The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Gatito Grande]

I listened to the NPR debate yesterday (BTW, a very good format---so much less distracting than seeing them all mug for the cameras).



On the whole, I'd still have to say that none of them (Clark, Sharpton and Edwards weren't there) light my fire, but I'm feeling somewhat better about Dean than I did previously (then again, Dean may in particular benefit from not being on camera). The one candidate who went down in my estimation was Kerry: he's really a blowhard. Gephart strikes me as a genuinely decent guy . . . who can't beat Bush. Kucinich is the best in the "principle" department, but he just doesn't strike me as being mentally "fast enough on his feet." For the second time recently, I've been pleasantly surprised by Carol Mosely Braun: it's a shame that she probably won't be considered for Veep---she's eminently qualified (and, whatever her past alleged shannanigans, there's *no way* she's anymore ethically-challenged than Dick Cheney). Lieberman: blech.



I just got my Michigan caucus ballot application today: I'm undecided whether I just want to do it the on-line route, or actually attend the caucus (Feb.7---if it's not over by then! ). At this point, I'm still leaning towards Dean, but I'm not yet 100%.



GG I happen to think that Kucinich's timetable for getting the US out of Iraq is unrealistic. Even if the US was to kiss *ss at the UN now---and we should---I'm still not sure many of the nations we cheesed off would now willingly go into Iraqi shooting gallery. The ugly reality is the US has to clean up the mess it never should have made in the first place. Out

[justin]

BBC news has got an interesting article about some of the consequences of Bush's first four years. You can read it here



If Bush gets re-elected maybe the other countries should start thinking about financial aid.



As well as the deficit another consequence is that the army is now overstreched. You can read about that here

If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it's done. - Scott Adams

Edited by: justin at: 1/8/04 10:15 am

[Kieli]

Was there ever any doubt as to how badly the Bush Years really has affected the world (both economically and politically)? The man is a walking disaster who needs people around him 24/7 to stop him from causing WWIII.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[maudmac]

GG, what are these shenanigans of Carol Mosely Braun's? I like her very much and, yeah, like you said, I can't imagine that whatever it is could be worse than some of the shit Cheney's gotten up to.



I think the GOP is going to push gay marriage as a wedge and, as much as it sucks, it's probably going to work. So Mosely Braun, Sharpton, and Kucinich, being the only three candidates (as far as I know) who've said they support full marriage rights for same-sex couples, aren't likely to be picked as VP candidates. And I fear that Dean or Clark (who's gaining on Dean in the polls) will back off somewhat on their positions.



justin, yeah, that's scary stuff and highlights that whole "the US sneezes and the world gets a cold" thing, which is really unfortunate in the first place, that it's like that. But especially so with someone like Bush at the helm. I feel like...like we have no right to inflict a man like that on the world.



Kieli, you know...I think it's probably the people around him who would be very happy to have a WWIII.

---

go         donut           go

[maudmac]

I've long believed the government is evil, so this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad, though, to see things like this getting press in places that have a wider appeal and are generally thought to be more reputable than some of the freaky magazines and websites I read.

Quote:

---

Pentagon Withholds Cold War Medical Data

AP Enterprise: Pentagon Denying Victims Data on Cold War Weapons Tests



The Associated Press





WASHINGTON Jan. 16 — The Pentagon is continuing to withhold documents on Cold War chemical and biological weapons tests that used unsuspecting sailors as "human samplers" after telling Congress it had released all medically relevant information.



In response to questions from The Associated Press about a deposition last month by a former military scientist, J. Clifton Spendlove, who planned and supervised the testing program, the Defense Department acknowledged this week it still has documents laying out the scope and methods of the tests.



Detailed planning documents and reports for each of the tests are classified because they identify vulnerabilities of military vessels to chemical and biological warfare agents and capabilities for delivering the agents, the Pentagon said in a response to questions from the AP.



In some cases, samples were taken from sailors to measure their exposure to tracers used to simulate chemical and biological agents, the Pentagon's written statement said. Reports on them were not released because they "did not include any plans or data that measured human effects," according to the statement.



Project 112 and the Shipboard Hazard and Defense Project consisted of 50 tests conducted between 1962 and 1973. The tests were conducted in Alaska, Maryland, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Utah, Panama, Canada, Britain and aboard ships in the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans.



The secretive tests involved 5,842 soldiers and sailors many of whom were unwitting guinea pigs. The experiments were designed to determine the effectiveness of biological and chemical agents in combat and methods to protect troops from attacks. An untold number of civilians also may have been exposed during some of the tests on the troops.



In most cases, supposedly harmless simulants were used to mimic anthrax, E. coli or other agents, although in a number of cases potentially deadly nerve agents were used, including sarin and VX.



Numerous veterans say they are now suffering from illnesses because of exposure, but the Veterans Affairs Administration has denied requests for health care coverage.



After a three-year investigation that Pentagon officials characterized as "exhaustive," the Defense Department released an overview of the tests and a series of fact sheets last June and then disbanded the probe.



But the overview and fact sheets didn't acknowledge the documents and films that were obtained by the plaintiffs and authenticated by Spendlove, including results of tests to determine how much of the chemical simulants the "human samplers" were exposed to.



The Pentagon had already issued its first set of findings before it contacted Spendlove, who planned the Project 112 tests from the Deseret Test Center in Dugway, Utah.



Spendlove, in sworn testimony in a federal court lawsuit in Washington on behalf of the veterans, said sailors were used in the tests as "human samplers" and cited several documents and films laying out the scope and methods of the tests.



During his deposition, Spendlove was shown reports and films from a few of the tests that were obtained by the plaintiffs. He identified ships and individuals and vouched for their authenticity and indicated many more documents are likely stored at the library at the Deseret center where the testing program was headquartered.



In one of the plaintiffs' films, a soldier is loading the orange-tinted simulant used to mimic anthrax or other biological agents into a plane that would spray it on a boat. He is not wearing any protective equipment and is caked with the substance.



Spendlove's account was corroborated by Norman LaChapelle, a top Navy officer on the project, in an interview this week with the AP.



But LaChapelle, a retired Navy commander who is now in charge of chemical and biological weapons response for the city of Memphis, said he was never contacted by the Pentagon in its investigation.



"(Darn) right I was surprised" at not being contacted, said LaChapelle, who was in charge of the execution of the SHAD tests from 1964-1970. "We were involved in it. We weren't sitting in Salt Lake City. We were sitting at the test site."



The Vietnam Veterans of America is suing Pentagon officials on behalf of the sailors, demanding the release of all of the test documents so the National Academies of Science can fully analyze the potential health effects.



Douglas Rosinski, an attorney working with the veterans group on behalf of the soldiers, said the effects of the chemicals on the sailors has not been studied. The levels of exposure that the documents might detail is a crucial piece of the puzzle, he said.



Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., was frustrated by the revelation that the Pentagon is still unwilling to share information about the tests with the exposed sailors.



"It doesn't sit with me at all," said Thompson, one of several lawmakers who pressured the Pentagon into admitting the existence of Project 112 after 30 years of denials. "I was under the impression that these guys had unearthed everything that was out there that was available and they'd done the work they were charged with doing. If what (Spendlove) says is true, they haven't done the work."



Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---

It's such an outrage for a nation to ask people to fight and kill and be killed for it, treat them like lab mice, and turn its back on them, leaving them to suffer without even an acknowledgement that they are suffering. Of course, a lot of veterans besides these could probably speak about that issue at great length. The government still isn't acknowledging Gulf War Syndrome, is it?



It's also an outrage for the US to get indignant and be morally outraged about some other country's government using chemicals weapons on its own people. Chemical weapons are horrifying, all the way around, but if the US believes it's especially horrifying to use them on your own people, the US ought to take a long, hard look in the mirror before it condemns others for that.

---

go         donut           go

[Gatito Grande]

The Iowa Caucuses are done, and so is Dick Gephardt. The results were Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%. Now it's onto New Hampshire.



I have to say, I don't really get it---why it is that Kerry and Edwards surged so late in the game. In the debate I watched, Edwards didn't even participate, and Kerry was the one who impressed me least (I'm listening to his victory speech in the background, and I'm still not impressed).



I don't have a clue what's going to happen next in New Hampshire. Dean had it locked up a few weeks ago, but what w/ Kerry and Edwards boost, and Clark has been running hard and closing there, N.H. will probably go down to the wire also. Could Dean have peaked too early?



GG Will my Michigan caucus vote on Feb. 7 have real meaning? Out

[The Partisan]

In my humble assessment...



Dean: Peaked too early, got too negative, chewed out an old man, said some poorly-phrased (and that's putting it generously) comments on a variety of issues, and in general, did his damndest to come across as an unelectable candidate. Dean's stuck in a damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't quagmire, where his base is a very vocal, angry anti-Bush wing of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for him, that same vitriol doesn't play well to a broader audience, and it plays even poorly when that same venom is directed at his fellow democrats. He's not out, but he's what I'd call 'walking wounded'. He needs a -strong- victory in New Hampshire, or else he might as well pack his bags. His "speech" at the end of the night did not help his chances, and in my humble opinion, scared a lot of people off.



Kerry: Played it cool and reserved, choosing to echo the same sentiment of Dean, but without the anger. Voters who were afraid as to Dean's perceived unelectability (which is an entirely separate issue), saw a more electable, composed version of Dean with whom they could support. His Vietnam Vet war hero status (in particular, the story of the Republican whose life he saved) also helped his cause.



Edwards: "If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs..." He played a careful, cautious game and was rewarded as Dean slugged it out down-and-dirty. I'd say that he gained the most from Dean's largely self-inflicted wounds, and now has the same sort of momentum as the Cardiac Cats (for those who follow football); the scary underdog who nobody really knows about. Do not underestimate this boy.



Gephardt: Surprised the hell out of me how poorly he did. All I can come up with is that his message was a little too "welcome to 1990" for the masses who wanted a new platform. I'm not satisfied with this assessment either. Sort of a moot point since he saved me the trouble of predicting, and dropped out for me.



----



Now, as for New Hampshire



Clark: He's could have a major problem if the ads get negative in New Hampshire. He's totally flip-flopped on the Iraq war, and could be painted as a Clinton puppet with little or no self-derived political leanings. If I'm right and Dean's in decline, it'll be a wildcard as to how much the Iraq issue will figure in the Democratic race...Though I suspect no matter what happens, Clark'll be hit by at least one of the candidates on his reversal.



Lieberman: The only candidate who's staunchly supporting Bush's action in Iraq. It'll play well later on, but I doubt he'll survive long enough to go there. He's running at 6% in NH right now, and unless he pulls off a coup there, he won't last long enough for it to help him along in the South.



Sharpton: Fringe candidate. Will not play a factor.



As to who'll win NH...Going to go with Dean, but by a very narrow margin (~2-3%). Kerry in 2nd. An overnight poll (post his shouting of state's names) put Dean at 23% in NH, down from 28% a couple days ago. Ouch.



-------



Onward and upward



Before long, I predict that this'll boil down to a Kerry/Edwards/Clark/Dean race, with Dean being the first one voted off the island after a less-than-stellar showing in New Hampshire. Clark's early hype will be moot as the competition finds his vulnerabilities, leaving Kerry & Edwards to duke it out for the top spot.



It's tempting to cop out and predict a Kerry/Edwards ticket (or vice versa to really CYA), but call it a hunch, but I don't think that the VP candidate will be taken from this current crop.



My prediction:



Dean fades soon, Clark a little later. Kerry & Edwards do a little damage to eachother, but keep the gloves off so as not to ruin either's chance for the White House run. Kerry eventually wins, and picks someone whose name hasn't yet been mentioned as his Veep.



As to the Presidential election...



Bush wins. I bet with my head, not with my heart, and figure that once he starts his campaign in earnest (and he's amassed a very formidable bankroll to do it), his approval will only go up, and it'll be four more years. Historically speaking, right now the president (regardless of who he is, or what party he's affiliated with) will be at his lowest in approval right about now (when all the media is focused on the opposition, and their campaigns). Even still, I believe the polls still have him at about even with any theoretical democratic contender. Once he starts tapping into his projected campaign fund of $200 Mil or so, his approval will only go up from there. Troops'll be coming home gradually (classic election move, call me cynical, but it works), economic news will be moderate-to-moderately-good, and Iraq is slowly improving, which will likely be enough for most voters.



Four years later, Hillary runs & wins against a Republican who is not Dick Cheney. I might go for the ultra-radical prediction and say that it'll be Condi Rice on the (R) ticket, but that's a little too kooky even for me. I do, however, posit the remote possibility of Rice being Bush's VP candidate this time around if Cheney's health isn't up to a re-election bid...but that's more a tinfoil hat theory than anything else.



---------



If I'm right on even half of those, I'll eat my hat.



-------



Edited again to add:



As to your Michigan caucus having relevance...short answer: no, long answer: yes, but only if there's no real frontrunner by the time it rolls around. It isn't one of the big preliminaries, so I'm sorry to say...it really doesn't matter a huge amount, or at least, no moreso than any of the other "lesser" primaries.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 1/20/04 6:10 am

[Kieli]

I have to agree with your very astute (though painful when mentioning the possibility of a Bush win) assessment. Dean's whining, annoying schoolyard bully tactics have won him very few friends. The sad part about it is, he either didn't care enough to try to change his image or he really is venting his spleen for no reason other than he can (which really does NOT help has campaign at all) air his dirty laundry to try to shame his detractors.



I wish to hell Hilary would run but, you know, I do have to agree with her method....waiting until Bush leaves might be good for her politically but it would play hell with this country. If we have to suffer through another four years of war, deep economic problems, pissing off every major ally we've ever had and throwing gay rights back another 30 years, then I say PLEASE RUN HILARY! because I can't take another year of the Bushwhacker.



Funny how the amount of money one has in one's war chest is the direct correlation of how much voters will approve of you. Shouldn't there actually more of a correlation between how good a leader you are to the approval rating? Or is the average voter that hoodwinked to fall for the typical political ploys? Things that make you go "Hmm....."

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[The Partisan]

To elaborate a little on the issues you raised.



One of the main reasons I project Bush winning, in fact, is Hillary's refusal to run. If he were clearly in a weak position, a clear one-term candidate, I reckon she'd be there with bells on. She's also being very careful in her endorsement, and won't, I suspect, endorse any candidate until one is nominated and she'll give the de facto "I support the Democratic party" endorsement.



Hillary's political experience is rather slight at this point in time; she's only just recently become a Senator and though she's always been "behind the scenes" with Bill, it's nothing that can be easily quantified, which would work against her were she to run this time 'round.



Compounding that, are her repeated statements that she's not running, she's committed to serving the people of New York, and so forth. Doubling back on her word there, would hurt her chances.



Four years from now (assuming a Bush win), the country will likely be ready for change and Hillary will be a very strong candidate. This may be putting it mildly, but I try not to interject partisan thinking into my objective analysis...despite my name (which is derived from a song, but I digress).



What's more crucial to Hillary's not running, quite frankly, is the damage it would do to her career were she to lose to Bush. Not only would she have burned her bridges in New York, but she'd have doused herself in the stench of defeat and you need only look at Al "Any room left on the Dean's Titanic?" Gore to see how defeat can be devastating. Hillary's too shrewd to take that kind of a career risk, when four years down the road, a much better opportunity awaits, with her being more experienced, too. It'll be 8-years removed from any Clinton-fatigue as well.



As to money determining votes...welcome to politics. Money talks and you know the rest. It's about the only truly bi-partisan aspect of the whole game.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

What's more crucial to Hillary's not running, quite frankly, is the damage it would do to her career were she to lose to Bush. Not only would she have burned her bridges in New York, but she'd have doused herself in the stench of defeat..

---

I've always disagreed with this assessment. Hillary could do NY just as much good in the White House as she could as Senator. I think that she's done far more in her short political career as Dubya EVER did as Governor of TX (and I lived in TX during his little tenured fiasco and can safely say he's set that state back a few decades; MHO is he got into office only on the strength of his daddy's name and his moneyed friends and not necessarily his political prowess.) Even her work behind the scenes with Bill has shown more political promise (not to mention the fact that she is a lawyer and not a businessman, a fact that I'm sure is not lost on people when it comes to comparing how the Clintons dealt with political adversity and how Bush has been dealing with it) than any "political" achievement Bush has in his corner.



I also disagree that her political experiences while Bill was in office cannot be easily quantified. Hillary's stances can be found HERE. She not only served as staff attorney to the House Judiciary Committee (a relatively political posting in its own right) but headed up Pres. Clinton's task force on health-care reform. I think she's done far more politically to improve life in the US than Bush but that's just my observation (and honestly has nothing to do with partisanship....Republican, Democrat or Independent Party, if they're a good solid leader, regardless of their personal life, then I'm for 'em). While she may not have been Governor or President, that does not mean her political contributions are not as noteworthy as Dubya.



As a matter of fact, Dubya has only been Governor of TX and President! She was First Lady and Senator. So his lack of political acumen is about the same as Hillary's before they both were elected to office (other than Dubya has the benefit of his famous father).

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Kieli]

*sigh* I know that your logic is impeccable, my friend...I really do! I just can't stomach another four years with the man. It tends to make me all depressed and cranky. Maybe I need to go abroad for four years until we can purge Bushisms from the U.S. collective digestive system.



About his approval ratings though, a sample of only 1000 men and women (or even 5000) does not the entire nation make. These approval ratings do not show that, by and large, the entire nation approves/disapproves of Bush....it's just a small sample and even then one can never quite be sure if the sampling is really as random as many would believe. This is where I take issue with polls and other sorts of misleading data that is being fed to us as a whole by the media.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 1/20/04 10:09 am

[The Partisan]

You raise some very valid points; and I don't think I was very clear in my prior comments. I wasn't trying to draw up any comparisons between Bush & Hillary, only pointing out that she'd be attacking him when he was in a position of strength.



Hillary's hit in running for President would be only insofar as she's repeatedly stated she wouldn't, and was dedicated wholly to the Senate. It'd be a comparitively minor flip-flop (compared to the flops that Clark's soon to be eviscerated over), but it wouldn't help her.



She is far more qualified than Bush is, but despite those qualifications, she's too damn shrewd to take on an incumbent with 55+% approval (historically rather high for this point in time.) This is why she'll steamroll over a fleet of Democratic non-entities in 2007, and win the WH in '08 with around 55% of the popular vote, and around 60% of the electoral college.



Hillary's a winner, and a smart one at that. 2008'll be her year. Patience, my friends. All good things to those who wait.

[The Partisan]

Hey, when there's nothing left to believe in, believe in hope.



From the producers of Waiting to Exhale.



Or alternatively, Homer Simpson.



Speaking of which, the State of the Union Address is tonight...

[drlloyd11]

You know, I'm still seeing a Bush loss. His numbers are far lower that they should be, and even with a 60% approval he was only running dead even against the generic cadidate.

He does have a ton of cash, and he's pretty evil, but ..

Just as I told people that Bush would ride high until the number of "post war" casualties exceeded the "war time", his ballon is very very thin. In a few months, the economic news will be back to realism and after so many false starts I think the media's love affair with him will fade.



I honestly think a string Democrat could beat him.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Hey, when there's nothing left to believe in, believe in hope.

---

Hey....hope....hmm...wasn't she Gabrielle's daughter or something? And didn't she turn out to be EVIL?! Ok I'm sorry...I was trying for levity and it turned out terribly cynical. However you're right. I need to have hope that things will get better. If I don't, spontaneous combustion might happen. And that would be bad.

Quote:

---

Speaking of which, the State of the Union Address is tonight...

---

Methinks I'm going to take in the truncated, non-overblown version by reading it on the Presidential website tomorrow. If I have to listen to Wolf Blitzer or some other media blowhard go on and on about this whole deal, I just might slit my own wrists.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[dekalog]

Not being American I don't really post much in this thread, but I do like to breeze through and read it. Some very interesting discussions.



Anywho........ the reason for my post . A friend of mine sent this link to me today, and I thought that some of you here might find it as good as I did - especially considering your 'will he win again or not debate' - www.bushin30seconds.org/



One last plug - if a documentary called The Corporation comes to a movie theatre near you please go see it. It is a very good film done by independent filmmakers. Your dollars spend at the box office are important. If you want to find out more their website is - - www.thecorporation.tv/

[Gatito Grande]

Kieli and (esp.) Partisan, I bow to your superior strategic thinking (it's just that, in the interest of *not* committing suicide, I have not written off the Democrat yet! j/k on the suicide ).



It's just that I have such a different response to your preferences. First of all, I just don't get the Big Whoop-Dee-Doo about Hillary. I mean, I don't hate the woman at all: she's very bright, and it seems like she's doing a decent (if gutless *cough*Voted 4 War*cough*) job as Senator. But the way she'd mobilize the Right---if the Presidential nominee---would make Dean look like a Cross-Over Dream.



And speaking of whom: hearing Dean today, reminded me just why I liked him so much last summer. He's such a pleasant break from the Political BS-Zone: direct, and not a buck-passer. He didn't make any excuses for his poor showing in Iowa, didn't attempt to belittle Kerry's win (and I thought his state roll-call For the Long-Haul last night was inspiring and energizing). Yeah, he can "afford" to think long-term with his campaign chest, but it's his genuine drive and passion (and not ego, IMO) which will cause him to fight to the end.



I think that falling out of the "front-runner/presumptive nominee" status might be the best thing that ever happened to Dean. The remaining candidates will be ganging up on him less, reducing (if not removing) Dean's temptation to answer each and every charge (as he did in the debate I saw), and fight back negatively himself.



I still don't have a read on Edwards, and not much on Clark. What I have seen of Clark suggests he doesn't have the Single-Minded Focus necessary to get elected. Edwards might, but I'm real nervous about him on LGBT issues (and I think that Bush would make mince-meat, rightly or wrongly, about him a "Trial Lawyer": "Do you want a frivolous ambulance-chaser as President?" Hey, I respect trial lawyers, but that's what they'll say).



Kerry: picture Reagan vs. Mondale in '84, and that's the result. Yeah, he's a war hero, but look what the GOP did to Max Cleland! Other than that, he's just Total Washington: not a word comes out of his mouth that hasn't been Focus-Grouped, and even that sounds stiff and unnatural. "Comeback Kerry": yeesh! (Of course, if he's the eventual nominee, I'll talk him up like Jesus-freakin'-Christ , in a fight w/ BeelzeDubya )



GG Feelin' a lot more sure that I'm votin' for Dean than I did a week ago. Out

[The Partisan]

GG,



I think you've got a real point on Kerry...and if you are right, then he's in for a tougher haul than even I imagined. Dean's still too extreme for the mainstream (remember, GWB got elected on a platform of being a uniter, not a divider, and Dean's message right now is very antagonistic and divisive).



A further point on Dean, and something I've been musing over for a while, is how it's going to be a litmus test for the viability of an Internet-based campaign. People, on the internet, say things they often would never say in real life, and in general, have no problems talking the talk. As far as Iowa's concerned, they did not walk the walk, however, and it remains to be seen how the Deaniacs will respond in New Hampshire.



Just a quick comment on the BushIn30Seconds ads...Using them would be disastruous. Not only would they hurt a uniter campaign, but they're very stand-offish to independant voters, and those not strongly attached to any particular candidate. Sure they play well to people already dead-set on voting against Bush...but those people don't need to be wooed.



State of the Union speech'll be on in a matter of minutes. I'm feeling bored and pretentiously wordy tonight, so I may just toss an analysis later on.



----



So far, pretty straightforward. Not particularly remarkable one ay or the other. Some points of interest...



I didn't expect a direct reference to the Patriot Act. That's a bold move; I thought it'd be quietly swept under the rung. Tactically speaking: Unwise.



Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June...shrewd move, and in the spirit of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day", the right thing to do, in my view. Tactically speaking: Wise.



Shifting focus from WMD's to WMD programs...Haven't read the Kay report, can't comment intelligently.



Mediocre news on the economy, doubt it'll be a huge issue later on, neither improving enough for Bush to run on, nor degrading enough for anyone to run against on it.



Health coverage, medicare...Not my areas of expertise. Nothing that struck me as remarkable one way or the other.



Performance enhancing drugs (major news if you follow sports), I was surprised to see addressed.



Defense of Marriage Act; that'll go over like a lead balloon around here.



Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative...I am not a number, I am a free man!



Overall: Mediocre. Meh.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 1/20/04 7:04 pm

[Kieli]

Oh I'm not anti-Dean as far as him having a good record for a presidential candidate. I am however, not pleased with his demeanor when being cornered. His behaviour showed he lacks character and maturity and we've had enough of that from Dubya, thankyouverymuch

Quote:

---

First of all, I just don't get the Big Whoop-Dee-Doo about Hillary. I mean, I don't hate the woman at all: she's very bright, and it seems like she's doing a decent (if gutless *cough*Voted 4 War*cough*) job as Senator. But the way she'd mobilize the Right---if the Presidential nominee---would make Dean look like a Cross-Over Dream.

---

I disagree.....I find it interesting that you don't take to task the rest of the Democratic Party that went part and parcel (with only a couple of exceptions like Moseley-Braun) with the war AND this hideous Patriot Act. Hillary was pretty much going with the consensus for party solidarity's sake. As a freshman senator, if she wants to make any impact at all, she has to pick her battles. Bush had public opinion on his side and the American people still had 9-11 fresh in their minds. Not a good combination and she is ever a shrewd strategist.

Quote:

---

And speaking of whom: hearing Dean today, reminded me just why I liked him so much last summer. He's such a pleasant break from the Political BS-Zone: direct, and not a buck-passer.

---

It sucks when we expect our leaders to actually act like decent human beings and give a little respect without the snark. It's kind of like dealing with that immense blowhard Bill O'Reilly. He speaks his mind too but he's rude, quite often spouts hideously inaccurate information but he's still popular. Go figure.

Quote:

---

He didn't make any excuses for his poor showing in Iowa, didn't attempt to belittle Kerry's win.

---

Belitting Kerry would've been campaign suicide. He'd have been profoundly stupid to even try to do such a thing, so I wouldn't give him too many props for that.

Quote:

---

What I have seen of Clark suggests he doesn't have the Single-Minded Focus necessary to get elected.

---

I'd definitely have to agree with this assessment. I think it's because Clark is still a military man at heart. He's not enough political experience to actually think like a politician....at least not yet

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[maudmac]

I think one of the things about Dean that he's often criticized for (his temper) is a big part of what I like so much about him and what I didn't/don't like about candidates like Gephardt and Kerry. Dean's mad about what Bush and the GOP have done to America (and the world) and that he is unafraid to express that gives him points in my book. I have a sense that a candidate who speaks with passion is doing so extemporaneously and I'm more likely to trust that he/she really believes his/her words - and that they actually are the candidates' own words and not those of a speechwriter whose primary interest is what will get the most positive reception from the audience.



I don't think Sharpton's importance can be entirely dismissed. No way he's getting even close to the nomination, but if he'll stay in the race long enough, he's going to become important to the remaining candidates. Sharpton's numbers will probably go up in primaries in the Midwest and, especially, the South, and whichever candidates are left by then, might eagerly seek his endorsement when he finally does bow out.



I've become so cynical that it wouldn't surprise me to find that the Bush administration has bin Laden on ice somewhere right now and will trot him out of some cave at gunpoint on live TV, oh, around mid-October or so. Especially in light of evidence that the US more or less bought or bartered with the Kurds for Saddam Hussein. More about that here, if you're interested.

---

go         donut           go

[Gatito Grande]

Kieli, I wonder how much of this just comes down to individual "personality compatibility""

Quote:

---

I am however, not pleased with his demeanor when being cornered. His behaviour showed he lacks character and maturity

---

. . . i.e. I have personality compatibility w/ Dean, and you don't. It's not a right or wrong thing, it just comes down to gut instinct, feelings and hunches. Because I like Dean's demeanor. I'd like to be around him, talk to him (if only I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire, I might have gotten the chance!). He just seems REAL to me. Comparing Dean to Bill O'Reilly? Or Mo'Fo' Dubya? I just don't see it. Not at all.



[Am I just saying "Hmmm: Dean's demeanor seems a lot like mine?" You be the judge! ]



Re: Hillary again. She may not have had a lot of political capital coming into office, but I betcha she had more than any other freshman Senator ever! And I do loathe what the majority of Dems in Congress did in going along w/ Dubya on the War---that's why I like Dean (and Kucinich is Mr. Integrity ). Not reading the fine print on the Patriot Act was just plain stupid, but there's quite a few Republicans who feel the same way.



You didn't really address my point of Hillary's potential to motivate the Right. Where I used to live in Central Pennsylvania, a Fundamentalist Church had set up a booth at the county fair. Therein, they gave away cassette tapes of sermons, one of which was "Hillary Rodham Clinton: Is there a Satanic witch in the White House?" (Plus, now you can read about "Hillary's Lesbian Affairs!" every other week on the covers of the tabloids).



GG About which, all I can say is, she hasn't with me! Out

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

You didn't really address my point of Hillary's potential to motivate the Right. Where I used to live in Central Pennsylvania, a Fundamentalist Church had set up a booth at the county fair. Therein, they gave away cassette tapes of sermons, one of which was "Hillary Rodham Clinton: Is there a Satanic witch in the White House?" (Plus, now you can read about "Hillary's Lesbian Affairs!" every other week on the covers of the tabloids).

---

I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "motivate the Right". Motivate them to do what? And they're already motivated: against gay marriage, against those who oppose the war, and the list goeth on. Hillary wouldn't motivate them more than they already are. They've been galvanized as soon as the words "gay marriage" came into play and VT and Mass. finally did a little something about that. I wouldn't say her sphere of influence is all that high to get up the dander of the Right. They really don't need much of an excuse, in my observation.

Quote:

---

Am I just saying "Hmmm: Dean's demeanor seems a lot like mine?" You be the judge!

---

That's ok, I'll pass. We might not get along IRL and that would be a real shame. I don't do confrontation and lack of tact for the sake of supposed "honesty". It doesn't impress me much. I don't think it's "real" just antagonistic and even vindictive in Dean's case (something apparently he readily admits).

Quote:

---

A further point on Dean, and something I've been musing over for a while, is how it's going to be a litmus test for the viability of an Internet-based campaign. People, on the internet, say things they often would never say in real life, and in general, have no problems talking the talk. As far as Iowa's concerned, they did not walk the walk, however, and it remains to be seen how the Deaniacs will respond in New Hampshire.

---

You make a very good point, here P. Internet-based campaigns, polls, what-have-you are generating far more interest than I'm sure any of the candidates expected, probably for the reasons you state above. You get to hear what people are really thinking and not just the pep rally, dog-and-pony shows that are the caucuses.

Quote:

---

I have a sense that a candidate who speaks with passion is doing so extemporaneously and I'm more likely to trust that he/she really believes his/her words - and that they actually are the candidates' own words and not those of a speechwriter whose primary interest is what will get the most positive reception from the audience.

---

I agree with that to a point. Many of Dean's comments were uncalled for and he admits readily that he was "getting back" at his detractors. That's just childish IMHO and really has kept me from hearing anything the man has to say, even if it is positive. Attitude and poise are everything....one can still speak their mind, be passionate and true without resorting to being an ass.

Quote:

---

I've become so cynical that it wouldn't surprise me to find that the Bush administration has bin Laden on ice somewhere right now and will trot him out of some cave at gunpoint on live TV, oh, around mid-October or so. Especially in light of evidence that the US more or less bought or bartered with the Kurds for Saddam Hussein. More about that here, if you're interested.

---

I've been saying this to Diana for months...I also believe that we had Saddam all along to and that his capture was a setup. Bin Laden is probably sitting pretty in Crawford Ranch right now living it up at the American taxpayers' expense. It would not surprise me in the slightest.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[drlloyd11]

I missed the state of the union speech..Was it in its original German?

[Warduke]

Brad...

---

Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[maudmac]

Quote:

---

...one can still speak their mind, be passionate and true without resorting to being an ass.

---

Point well taken. That's very true and I agree completely. The more blustery he gets, the less credibility he has, especially when it's petty. I think what I've responded to, really, is just that he's angry. And I'm angry. During my most hotheaded and tactless moments, I would make Dean at his most hotheaded and tactless look like a corpse. My cats ran and hid during my running commentary on the State of the Union address. Of course, I'm not out to convince anyone to vote for me.



I'm disappointed that the Democratic Response (by Pelosi and Daschle) avoided the issue of gay marriage, which Bush addressed directly. That comes closer to comfirming my fear that the Democrats are going to back off opposing the GOP so much on that issue.

---

go         donut           go

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I think what I've responded to, really, is just that he's angry. And I'm angry. During my most hotheaded and tactless moments, I would make Dean at his most hotheaded and tactless look like a corpse. My cats ran and hid during my running commentary on the State of the Union address. Of course, I'm not out to convince anyone to vote for me.

---

Heh, I know the feeling. I am very glad I chose not to watch the SOU last night. Just reading it online today has made my blood boil with outrage at the spin this entire thing was. I was physically disgusted at Bush's justifications for the Iraq War and his glossing over some of the more prevalent things:



a) America has NOT always done the right thing, no matter how much he tries to justify that we have.

b) The Iraqis are trying to acquire the reins of government from the US...but we haven't given it to them yet because they don't want to run their country our way.

Quote:

---

America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes.

---

I had to laugh at this because we might actually be the world's most dangerous enemy if we have a President that continues to make America stand apart and be "above" the laws and rules that other nations have to follow. Not a good thing and a surefire way to piss off any other allies we still have.

Quote:

---

Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

---

Actually what he fails to mention is that WMD were NEVER found in Iraq and there has yet to be evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that they ever were there.

Quote:

---

As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian -- and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.

---

This particular part of his speech is one that I find most disturbing. It implies to me that the agenda is to take on the Middle East, wipe out their culture and their ways and supplant them with our way, the supposedly "right" way. I don't like what this portends.

Quote:

---

America is a Nation with a mission -- and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.

---

Really? That's not what most of your speech sounds like, Dubya.

Quote:

---

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise.

---

Really? Tell that to the thousands still out of work and the other thousands that are about to lose their jobs as we speak because our American corporations are outsourcing their work overseas because the labour is cheap (read: virtual slave labour).

Quote:

---

Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability.

---

Actually no those who are against the No Child Left Behind Act are upset at the double standard that is really behind it and the reality of the situation in education. Educators around the country are questioning the feasibility of "immediate" results. They just can't happen with a project on this scale, especially since so many schools are still underfunded, undermanned and their teachers are underpaid. He's focusing on the wrong problem and the wrong things.....but that's a whole different rant I have as a former educator.

Quote:

---

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

---

This too does not bode well and I have to agree with Holley about the Democrats not objecting to this strenuously enough. However, I think the reason behind that is the Democratic Party seems rather seriously divided on this issue. Marriage is a "religious" institution and not one that should be regulated by any federal law. Democratic law is supposed to be blind, heedless of any race, creed or religion. By using federal law to define marriage, that separation of Church and State is to be questioned in all seriousness. Was this law based on a religious principle or on some other tenet of logic that I've missed? And it sounds to me as if he's making a veiled threat....if gays insist on being married and judges insist on agreeing with them, then he will be forced to amend the Constitution. Once that starts happening, no one's rights will be protected or sacrosanct in the Constitution anymore. What would stop him from attempting to set aside usage of the Constitution at all for that matter? Sure we the people would violently oppose this but what's to stop him from saying he's doing it for the good of the people? Sounds farfetched? Maybe? Is it possible? You bet.

Quote:

---

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

---

He is making the assumption that everyone who is American is Christian and believes in the same god he does. Talk about arrogant. Any president who would invoke any religion over another, regardless of whether the invocation was voluntary or involuntary, gives me pause. This gives the attitude that Christianity is superior to other religions and that is unacceptable (this is coming from a woman who is a sworn atheist and, after reading this speech, for good reason). The sanctimony of the last half of this speech almost knocked me over. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 1/21/04 8:26 am

[Footman311]

This was probably already posted about, but I think that it needs to be sadi as many times as possible, HOW IN THE HELL WAS THE PATRIOT ACT PASSED?!! It basically takes away out first, fourth and fifth amendments rights and les the government do whatever it wants to its citizens and visiting tourists, this is just not right, and Bush wants congress to renew it for next year, I still don't see how it was passed in the first place.

Lifes a bowl of punch G'head and spike it-Nick Hexum

[Kieli]

It's called the "Hit the People Up While They're Still Grieving and Not In Complete Command of their Capacity for Logic and Reason" tactic. Politicians have used it since the dawn of time. Sickening, isn't it? Also Ohio just passed their Gay Marriage Ban and with Bush threatening to put the ban on gay marriage as a constitutional amendment I say that the gays who support the ban should wake the hell up. Once he starts banning our marriages it won't be long before he's rounding us up and kicking our rainbow asses out of the country.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I have to agree, even though I am straight I fully support and agree with same-sex marriages and believe that all supporters from all walks of life amke their feelings known.



I wonder if those celebrities who are gay, or have portrayed gay people (positively) in the media, would rally together to support same-sex marriage and to bring the debate into the world public forum? Just a thought!

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[The Partisan]

As of today, according to CNN.com, Kerry leads with 31 percent, Dean has fallen to 21, followed by Clark, Edwards and Lieberman with 16, 11, and 4 percent respectively for the New Hampshire primary.



Barring Kerry doing something really daft, he'll get the primary, and most likely secure the nomination, without too much difficulty in my view.



For all those rooting for the Democrats this time around (as I get the impression that maybe a few of you are), this is a boon, since it'll prevent infighting for the nod from turning the eventual nomination into a Phyrric victory.



Edwards is still the wild card, in my opinion, and his message is resonating with people who are looking for a platform that has a more positive, optimistic message, other than "Don't you hate Bush?"



Dean's still toast. There's a fine line between being seen as passionate and auditioning for the WWE, and he didn't just skirt over it, he parasailed over that bad boy.