-squad proxies and the deployment of U.S. troops, to turning Afghanistan and Central Asia into a U.S. sphere of influence, the U.S. government is using its military power to carry out the corporate looting of the world’s natural and human resources.
THE TWIN PARTIES OF THE WAR MACHINE
The war on Iraq did not just begin a year ago, nor is it Bush’s alone. The Democratic Party leadership and the solid majority of Democrats in Congress voted in October 2002 to fully support the threatened aggression against Iraq even though their offices were being overwhelmed with calls demanding that they vote no to the war. In July 2003, the Senate voted unanimously in support of continuing the occupation of Iraq - there was not one opposition vote.
Bush insists that U.S. troops continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. John Kerry, who voted to authorize the war, is not supporting the removal of U.S. troops. In fact, he is calling for adding 40,000 troops to the Army on a temporary basis to ease the personnel shortage created by the Iraq deployment. The Bush administration and Kerry joined together in condemning the new Spanish government when it announced the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The Bush administration pursued its strategy of “regime change” to its logical - and illegal - conclusion with the March 20, 2003, invasion. But “regime change” in Iraq became the official policy of the U.S. government in October 1998 during the Clinton administration. It was in December 1998 that the Clinton administration insisted that weapons inspectors be removed from Iraq and the near-daily bombing of that country began. Both the Democratic and Republican administrations maintained genocidal sanctions on Iraq that killed nearly 1.5 million people according to the United Nation’s own statistics.
As the Bush administration gave the green light to Ariel Sharon to wage terror against the Palestinian people, John Kerry issued a paper in February titled, “The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America.” Both oppose the legitimate right of Palestinian people to self-determination and return. The U.S. government - with the support of both parties - funds the war against the Palestinian people at the cost of $15 million a day.
The Bush-Ashcroft regime has carried out a full assault against civil rights and civil liberties, exemplified with the passage on October 26, 2001, of the USA Patriot Act. Kerry and the Democratic Party supported the passage of the Patriot Act. In the House, the vote was 357 to 66. Only one U.S. Senator (Russell Feingold) voted in opposition, and he had previously cast the deciding committee vote that ultimately allowed John Ashcroft to become Attorney General.
http://www.actionsf.org/ansst040704.htm
http://www.therealdifference.com
Comment by Ryan — 7/26/2004 @ 10:34 am
Tim L. is completely right about one thing. A vote for John Kerry is a vote against George Bush. George Bush remains unclear about what to do in Iraq. John Kerry has a clear vision and is a vote for a return to healthy relations with the world. It will take years of intervention in Iraq to clean up the mess there. The question is who can clean up the mess better. I say, John Kerry can. Yes, Tim, a vote against George Bush is not a good reason to vote for John Kerry. A vote against George Bush is a sign of sanity. The insanity of the Executive Branch of government has to stop. Our country can’t afford to keep doing the same things and expecting different results. As for me, I’m voting against George Bush and for John Kerry.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/26/2004 @ 11:19 am
I was LOL-ing all over the place because I thought TimL’s post was the long lead-up to an anti-Bush joke. What a letdown!
Having spend most of the day (day off from work) doing household chores, and satellite radio (Sirius) being my only audio connection to the universe, I’ve been kind of astounded by the commentaries, all morning long, by experts and pundits representing every possible expertise and political point of view. There seems to be a kind of tidal wave forming with even the Republican pollsters and campaign wonks acknowledging that Bush isn’t lookin’ at all good, much less “safe,” now. Wow.
No wonder TimL (and probably a number of others) have got their thongies in a twist. Optimism is rampant over here on the left. Maybe it will last, maybe it won’t, but it certainly says something about the sheeple regaining their humanity.
Comment by Bean in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 12:34 pm
Funny, with all this left wing optimism, Bush is now ahead in Florida 50 to 47.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/25/states.poll/
Comment by Bill — 7/26/2004 @ 1:04 pm
What a surprise
Comment by Paul — 7/26/2004 @ 1:19 pm
Bill–I think you’reessentializng the statistics here–doesn’t the article suggest that it’s a statistical dead heat? No use is quibbling over who is ahead in this state vs. that. Clearly our nation is divided, and clearly some states are going to show Bush in the lead while Kerry is in the lead for others. My question is, what does that have to do with “left wing optimism?” All the progressive thinkers here realize that a large number of people (but clearly less than a majority) still think W is a super-dooper leader, quite illogically in my personal opinion. That doesn’t undermine the fact that there IS a great deal of “left wing optimism,” as you put it.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 1:36 pm
Karen,
Don’t you think there will be an equal “right wing optimism” when the other team has its convention?
Comment by Bill — 7/26/2004 @ 1:39 pm
Of course there will! And so . . . ? That’s what conventions are all about–they’re giant pep rallies. I guess I’m not seeing the point you are trying to make. You wrote, “Funny, with all this left wing optimism, Bush is now ahead in Florida 50 to 47,” and it seemed to me you were trying out some sort of “Ah hah! Gotcha!” point that I am just not seeing. Am I misreading that earlier post?
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 1:49 pm
Can we really trust the numbers coming out of Florida anyway? I ask this because of these two questions about the 2000 election.
-Can anyone remember the results of investigations into claims of disproportionate disenfranchisement in primarily democratic areas if there ever were any?
-Can anyone explain why during the hand recounts reportedly 6 in 10 questionable pro Bush votes were counted as oppoesed to only 2 in 10 questionable pro Gore votes were counted?
Comment by eyes_open — 7/26/2004 @ 1:57 pm
Please don’t ask for the source on this, those numbers were from an artical over a year ago.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/26/2004 @ 1:58 pm
Karen;
Bill has a point, but I don’t think it’s “left wing optimism.” I think the “left-wing” remains highly doubtful of the outcome of November, we have no reason to believe Kerry will win. Thanks for reminding us how much more work we need to do. Keep up the good work Bill.
Comment by John Benson — 7/26/2004 @ 1:59 pm
Oh, I agree completely, John! I am frankly NOT feeling terrifically optimistic. I for one am VERY worried because I deeply, deeply fear what will happen to the nation and to the world if Bush is in the White House four more years. All the same, “optimism” I think refers to a certain SPIRIT of energy, of “doing battle,” as it were, to fight for this nation and reclaim it from those who are derailing all it should stand for. That I DO feel optimistic about.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 2:03 pm
Karen,
It was just an observation, no “ah ha gotcha” point intended.
Comment by Bill — 7/26/2004 @ 4:05 pm
OK, thanks for the clarification, Bill. See how civil we are being here, though we are polar opposites, politically?
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/26/2004 @ 5:25 pm
This was an insightful article,as usual.
But in the future, please refer to supporters of George McGovern’s 1972 election campaign as “McGovernites,” not “McGoverniks.” The latter expression was coined by Newt Gingrich in 1994 in order to smear McGovern progressives as socialists.
Comment by Dennis D. — 7/26/2004 @ 5:26 pm
I just watched Jimmy Carter speak at the convention as well as a live interview with Carter on PBS immediately following his speech. It was so nice to hear an intelligent and articulate man that was capable of answering complex questions succinctly, entirely off-the-cuff. One of his points was that maturity must be restored to the White House. Out of all the horrible things that can be said for Bush, his childish decision making and juvenile understanding of any serious issue, let alone the English language, will not be missed. All of us - those of us that want Bush to go back to Crawford, cannot let down. We must maintain our resolve and remove Bush from office. Before the attack trolls call me liberal or a democrat - I’ll note as I have before, I’m a registered independent and have voted Republican in the past. Not this time. Not a chance. I love America and believe in God. I am not unpatriotic and/or Godless. I am a person that respects intelligence and abhors stupidity.
Comment by Chris — 7/26/2004 @ 7:33 pm
Bart, you are wrong. You didn’t get my point, The 9/11 commission said there was no collaberative relationship b/w Iraq and Alqaeda on the UNITED STATES(AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEVER SAID THAT EITHER). THEY DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO COLLABERATIVE RELATIONSHIP AT ALL. HERE IS WHAT THE 2 CHAIRMEN SAID:
Vice Chairman Democrat Lee Hamilton said “I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don’t have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 9:07 pm
Ryan, you may not be aware of this, but there is already are 2 Palestinian states, one Jewish (Israel), and one Arab (Jordan). Are you aware that Jordan comprises 80% of Mandatory Palestine? I doubt you knew that. Now you do.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 9:11 pm
There he goes again, stabbing at the keyboard with his “Love Jesus or Die” buck knife, calmly and clearly expressing his well thought out response.
Comment by Chris — 7/26/2004 @ 9:13 pm
Chris, who is saying “Love Jesus or Die"? Is that your opinion of what conservatism can be boiled down to? That is news to this Atheist Conservative Republican.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 9:16 pm
I’m Confused!?
I’m trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so
I’ll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe.
Lemme see, have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good…
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad…
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good…
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad…
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -
good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad…
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good…
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad…
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad…
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good…
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad…
No mass graves found in Serbia - good…
No WMD found Iraq - bad…
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good…
Economy slows under Bush - bad…
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad…
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good…
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad…
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good…
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad…
Milosevic not yet convicted - good…
Saddam turned over for trial - bad…
Ah, it’s so confusing at times!
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 9:20 pm
Don, KERRY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR, SO YES I GUESS HE WOULD HAVE WAGED WAR W/ IRAQ IF HE WERE PRESIDENT.
Joe, you say Kerry has a clear vision LMFAO!!!! Yeah, you’re right he sure does. When first he was for the Iraq war, when he voted for it. Then he was against the Iraq war b/c he knew he had to be in order to compete w/ Howard Dean for the nomination. Then, after he won the nomination, he was back to being for the war. Then, he figured out that he would never be able to compete w/ Bush if they were both for the Iraq war, since he wanted to appeal to those anti war libs, so he is now currently against the Iraq war, Yup, he sure has a clear vision. He voted for the patriot act praising it, then 4 months later in the primaries, he opposed it in order to compete w/ Dean, and is now currently against it. He voted for no child left behind, now he is agaisnt it. He criticized the bush administration for free trade w/ China, when he voted for it lol. Can we say UNPRINCIPLED??
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 9:25 pm
No, sorry Carlos - while I typed that, you posted, and it looked as if I was responding to you. I made a joke the other day about the way Tim L gets caught up in caps. It was purely a chuckle for me. I enjoy reading several of the bloggers posts here - and have to give up and laugh at a few too. Those that I laugh at, I previously attempted to engage in a thoughtful discussion to no avail. If you read a couple of my other posts you’ll see I don’t have a simplistic or antagonistic viewpoint of what conservatism can or should be. I do believe that Bush’s idea of Compassionate Conservatism is neither.
Comment by Chris — 7/26/2004 @ 9:27 pm
Sorry to fill up the blog - I have a hunch this is pointless. But here goes . . . Carlos, first of all coming to a blog to discover the answer to a question of who to vote for is a little scary. That could be the first problem. The second, no smaller than the first, is that Bill Clinton is no longer in office. I’m not saying the problem is that he is not in office - but the problem is the fact that you don’t have to decide between Bill Clinton and GWB in the upcoming election. You see, Bill Clinton will never be president again. Bill Clinton hasn’t been president for quite some time now, over three years. The upcoming election is between, among others, John Kerry and GWB. Hopefully, this has eased some of your confusion.
Comment by Chris — 7/26/2004 @ 9:36 pm
Regarding optimisim, or lack thereof: I am optimistic that Kerry will win in November, but I am hardly complacent. Polls in swing states are moving in his direction, as are polls of independent/undecided voters. Fahrenheit 9/11 has sold over $100M in tickets, so it is spreading well beyond just preaching to the choir. Those swing voters are seeing the movie, and by and large, they aren’t staying on the fence. This election is about whether Bush has earned another 4 years, and other than his base, he’s not doing well.
Of course, the real kicker is who actually gets out and votes. Bummer for Dubya that the Jebster wasn’t able to kick those 47,000 “felons” off the voter registration rolls. Oh yeah, and those 61 hispanics, too. What’s even more amazing is that after the 2000 shenanigans, he still has the balls to say “oops! honest mistake!” Please - the needle just fell off my bullshit meter!
The thing that REALLY scares me is what they will do come October if they are trailing in the polls. Looking at what they did to grab power in 2000, is there anything the wouldn’t do to hang onto it in 2004?
Comment by frsbdg — 7/26/2004 @ 9:52 pm
Chris, yes Clinton is no longer in office, but to simply pawn this off by saying that Bush is the one who will have to face the voters, the way that Corn does, is really Clintonesque.
It is an established fact that Clinton severely neglected the terrorism problem. He refused custody of Bin Laden on many occasions. So, it is not just an academic exercise to lay more blame at Clinton’s feet.
It is kind of like a new superindendant at a building. The old super for years had neglected all kinds of bullding and fire codes. Security was close to non-existant. When people had attempted to burn the building down once before, he did next to nothing. When the new super comes, the criminals finally succeed in burning the building down. When it comes time to assign blame, yes, I guess in some abstract sense, the new super is to blame, he was in charge, after all. But would the new super be wrong to point out the truly sorry shape of his building that he inherited, due to years of neglect by his predecessor? Of course not.
The point of the 9/11 Commission was NOT to assign blame, but since the Left has chosen to use it in exactly that sense, it would be foolhardy for the Right not to point out Clinton’s failings.
Since Kerry in some sense inherits Clinton’s mantle, it is indeed between W and Kerry. Kerry promises to bring back a lot of Clinton’s failed policies, e.g., the treatment of terrorist attacks as criminal, not military matters. They bombed the Khobar Towers! Send the FBI!!
So you are flat out wrong for saying that this isn’t Clinton vs. Bush. It really is.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 9:56 pm
frsbdg, not only were those felons not kicked off the voter rolls, but they have been employed by Democratic action groups, so they can come to your door and mine! Nothing like sending felons to ring doorbells.
BTW, when you tabulate all of the moonbat Moore-ons out there (Moore used to be on the fringes of the party, but now he his The Establishment), 100 million dollars isn’t that great a total. This, in and of itself is not evidence that the movie had any great impact. If every 10th Democrat saw this movie, 100 million dollars would be very attainable.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 10:01 pm
frsbdg, you are so full of it. Bush won Florida fair and square. It was recounted 4 times. Plus the media recounted the Florida votes several times and Bush always came out the winner. Also, don’t forget, that a section of Florida has a different time zone in it. And all of the media called Florida early for Gore, (even fox) so that made 10,000 republicans in that section of Florida that has an earlier time zone not even register to vote. And also, if Gore’s way was implimented by every county(not just democratic, but republican too) Bush would of even had a bigger lead than 537 votes, he would have won by 1665. Also, it was not Bush, but Gore who tried to steal the election. Gore was the one that wanted to throw out 8,000 absentee ballots for Bush. And remember those people who said they accidentally voted for Buchannan but really meant to vote for Gore?? Well that whole thing was a total scam. The Gore team and his lawyers hired a telemarketing firm that called people who voted for Buchannan to say to reporters that they meant to vote for Gore instead. They did this to deligitimize the butterfly ballots as being too complicated to use(when even 6 yr old kindergarten kids figured out how to use lol). That is the true story of how Al Gore tried to steal the election.
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 10:05 pm
Democrats, if Moore is truly what you represent, then why is Michael Moore BANNED from the Democratic National Convention??? You will not see Kerry anywhere near Moore. That should tell you right there that Moore is hurting the Democratic party w/ his lies and propaganda and Kerry knows it.
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 10:08 pm
They did show Moore once tonight, that I saw, and he looked truly bored.
Since Moore is the new face of the Dems, and he will help tip the scale in Kedward’s favor, how come Moore is not a featured speaker? Come on Moore-ons, riddle me this. Where is Moore. Let the man speak!
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/26/2004 @ 10:12 pm
Also, it is illegal for felons to vote, so all those disinfranchised voters you democrats keep talking about, and Kerry keeps using as demogoguery doesn’t even matter. How does it feel to be the party of felons? lol
Comment by Tim L — 7/26/2004 @ 10:22 pm
“So you are flat out wrong for saying that this isn’t Clinton vs. Bush.” Oh, ok. I stand corrected. I thought it was Kerry. Some things are so confusing . . .
Comment by Chris — 7/26/2004 @ 11:13 pm
Evidently I didn’t simplify it enough for you. It is Bush’s policies vs. Clintonisn Failed Policies on the War Against Terror.
Still confused?
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 5:29 am
Carlos,
If you want to vote against Clinton that’s fine. You can select John Kerry too, after all he isn’t Clinton either. I’m sure he’ll thank you for your support.
Looked at your list and came up with another.
Casting everything Clinton did as bad – silly.
Casting everything Bush does as good. – silly.
I did have a question about the atheist Republican statement though. Leaving aside Mr. Ashcroft and the apparent pandering of the Republican party to conservative Christian groups, don’t you find the rhetoric of the Christian right directed at you just as much as Democrats. It’s just an observation, but I sense they would consider you as much an enemy of our “Christian Nation” as any secular Democrat. Perhaps more so because you an interloper among the elect, or do you feel you receive a dispensation for supporting the will of god.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 6:37 am
There is to much B.S. to counter it all, so just a few quick points. Read the media consortium report past the headlines, and you find that Gore made a strategic error in asking for recounts in only 4 counties. In a state wide recount, Gore wins. Especially if clearly marked overvotes are counted, ie, punching for Gore and writing his name in. Florida law states that a ballot is valid if the intent of the voter is apparent, overvote or not. Of course, in more afluent counties, overvoted ballots were returned to the voter for correction but just discarded in heavily black neighborhoods.
The voter purge lists included many non-felons, as well as people who had had their voting rights resored, people whose names sounded similar to felons, and people who were supposed to have committed crimes in the future - it was that bad.
Even Buchanan himself said that the heavily Jewish precints that went his way weren’t his supporters. Should people have been more careful checking their butterfly ballots? Obviously, but, when you are used one form, sometimes you don’t read the instructions because you think you know what you are doing.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 7:10 am
Concerning Florida 2000. Don’t forget the dis-enfranchisement of the Military. Many, Many, Many of these folks were prevented from voting and it is well known who stood to benefit from that!
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 7:35 am
Osama bin Laden on a Silver Platter?
See here:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=17172&mode=&order=0
by Scott C. Smith
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 7:41 am
Tim L.
Actually Tim Mr. Baker was successful in getting the vast majority of those votes counted, even the ones cast after the election. But while you’re on that subject perhaps you can explain why the GOP isn’t working as hard this time to make sure military personnel get their ballots counted?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-13-troopvote_x.htm
It’s a nice notion, to bad it only concerns the GOP when they think it will help them.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 7:42 am
Tim,
The military absentee vote controversy was over postmarks and whether they were cast before the deadline. What will really be interesting is how the military will tend to vote in this election cycle.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 7:45 am
Robert,
That assumes of course that the GOP actually wants the military personnel to vote.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 7:53 am
Mr. Schwartz,
You obviously haven’t listened to the audio tape of the former president ADMITTING he could have had him extradited to the U.S.. It is also very telling that NONE of the major media (read liberal) will put this story out for their viewers to decide!
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 8:04 am
I think it’s a pretty safe bet that most people in the military don’t want a traitor for their commander in chief. You folks obviously haven’t listened to very many active military folks…
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 8:06 am
Tim,
Are you calling John Kerry a traitor? Or is that a reference to George aWol Bush?
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 8:13 am
Tim;
I’m not an expert on wine (sic) parties, would you recommend Emmenthaler because the nutty flavor would be a nice compliment, or do you think something a little fattier like Stilton would be a good compliment to the astringent nature of your wine (sic).
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 8:22 am
Tim;
I forgot to mention this. The infamous NewsMax story, and the wonders of selective editing. No wonder you believe there’s a “liberal” media. It generally isn’t considered biased not to report on a clearly biased lie.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 8:24 am
Timmy,
I can’t speak for all military families, but the ones I actually KNOW (since 2 of Jill’s kids are in the military) seem to comprise as wide a canyon of difference of opinion as the general population. Mostly, the many reserves I speak with who were deployed to Iraq, fortunately able to come home, have intimated that they’ve felt betrayed and mis-used by the current DOD and Pentagon officials. They were repeatedly lied to, first about their reasons for going to war, then about when they’d be able to return to their families, jobs and communities. I’m fairly confident that we’ll see small spikes of anti-Bush opinions and votes in the strangest of places…rural areas with a high concentration of military reservists. I know a couple of small towns in Indiana, at least, who certainly cannot be counted on as automatic Cheney/Bush’04 supporters.
While such a phenomenon may not have as much effect in every state, it certainly can make a huge difference (like every, single little vote can) in those states where every, single, little vote WILL! (if only they’re all counted)
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 8:27 am
I spoke to one sailor who had been below decks when Commander-in-Chief Codpiece spoke underneath the Mission Accomplished banner. They were just thrilled to be kept at sea just a little while longer for a photo op. Not.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 8:56 am
Robert,
I was at the Coronado Brewing Company last fall. A couple of Navy Pilots expressed the exact, same sentiments. Funny, now you’ve got me thinking again…I’ve not met many hard-core Bush supporters in Brew-Pubs. I HAVE met plenty at drug-company parties and tractor pulls. File under: hmmm?
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 9:04 am
Well, it is not the President’s picture that is hanging in the war museum in Ho Chi Minh city! Gee, I wonder why the communist Vietnamese put it there along with a caption expressing their glowing admiration for a certain American who met them in Paris against the express wishes of his government?
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 9:11 am
Yes, I’m sure that many folks in the military won’t vote for the President. It is my contention that they are in the minority.
Also, I don’t believe the story that somehow reservists we “lied to” concerning their deployments. Situations in wartime change and that’s the way the cookie crumbles. The fact that they did not get to go home as originally envisioned doesn’t constitute a lie! Give me a break.
A lot of the whining I’m hearing is coming from the ranks of the reservists. You know, a few squeaky wheels always get the grease, or in this case the press coverage. I say to them: next time DON’T sign up to be a reservist if you can’t pay the dues required!
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 9:15 am
Tim, just curious, have you served in the military? Have you “paid your dues” to this war you are so supportive of?
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/27/2004 @ 9:33 am
Robert, I will concede that Clinton did a few good things, such as welfare reform, but he didn’t do them until the GOP congress of 1994, and he resisted the whole way. When he finally conceded and signed the Welfare reform, he acted as if he were for it the whole time. Typical Clinton.
As for me being an Atheist Conservative Republican, all I can say is that I do not have a bigotry against Christians like most of you do. I do not feel comfortable being preached to, but on balance, when it comes to terrorism, taxes, foreign policy, gun control, etc., I am solidly with the GOP. It is possible to be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-drug legalization, and still be GOP. The GOP is better on the issues that are most important to me.
When I find a politician or party that I agree with 100%, I will let you know.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 9:49 am
I have never been in the military, but rest assured If I chose to do so I would accept the hardships that the job entails. I would even gripe and grouse like all people do about their jobs, but I wouldn’t disparage my commander in chief or superior officers for doing their job.
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 9:49 am
Mr Benson, do you really and truly believe that the media isn’t slanted to the left?
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 9:50 am
Tim,
You’re saying something doesn’t change that many of theses men and women I’ve talked with FEEL they’ve been lied to. They were TOLD that the reason their lives were being endangered and discarded was that they were protecting the country, their communities and families from “massive stockpiles” “thousands of liters", “mobile WMD labs", “unmanned aerial vehicles” and the “grave and gathering threat” of “mushroom clouds” over American cities.
Yes, they SHOULD feel that they were lied to. Their exit times from the theater were stated AS FACTS to them before being delayed. Most took it in stride, at the time, but their families suffered, their communities suffered, their employers suffered and few ever forget personal suffering. (funny how almost all the suffering is done by those from small towns or with small bank accounts!)
Approximately fifteen percent of American military deaths in Iraq have been National Guard and Reservists. These are men and women who signed up to contribute to their communities, fight fires, rescue flood victims and then to be the last line of defense in protection of our nation.
Your disgusting dismissal of the opinions expressed by MANY (a minority or majority remains to be seen, I can only reference those I’ve taken the time to personally talk to) is representative of the piss-poor regard in which such national heroes are held.
They volunteered, they deployed, they fought, they DIED serving right next to their full-time military bretheren. Now some survivors are coming home. They, like all of us, have every right (and many feel it is their duty to their brothers and sisters in arms) to SPEAK OUT against the cavalier waste of lives and resources for nefarious purposes.
You obviously have no respect for those who DO fulfill their commitments and then speak their minds. Seems like you’d rather those reservists stay at home and play “weekend warrior” and run political campains, instead of fulfilling THEIRS.
I’m not normally given to personal attacks, but this last post of yours proves you’re not really cognizant of the importance of emotion in the political process.
…and kinda a JERK, come to think of it.
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 10:07 am
Take it easy on the poor guy Hajji. We must be mindful of the intellectually challenged.
Comment by Paul — 7/27/2004 @ 10:40 am
Hey Hajji,
I remember you. Mr. inflammatory rhetoric. Look, you don’t know me so don’t presume to judge me, got it?
Now, I understand the points you make it’s just that given some of the complaining I’ve heard (granted I can only hear what’s being reported) a lot of it sounds like whining to me, sorry. What did these people expect? Looks like more than a few did not expect to ever be called up. In other words, they didn’t sign on to actually fight. Well, all I’m saying to those folks is that they should have thought about that before signing up. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. I just don’t like it when others pick them up to use as a club to attack the President.
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 10:49 am
“I just don’t like it when others pick them up to use as a club to attack the President,” you say.
And I just don’t like it when others blindly support an pointless war in support of a President for whom they are not themselves risking their lives.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/27/2004 @ 10:59 am
They’ve got their own clubs, their own words. IT is the swinging of them that Timmy is objecting to. We can only judge Timmy by what he writes. Therefore I stand on my opinon that he is a jerk. Objections?
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 11:08 am
As I said, they volunteered, the ARE fighting, they ARE dying, which doesn’t seem to bother Tim. What bothers him is when they’ve fulfilled their commitments, they speak.
The only thing they have left to lose is their lives, their friend’s lives and the future of their families. Now who gave them the right to speak their minds!?
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 11:12 am
Karen, OKAY, KERRY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR, SO WHY ARE YOU SO AGAINST IT??? YOU ONLY HOLD BUSH AVVOUNTABLE WHEN KERRY SUPPORTED IT. This isue should be neutralized b/w Bush and Kerry since they both were for the Iraq war. Now, if Kerry didn’t vote for it, then yes, I could see where you are coming from. If you guys are all truly against the Iraq war, then why don’t you vote for Nader, the real anti-war candidate. You unfounded hatred of Bush for the Iraq war, tells me this party is very much unprincipled. What would Kerry have to do to make you hate him w/ regards to the Iraq war. He’s done pretty much all he could to support it. He’s made many many definitive statements about Saddam’s WMD’s, he said we should go to war w/ Iraq. You guys don’t make any sense.
Comment by Tim L — 7/27/2004 @ 11:54 am
Tim. You are seeing things in only two colors–black and white. Life is lots more complicated than that in case you hadn’t noticed–and indeed, you may not have. I don’t follow a “party line.” I disagreed with everyone who voted in support of the war, though I understand why they made the decision they did, based on the line the administration was feeding them. Does that mean I have to write those people off entirely? Of course not! Does that mean I automatically have to support the war just because the person I support in this campaign voted for it? Don’t be preposterous! I have my own mind, and I weight all the evidence–go where the preponderance of the evidence takes me. You truly frighten me with your utter and incomprehensible–and repeatedly demonstrated–inability to see anything beyond the most superficial terms of logic! It astounds me! Why am I wasting my time like this (answer: because I’m trying to write something and I want to procrastinate).
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/27/2004 @ 11:59 am
Carlos,
Obviously there is liberal media; you came looking for it here. However if you want to use NewsMax, or FNC as your yardstick then there’s no point in discussing the issue. If you assume every thing that isn’t conservatively biased is liberally biased there’s no room for argument. The basis for analysis is so flawed it’s the only answer.
I accept your answer for being an atheist Republican; you’ll accept a coalition that gets closer to your desires. I can’t argue your reasoning, but I still dislike your coalition.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 12:02 pm
Tim L.
You are in violation of keyboard kindness laws. Cease the stabbing caps attacks immediately, or your privledges to emphasize will be permanently revoked!
-The Management
Comment by Keyboard Protection Services — 7/27/2004 @ 12:10 pm
Be careful Hajji and Karen. Next Tim will fall back on that other tired Republican argument–that you are engaging in “class warfare.” The least that the poor in this country can do is to do the dirty work and shut up about it! If the poor start to develop their own ideas about whether a war that they are being asked to fight is justified, then where would we be? By the way, as for Tim’s comment that “they should have thought about being called up to fight before they signed up", which I think is another common mantra of those who support the war, we all should remember that most people who join the military and the reserves do it because they are the people who most need the financial benefits that are given to them for joining. The least that the people who do not have to fight should do is to make sure we do not ask our military to fight without sufficient justification. And when a President tells the American people why war is necessary, he damn well has to be right. And if he’s wrong, he should lose his job. My goodness, we hold football coaches to more stringest standards than the right wingers in this country want to hold Mr. Bush to. If a football coach is wrong with his game plans he gets fired, he cannot blame his assistant coaches for a bad scouting report. But Bush and his supporters think that he should be allowed to be completely wrong on the reasons he sent our youth to fight a war in a foreign country, but that he can just say it was the CIA’s fault and it should not be held against him. Where is the accountability? Whether or not he deliberately lied or just made a momentously bad decision based on faulty intelligence is not the point. The point is that he sent our soldiers to fight a completely unnecessary war for reasons that turned out to not be right. He shouldn’t get a second chance. In fact, he should not even be asking for one.
Comment by Mark — 7/27/2004 @ 12:25 pm
Amen to that, Mark. I go back to those powerful words of Tony Blair, all his faults aside: “I take full responsibility.”
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/27/2004 @ 12:37 pm
Mark,
The only problem is that you and others like you want us to accept your definition of what is “right” or “wrong” with respect to going to war. If we don’t, we are subjected to all manner of hate-filled rhetoric from the left in this country. I submit that you are entitled to an opinion, but so are we.
You really get up on a pretty high horse, but I’m used to listening so I’m not offended. I’ll just say this: In my opinion the war was justified and I am not going to apologize to those to whom no amount of facts will convince otherwise.
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 12:47 pm
Tim, it isn’t my definition of “right” or “wrong” that is at issue. That is open to debate and honest disagreement. I am talking about this country being told that we were going to war due to weapons of mass destruction, and then being told later that while there were no WMDs, that is okay because there were other good reasons to go to war anyway. It is too late now for the American people to be heard as to whether going to war with Iraq is justified because Hussein was a bad guy. The American people may or may not have supported a war on that ground (frankly, I do not think they would have), but they should have been heard on that point, not asked to accept it as a good enough reason to go to war after the fact. A Presidant just cannot be wrong on the reasons we are going to war without repercusions! It seems to me that the essence of being a leader is being accountable.Mr. Bush has established that he will make bad decisions on faulty information. Why on earth does he deserve a second chance? Simply because he is a Republican? That’s not enough reason for me, and it would not be enough reason if he was a Democrat either, because I have voted for both. I am sorry if I sound like I am on a “high horse” and I very well may sound like that, but I just cannot understand how those who support this Administration do not think it matters that Bush was so wrong on a matter of life and death to our soldiers.
Comment by Mark — 7/27/2004 @ 1:05 pm
The prospect of a change of presidency affects others outside of this country – Tony Blair, for example. If we’re going to play the who-can-better-read-the-signs game, I’m jumping in with excerpts of an article by signs-reader Martin Kettle in today’s Guardian about the effect of a prospective Kerry presidency on Britain and Blair. His remarks reflect the mood of the “turning tide” which our Bush supporters are finding so very hard to assimilate:
“It is high time the political class [in Britain] woke up to the fact that the US polls are giving a pretty consistent message that cannot be dismissed merely because it doesn’t fit the streetwise assumption that Bush will win. Yet the reality is that the polling numbers in the Bush-Kerry contest have been saying something strikingly consistent ever since Kerry emerged as the Democratic contender in March.
“That something is that Bush is losing and Kerry is winning. Every national poll this month has had Kerry ahead. Yes, his leads are often narrow and they are frequently within the 3% margin of polling error, but they all show Kerry leading Bush. All the polls show Kerry is between 47%-49%, with Bush around 44%-46%. That’s neither commanding nor impregnable for Kerry, but it is very consistent and very bad for Bush.
“The other important point is that many of Kerry’s strongest gains are in the all-important battleground states. Again, the leads are often within the margin of error, and not every poll says the same thing in every state - notably Florida - but the overall picture is consistent. In a mid-July battleground states poll by Zogby International, Kerry led in every state Gore won in 2000; but he also led, or was within the margin of error, in every battleground state won by Bush. On that basis, Kerry had a 322-216 vote advantage in the electoral college.
“This will change many times before November, but it is all taking place within a context. That context, again as expressed in the polls, is that a small but clear majority of Americans consistently say that their country is heading in the wrong direction or that it is time for a change. Last week’s Los Angeles Times poll had this figure at 54%, which is fairly typical.
“If Kerry can tap deeper into the undecideds among these voters when he addresses the Democratic convention here on Thursday, then he should win in November. It all comes down, many analysts believe, to whether socially conservative, lower middle-class voters in the swing states feel reassured by Kerry. “This election will be decided by Cincinnati housewives,” is how Boston College sociologist Professor Alan Wolfe puts it.
“It would be astonishing if the British government’s America-watchers in Washington were not signalling this real possibility. Go easy, the diplomats are surely cautioning once more. Don’t assume that Bush will be re-elected. Prepare for the possibility of President Kerry. That is sound advice, not merely because it makes sense to anticipate all outcomes, but also because Kerry clearly has the advantage in the November 2 match-up… ”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1269903,00.html
Comment by Bean in Texas — 7/27/2004 @ 1:17 pm
Mark,
You make some good points. I wasn’t trying to beat you up about it. As I’ve said on other threads, I have come to understand the issues from different perspectives than my own by engaging in discussions here. I believe I am in a better position having done so regardless of the fact that I haven’t changed my mind on some of my “core” issues.
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2004 @ 1:27 pm
Hey Tim; Almost all my best friends are Republican, many of them very hard core. So I certainly understand that having different views on these issues are understandable. The problem is that we are really talking about isues that are about life and death, so it becomes very difficult not to become passionate. One thing I did want to address and that is your comment above about the “hate filled rhetoric” from the left in this country. I find that interesting because in my view I feel it is just the opposite, and maybe that is just a reflection of how divisive things have gotten. It seems to me, who I would describe as an independent with definite liberal leanings, that it is the right which has filled the air with hate filled rhetoric. Talk radio is full of conservatives calling liberals all kinds of names. The personal attacks on Bill and Hilary Clinton for 8 years were more than appalling. Some people even suggested that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered! Rush Limbaugh calls Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog. Matt Drudge says that Clinton fathered an illigitimate baby with a black woman. Sean Hannity writes a book called “Deliver Us From Evil” which he describes as saving us from the evil of terrorism and liberals. Ann Coulter writes a book called “Treason” which basically accuses all liberals of being traitors to the U.S. Isn’t this “hate filled rhetoric?” Personally, I deplore this rhetoric and I think it is all about trying to divide the country in order to galvanize voters. Do you think liberals were that bad before the last year or so? I know that things have gotten more heated lately over the war, but that seems to me to be, in part, a liberal backlash against the long running attacks of the conservatives. Maybe I am just blinded by my own liberal bias but I do not think so. What do you think?
Comment by Mark — 7/27/2004 @ 2:16 pm
L
Comment by Tim L — 7/27/2004 @ 2:54 pm
Like I’ve said before, liberals don’t use logic, they use emotion. You see Karen, based on the fact kerry voted for the war, based on the fact he wants to be president, he would of waged war on Iraq also. So, just pretend he was president instead, and he went to war w/ Iraq (b/c theoretically he would of went to war w/ Iraq if he were president, based on his vote for the war and his past statements about Saddam’s WMDs) Would you still support Kerry for re-election even though he waged war w/ Iraq??
Comment by Tim L — 7/27/2004 @ 2:58 pm
“liberals don’t use logic, they use emotion”
Thats a big statement from the person whos posts are most likely to include typing in all caps which usually denotes shouting while typing online.
Oversimplifying things once again Tim L. You forgot to include: if Kerry sold one reason for going to the war but then tried to justify it with another when his first reason fizzled out, if he bungled the post war planning, if he continued one sided support in the Isreal/Palestinian peace process further enraging Arabs. These are very real, logical reasons to deem a president unfit regardless of which party he belongs to.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/27/2004 @ 3:09 pm
The issue of going to war aside, Bush’s environmental policy, energy policies, biotechnological restrictions, proposal of an amendment banning marriage for certain people, education, abortion, all provide motivation to get this country moving in another direction. I know that disagreeing with these policies will be labled as hate-filled. However it is because I love this country that I object to extremism influencing political agendas, and in this case, GWB’s.
Comment by Chris — 7/27/2004 @ 3:19 pm
Now for something that can be construed as hate filled . . . Bush is just plain stupid. There is no getting around it. He is not a bright man. And, I do hate stupidity. I admit it. I hate the idea of our leader being stupid, and it sickens me that he is. Now have your fun boys . . . I can see it already . . . One thing - before you attack my statements - remember, I’m an Independent. I’ve voted for Republicans - more than twice. I’m a “swing-voter” living in a “swing-state.” PS: on another note - Russ Feingold deserves much credit for being the only dissenting vote on the Patriot Act.
Comment by Chris — 7/27/2004 @ 3:24 pm
Eyes_open, there is no indication that Kerry will be any different from Bush on the Israeli/"Palestinian” question.
I just wish one of you Liberals, err, Progressives would explain to me just whay we should do to not “enrage the Arabs". It just seems to me that what you people think that we can just ignore Iran, Iraq, etc., and just dump Israel as an ally, and everything will be great in the Middle East. As I stated in another post, Israel is the Opiate of the Arab Masses. The Arab dictators have been able to explain away their own failings by pointing to Israel. With Israel gone, what their excuse be?
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 3:26 pm
Tim, when I said Biased Liberal Media, I wasn’t referring to this blog. I was referring to the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, 60 Minutes.
I find it funny when Libs complain about Fox. They don’t understand that the reason that Fox has been so wildly successful is that it has provided a FAIR alternative to the masses of people who were sick and tired of the bias of Peter Jennings, Katie Couric and Dan Rather.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 3:32 pm
Chris, what, specifically, do you not like about the Patriot Act? So you want to go back to the days before 9/11 when the FBI literally could not clip newspaper articles about someone? Do you want a suspect to be able to defeat a wiretap by switching to a cellular phone? Do you want the CIA and FBI hermetically sealed again?
It just seems to me that so much hatred of the Patriot Act is sheer emotionalism, fueled by ignorance.
BTW, you don’t sound like any kind of “swing voter", maybe you voted for “Republican” before. Who? Bloomberg, Jeffords?
Lastly, Bush must be the Stupidist guy out there with degrees from Harvard and Yale. Where did you get your degree? It is a familiar attack from the Left to attack a Republican president as stupid. They said the same thing about Reagan, and those charges were wildly wrong. Anyone who has read some of the letters he wrote would realize that Reagan was actually brilliant, the ad hominem attacks notwithstanding.
Robert Schwartz a couple days ago wrote that the favorite thing of conservatives to do is just make personal attacks. Coming from the crowd that alternatively calls Bush an idiot and a Nazi, you would think that he would condemn this as well. I won’t hold my breath.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074321966X/qid=1090969346/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-4320006-5400829
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 4:06 pm
Carlos,
Yes some people are afraid of the Patriot Act out of ignorance or paranoia. Some of however see the potential abuses of information collection on individuals based some of the new rules.
People call Bush stupid based on the same information many are judged: his grades. His grades were so low he would not have been accepted into college if it weren’t for his father’s legacy. His grades weren’t good then either. His score was also so low that he would never have become a pilot had it not been for favoritism allowing him to jump past many better scoring candidates. Then there’s his butchering of the english language.
How you can call Fox News unbiased is very puzzling seeing as how they are just about the most conservative telivision news source. The times I’ve watched there was a definite lack of negative news about the administration. I even remember watching while standing in line at a the city hall in Arlington. It seemed as if every five minutes they repeated an advertisement for Bill O’Reilly’s book, a man whose documented statements show without a doubt he is a right wing partisan.
As for Robert’s comments, I will only say in the several months that I posted at the MSN (whose articles were often left of center) forums I literally was able to hold only one substansive debate without recieving a barrage of unimaginative, insulting, personal attacks from the right wing posters. Needless to say it finally became too tiring to even try to share information there. The left wing posters usually saved their venom for Bush.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/27/2004 @ 5:34 pm
“I find it funny when Libs complain about Fox. They don’t understand that the reason that Fox has been so wildly successful is that it has provided a FAIR alternative to the masses of people who were sick and tired of the bias of Peter Jennings, Katie Couric and Dan Rather. ”
Thanks for proving my point. Yep Fox (sic) news is fair and balanced, do you deliver air sickness bags with your dementia. No point in arguing on this issue at all. I think I said this before, the Republicans don’t mean it’s liberally biased, they means it’s not conservatively biased.
Comment by John Benson — 7/27/2004 @ 6:16 pm
Chris, of course O’Reilly is not unbiased, the same way Alan Combs is not either. Those are OPINION shows. Do you understand that? I am talking about the Fox News segments. I should have also mentioned earlier AP and Reuters, the latter of which won’t even call a terrorist a terrorist.
Bush might not have graduated Magna Cum Laude from Yale, but he still got a degree there. And a C at Yale is equivalent to an A- at 95% of other schools. Yes, Bush’s family pulled strings to get him in, but this has been been happening for 100s of years to 1000s of Ivy League students, I dare say a bunch of Democrats as well. As for the butchering of the English language, if you were under a spotlight for 24/7, for 2 years, would you not have some missteps? I would.
As for the Patriot Act, the POTENTIAL abuse of this act is wickedly out of proportion to the ACTUAL abuses from it. If we kill the Patriot Act, exactly have we learned since 9/11.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 6:27 pm
Saddaam has the POTENTIAL to start up programs to manufacture WMD! That’s dangerous enough to start a big ‘ol WAR!
Who are American citizens s’posed to invade because of the POTENTIAL abuses of the patriot act, Carlos?
Comment by Hajji — 7/27/2004 @ 6:56 pm
Hajji, I am having difficulty wading through your forest of non sequitors.
Can someone help me out here?
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 7:41 pm
Wow, is (Her Husband Wants) Teresa (Your Taxes) Heinz Kerry a BORING speaker!
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 7:42 pm
John B,
You are so right. Claiming anything that’s not conservative as liberal is just a symptom of that good/evil, black/white, us vs. them absolutest view that currently resides in the White House and its supporters. I’ll quote myself:
“some of the new rules”
I never put down the whole Patriot Act, only pointed out parts of it step over the line. Carlos seems to see no middle ground when debating this though thinking I was advocating “killing” it.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/27/2004 @ 7:56 pm
Tim L. - you can use that line about Kerry’s differences with going to war the right way. Sure his votes are in conflict. Remember, he was told one thing but another was done. The Patriot Act is important but needs a few adjustments. I am a conservative who resents people taking the conservatives out of the Republican Party. I get your points about Kerry’s changes in votes. If you follow the trail, it all makes sense. If Bush is so good for this country, why are we in deficit spending? Why is the situation in Iraq so mismanaged? When will there be security there. Secuity is a real possibility but there has to be political will. Conservatives know this and expect this. Our party has been hijacked by people who wish to increase the reach of government and increase the taxpayer output to corporations. These things are not conservative or liberal. They are greedy mismanagement for personal gain. The laughable fact is that while George Bush promoted these silly ideologies, he didn’t even enrich himself. He has nothing to show for his loyalty to corporate interests and has made himself look foolish by allowing his religious beliefs to be hijacked by “so called Christians” whose real desire is increase the taxpayer burden by criminalizing abortion and medical research. These ideas are not based on sound conservative thought. John Kerry will restore the federal treasury to fiscal health - he doesn’t have a choice. The political winds will change and it won’t be sound to vote for Democrats but now is not the time for Republicans to rule. The Republican Party has allowed muddled thinking to dominate. They don’t deserve to run this great democracy of ours at this point in time.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/27/2004 @ 7:59 pm
Joe,
It is extremely refreshing to see a conservative who thinks beyond party loyalty. As I’ve said before, Kerry may be on the left but he’s much closer to center then Bush. Doesn’t it just make sense that someone with more responsible, centrist views would be better for the country as a whole then anyone on the fringe of their political side?
Comment by eyes_open — 7/27/2004 @ 8:09 pm
Eyes_open, every time I see the attacks on the Patriot Act, the attack is on it’s entirety for the most part. I subscribe to The New Republic, so I am quite a few liberal fundraising lists. I get letters from the ACLU that are practically hysterical when it comes to the Patriot Act. Howard Dean attacked the Patriot Act, not just parts of it.
So if you object to a few parts in the Patriot Act, so be it. But the attacks on it from the left have been out of proportion to the alleged dangers of it.
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 8:19 pm
Joe, as a conservative, I am very much distressed about much of the spending that the Bush admin. has done. But is the solution going to be someone who admits that he is going to raise taxes while at the same time increasing spending even more, with his health care, education, day care, etc., bills?
Comment by Carlos K Krinklebein — 7/27/2004 @ 8:22 pm
“Chris, of course O’Reilly is not unbiased, the same way Alan Combs is not either. Those are OPINION shows. Do you understand that?” “Carlos,” I never mentioned O’Reilly. Do you understand that?
Comment by Chris — 7/27/2004 @ 8:50 pm
Carlos, I find it hillarious that people criticize bush for the patriot act, then go turn around and support kerry who voted for the patriot act lol. But, now he is against it, since it isn’t politically expedient.
Comment by Tim L — 7/27/2004 @ 9:01 pm
Joe, conservatives are getting mad at Bush for all of his spending on the entitlement programs lol. So to say he is far right is crazy. And if you think Bush is more to the right than Kerry is to the left, you are crazy. Kerry is the most liberal senator. Secondly, you aren’t a conservative if you support Kerry. You are an extreme moderate republican.
Comment by Tim L — 7/27/2004 @ 9:15 pm
Robert Schwartz a couple days ago wrote that the favorite thing of conservatives to do is just make personal attacks. Coming from the crowd that alternatively calls Bush an idiot and a Nazi, you would think that he would condemn this as well. I won’t hold my breath.\
Provide the quote of mine you are refering to - I have said no such thing. Now, I wouldn’t call GWB a Nazi, although I might use Fascist, in the same sense that Mussilini used it, a convergence of Corporate and State power. And I might have used Nazi supporter for Prescott Bush, whose Union Bank was the Nazi depository of funds in the US well into WWII, but I don’t recall mentioning that in this forum until ths.
Now, judging from his use of language, George W. Bush is demonstrably much less of an intellect than any other president in my lifetime, and probably of all time. And I don’t hate stupid people, I just don’t think they should be in public office.
Bush must be the Stupidist guy out there with degrees from Harvard and Yale.
I agree, Bush is the stupidist guy to ever get degrees from Havard & Yale!
I had to come home from work to this drech?
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/27/2004 @ 9:19 pm
Tim L.
Regarding post #43: read chapter 1 of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” by Greg Palast. Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush went to great lengths to deny thousands of citizens their legal right to vote. As for the recounts all favoring Bush, you’re wrong again. In recounts that counted ALL the spoiled ballots, both undervotes AND overvotes, Gore won. You’re right about the time zone issue though, but if those people didn’t get out and vote, there’s nothing to count. Perhaps that offsets all the African Americans who were denied their right to vote. For those people that DID vote, more people voted for Gore. Regarding the absentee ballots, the Bush team applied a double standard that excluded overseas ballots from Democratic leaning counties, but not in Republican leaning ones. As for the “butterfly ballot,” you must have gotten that information straight from Limbaugh. Did the telemarketers call Buchanan himself, who said there was no way that many people voted for him in Palm Beach county?
The difference between us is that if I voted for a candidate who went to great lengths to steal an election, I wouldn’t defend his actions. It’s called principle. Look it up.
Comment by frsbdg — 7/27/2004 @ 11:58 pm
An extreme moderate?!?!?!? As in as moderate as humanly imaginable? The term sounds oxymoronic, and I’ll admit I puzzled with this one for a moment. Others can play with alternate definitions. I came up with a couple.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/28/2004 @ 12:14 am
extreme moderate - one who stretches so far in all directions that the slightest additional reach will render him asunder. See “drawn and quartered".
Comment by Hajji — 7/28/2004 @ 6:56 am
Hajji, you are TOO funny.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/28/2004 @ 9:25 am
Thanx, Karen,
I just dragged myself back in the house after a particularly hillarious slapstick fall out of the treehouse my goats call the “Goatdaminium". The goats, the dogs and ESPECIALLY the donkey are laughing their asses off. Is it BEER:30 yet? Anybody got any aspirin? Ouch!
Comment by Hajji — 7/28/2004 @ 10:01 am
Tim L.
So you have a problem with moderate Republicans. Certainly, the Republican Party does have a problem with the moderates. The extreme right is simply wrong. Their views are too expensive. Tax relief did not work and has already backfired for some corporations. They know it. I’m not the only Bush supporter who is deserting him. Conservative thought took over 100 years to develop and grow. The extreme right is a threat to conservative thinking. Bush is spending money that we cannot afford to spend. I challenge you to cut your own pay and continue to spend the same way you are now. Talk to me in a year and tell me how well your financial picture looks. I’ve met a payroll for years and know that it is unsound to expect to simply cut taxes without spending. We have Congress to blame for this, though, not Bush. Tim, it is your recitation of the extreme right thinking that led to this. The Democrats are doing a better job at fiscal responsibility - even in the states. The Democratic governors (with the exception of Arnold Schwarzzenegger) are balancing their budgets and bringing in new business. Not one Republican governor (but watch Haley Barbour in Mississippi) has balanced his/her budget. Sorry Tim, but the Republican Party is no longer for business or fiscal responsibility. Just like some vote according to the abortion issue, I vote according to fiscal practices. Frankly, the Republicans have fallen down on the job.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/28/2004 @ 10:09 am
Joe, do you think more moderate Republicans will eventually split off, or perhaps that the extreme right will break off of the Republican party?
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/28/2004 @ 11:08 am
Carlos, only recently have I had time to travel back to your question. You stated (#98) that “potential abuses of the patriot act is wickedly out of proportion to the actual abuses,” or some such rot.
I was merely stating that the goalposts for invading a sovereign, foreign nation now stand at weak statements of “potential". I’m sorry that you’re either not general or specific enough to catch my “non sequiters", but I’m only here, like most all of us for my own entertainment, of course.
Comment by Hajji — 7/28/2004 @ 9:35 pm
‘President’ GW Bush:
– Stole the election in 2000
– Lied to US citizens to take the nation to war on Iraq
– Lied to US Congress to get funding for his war on Iraq
– Lied to the world
– Continues lying at every opportunity he gets to speak (good Christian, he!)
– Took the US into an illegal war
– Brought condemnation of the world on the US
– Squandered the goodwill the world had for the US after 9/11
– Brought shame to the US through actions of sections of his forces in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib in Baghdad
– Spent $ 200 billion on his wars on Afghanistan and Iraq – Missions still not accomplished
– Went into Afghanistan – then, without trying to demonstrate a good job there, invaded Iraq
– GW Bush administration enabled Halliburton, Bechtel, …. to profiteer from the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan
– GW Bush administration ‘outed’ Valerie Plame
– Evaded his military duty
– Went AWOL from the National Guard
– Trumpeted a phony ‘Mission Accomplished’, after a phony flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln
(After GW Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”, at least 500 US soldiers have died in Iraq)
– Created a deficit of $ —-trillion, from a surplus that he had inherited of $ — trillion - WHAT A BRILLIANT ECONOMIST!
— Cut taxes of the very rich
– Squeezed the middle class and the poor – education, medical care….
– Cut benefits due to soldiers ….
– Did a reverse Robin Hood, i.e. stole from the poor to give to the rich
He’s the RIGHT man to take the US to you-know-where
Comment by GS Chandy — 7/29/2004 @ 12:39 am
The above message should be titled gschandylies.com, LOL
Comment by Bill — 7/29/2004 @ 3:41 pm
Karen, In response to #116 - I believe that the Republican Party will return to limited government and fiscal responsibility. The religious right have no other party just like blacks have no other party than the Democrats. It’s a sad state of affairs for them but they’ll probably always be there.
Comment by Joe Tully — 8/6/2004 @ 11:30 am