The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[justin]

Quote:

---

Dad lived by this code:A soliders lot is not to ask why,

---

I'd say that anyone who believes this really ought to read The Charge Of The Light Brigade



Six hundred men were sent to there death by a poorly worded order. The saddest thing is they knew it was badly worded but none of them felt that they ought to question that order.

Quote:

---

I think there are war protesters and then there are extremists in war protesters clothing.

---

In any group there are going to be extremists. The thing is to not judge the whole group just by the actions of those extremists.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[Kieli]

"Tough Guy" Hillary

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.

[Gatito Grande]

Oh, Puh-leez!



GG Now maybe if she had "Bobbittized" Bill . . . Out



********************************************************************



ETA:



Thank you, Howard!



You gave the Democrats back their 'nads.

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 2/18/04 10:51 pm

[maudmac]

Politics Kittens, do y'all think Edwards has a chance? I'm not crazy about him, but I'm not crazy about Kerry, either. Especially since I remembered that Kerry is in Skull & Bones. That gave me a big eh right there. I thought I cared a lot less for candidates' backgrounds than I did their positions on the issues (and normally I couldn't care less what foolishness someone got up to in college) but having another Bonesman in the White House is a creepy prospect to me.

---

I have no professional training. I already gave my best. I have no regrets at all.

[Kieli]

I am not a fan of Kerry in the slightest. However, since my favourite, Wesley Clark, is out, I have no idea who I'll support. I really hate the thought of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. So far, the playing field is not looking pretty but, you know, as long is it ain't Dubya, I'd vote for Bart Simpson.

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]

To some extent, I agree but I don't think that the Dems are just going to hand Kerry over, part and parcel, as the Democratic candidate of choice. Granted, the Southern Democrats are feeling this keenly as many have felt neglected by their party in the past. This is one of the reasons why Kerry should be careful about stridently wooing the North. Southerners might very well throw their support behind Edwards until the very end. Edwards has shown himself to be above the hammering away at Bush type of campaigning. He's saying "This is what I will do for you." He's not even bothering to worry about the other guy (openly that is....not much mudslinging and such) and that might be a good thing.



Kerry needed to be reined in a bit...he was getting a tad overconfident and Wisconsin proved that he has still got his work cut out for him. I like Edwards but I've not had the opportunity to read his record/background in depth. That might be on my To-Do list for this weekend. I was listening to NPR this morning and one young woman from the University of Wisconsin said something I found interesting: "As much as I liked Dean and think he stands for everything that I do, he's just not electable. He's proven that and as much as it pains me to, I might have to vote for Kerry because he's got the electability factor."



Another man was very pro-Edwards(?) because of his working-class roots, something that also is a sticking point because so many Americans (too many IMHO) are jobless, even homeless right now.

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: 2/19/04 12:53 pm

[The Partisan]

A few thoughts vis a vis Edwards and the like...



Edwards is probably more electable than Kerry in the national election, but that'll be a moot point because the Dems are going to do Bush a favour and nominate Kerry. He's a southerner running a positive campaign, as opposed to Ted JFK's better half appropriating Dean's "Vote for me because I'm not Bush!" campaign minus the yeaaarghhh speech.



Kerry should've done a lot better in Wisconsin, and that decline to me, might indicate a little buyer's remorse now that the electorate is learning about Kerry himself, and his voting record. Xita's "I'm not crazy about Kerry either" is probably being echoed by more than a few people in the USA now, as Kerry is put under the microscope. And the more moderates look at him, the more are going to be put off by the NotBush platform, and will start to fall back to Bush, even if it's rationalized as taking 'the Devil you know over the Devil you don't'.



However...just thinking off the cuff here, but Edwards, I think, would be well-advised to play it out and show himself to be the positive, uplifting and likeable candidate, and -not- accept a Veep spot, should one be offered (which I believe it won't, anyhow), and position himself for an '08 run should Kerry lose (which I still believe he will). He's being seen as a fairly inclusive candidate, and coming from the South will help him.

[Gatito Grande]

Having supported (and stayed optimistic about for far too long) Dean, I realize that I have Zero Credibility around here (there's also that pre-Ahnold prediction of Gray Davis defeating the recall I made! ).



Having said this, I still think it would be *nuts* for the Democrats to nominate Edwards (as Prez).



When all is said and done, it comes down to two words: Trial Lawyer. The hay that Dubya & his $200 mil would make over this would be Mo'Fo' Relentless. John Edwards strikes me as a great guy, but no amount of his humble roots, populism, positive campaign, concern for the poor and Good Ol' Boy Southern charm (and purdy looks) can overcome the Ambulance Chaser stereotype---not when the GOP has unlimited resources to hype it.



I really don't think the differences between Kerry and Edwards on the issues is all that great (Edwards can talk all he wants to about NAFTA, but the fact remains he wasn't in the Senate then to have made a difference). No, it comes down to the character thang, which is to say image. Trial lawyer versus decorated Vietnam hero: as much as it shouldn't matter (IMO), it does. The one thing that Dubya's millions can *never* take away from Kerry are those medals (and "band of brothers") . . . no matter how much they sell the Ted Kennedy-clone (which they will).



I'm coming around to the idea of a Kerry-Edwards ticket. I don't know if either of them can set their egos aside to agree to it, but they probably should.



GG Still think Bill Richardson might bring a lot to a ticket w/ Kerry, but I'm fairly certain he's not the Smooth Campaigner Edwards is. Out

[darkmagicwillow]

Read America as a One Party State about how bipartisan-created safe congressional seats and increasing control and subversion of Congressional procedures may result in a multi-decade Republican control of Congress.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Infinite Astronaut]

Ralph Nader is running for president.



I'm not extraordinarily happy. I want a Democrat, not a Republican *ahem* Bush *ahem* to win the election. I do not think that Nader has a chance. If he did not run, the people who would be voting for him would vote for the Democrats. Probably.



Oh well, that's my soapbox.

[xita]

Grr, I agree with you completely. Those of you who voted Nader last time please , please reconsider. sigh.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Kieli]

I almost ground my own teeth in frustration to see Nader announcing his bid for presidency. Not only is he too late in the game but it'll just be a farce like it was last time. He's just not presidential material, no matter how straightforward he is. The independents need someone better as their candidate. True, Nader has done a lot of good in his 70 years but he's too belligerent now. I just have to wonder a) what he really thinks he can accomplish by announcing his candidacy now and b) why is he REALLY doing this?

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.

[JustNicks]

Who cares? I mean really who cares? Not one of them is any different. Not deep down, they will all charge their weapons in what they perceive is the role they serve as "leader of the free world". This expression makes me laugh cos well no-one made them leader of the free world and well, the country itself does not a have a great record of freedom.



Democrat or Republican they are just the same, generally people vote on charisma not politics. If people really voted on politics there is no way that Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been voted in.



Good luck in the elections people from America. After all no doubt there will be many recounts until the "right" person gets in. The rest of the world will just carry on.....

Radclyffe's board

"I am not looking for Ms Right, SHE is looking for me ~ just Nicks"

[maudmac]

Not good, not good. If Bush gets four more years because of this, I think I will have a meltdown.



I'm all about our system needing more than two parties, but the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and whoever all else, they need to focus their energies on running candidates for city and county offices. Or state offices, where they have a chance. Not on this. The stakes are far too high.



A while back, the Greens were openly debating the wisdom of running a candidate at all this time, but they've decided to run someone after all. They won't back Nader or another candidate, so Nader's on his own this time and he'll likely suffer for that. And the Green candidacy will suffer without Nader's relatively high profile. (Nader was never a Green, though. He never joined the party, even as he ran as their candidate twice.) But the two together...it could add up.



I'm heartened by hearing friends who voted for Nader last time saying there's no way in hell they'll vote for anyone but the Democratic candidate this time around.



It's all about the electability. It's unfair and a damn shame, but it's the truth.

---

I have no professional training. I already gave my best. I have no regrets at all.

[Kieli]

Ahnold keeps getting scarier and scarier:



story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040222/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger



While I agree with his initial premise, it seems like it's a thinly veiled attempt at saying he's backing Bush regardless of what his constituents say. That was already evident with his spouting of party-line rhetoric regarding SF. I knew that pics taken of him and Bush chatting did not bode well

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.

[Gatito Grande]

JustNicks, I hear your anger and bitterness: it's fully justified, that everybody else on the whole frickin' planet should have their fates decided by the American voters (if not 5 Supreme Court justices! ).



At the same time, if you ever want that to change---for everyone on Planet Earth to get an equal say in how said planet is run---it very much matters who is elected U.S. President this November.



George W. Bush represents the quintessential "American Exceptionalist." Drawing on his Christian Right base (w/ their whole "Americans are God's Chosen People" bullcr*p), Dubya will continue to pursue his "What America Says, Goes/F*ck You, World!" policy . . . and there's still every reason to believe that enough "client states" (inc. your UK, hmm?) will go along w/ him, for a chance at US $$$ and/or Superpower-Controlled "goodies."



While I regret that too many Democrats (inc. both Kerry and Edwards) didn't see Dubya's War Resolution for the blank-check it was, they are still consistent in criticizing the decision to pursue unilateral war, and for the need to re-build actual (not illusory client-state) alliances.



Americans need to do their part, and elect a government which doesn't pursue policies that make the world hate us. Everyone else in the world needs to do their part, and unite in opposition to Superpower Dictatorship (instead of the "Divide and Conquer" that Dubya has been doing so "effectively" )



GG And you might want to start by getting rid of Dubya's lapdog *cough*TonyBlair*cough* Out

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

GG And you might want to start by getting rid of Dubya's lapdog *cough*TonyBlair*cough* Out

Quote:

---

Ouch! *shudder* That's ok, I didn't need those eyebrows anyway



www.planetout.com/entertainment/comics/dtwof/

---

---

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.

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

In Arizona, Judy Donovan says she feels desperate for a new president. In Tennessee, Robert Wilson says he finds the president revolting. In Washington state, Maria Yurasek says she'd vote for a dog if it could beat President Bush.



A subtext to this year's presidential campaign is the intense anger that many Democrats are directing toward Bush, an attitude that has been growing in recent months.



``I've never seen anything like it,'' says Ted Jelen, a political science professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. ``There are people who just really, really hate this person.''



Fully a quarter of Americans -- mostly Democrats -- tell pollsters they have a very unfavorable opinion of the president, more than double the number from last April. When only Democrats are polled, more than half report they feel that way.



Further, in exit polls conducted during Democratic primaries, a sizable chunk of voters have been describing themselves as not just dissatisfied with Bush but outright angry -- 51 percent in Delaware, 46 percent in Arizona and New Hampshire, 44 percent in Virginia and Wisconsin.



``They really have a head of steam up against Bush,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. He said the level of political polarization surrounding Bush, the division between Republicans who favor him and Democrats who don't, exceeds even that for President Clinton in September 1998 during the impeachment battle.



Plenty of presidents have generated intense feelings, of course, but Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- think the phenomenon is outsized this year.



``I've never seen a Democratic Party more unified and more focused, and the anger helps do just that,'' said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. ``The intensity level is just so high. They're using four-letter words to describe him.''



In a recent focus group that Luntz conducted for MSNBC, technicians had to adjust the volume levels because the Bush-haters were ``so gosh-darn loud'' they were drowning out the president's supporters, who were more numerous, Luntz said. ``It was a real problem.''



Bush was asked about the anger in a recent interview on NBC and said he found it perplexing and disappointing. ``When you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And heck, I don't know why people do it,'' he said.



His campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, dismisses the anger as something stoked by Democratic presidential candidates and confined to core party activists. He said it also reflects Democratic frustration at Bush's success in pushing through his agenda.



John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University, said resentment of Bush is particularly strong among liberals who already hold three things against him: ``First, he's a conservative. Second, he's a Christian. And third, he's a Texan. When you add all of those things up, that invokes pretty much every symbol of the cultural wars.''



``It's particularly galling when somebody who mangles his syntax and doesn't pronounce words extremely well and is from Texas beats you,'' McAdams added.



Some of the anger at Bush stretches back to his 2000 election, when the president lost the popular vote but took the majority of electoral votes after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida.



``It's the long view of Bush in the minds of Democrats,'' said pollster Kohut. ``He came into office in a way that they felt was unfair. They gave him the benefit of the doubt and rallied to him after the 9-11 attacks for some time, and then he disappointed them in the way he dealt with Iraq'' and by pursuing a more conservative course than they expected.



A Bush opponent can vote against the president only once in November, no matter how intense the anger. So does it matter how much voters dislike him, if these are people who would have voted against him anyway?



Political analysts say the intensity of the anti-Bush sentiment could translate into higher turnout by mobilizing the Democratic base. The possible pitfall for Democrats, however, is that strident anti-Bush rhetoric could turn off swing and independent voters who like Bush personally but might be convinced through reasoned argument that his policies are wrongheaded.



``Anger is not necessarily a productive emotion when it comes to politics,'' Luntz said. ``The anger against Bill Clinton was so fierce and over the top that it helped him in 1996 and then again during the impeachment in 1998. People got more angry at those yelling at the president than at the president himself. You could easily see the same thing happening here.''

---

www.salon.com/news/wire/2...index.html

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

In a recent focus group that Luntz conducted for MSNBC, technicians had to adjust the volume levels because the Bush-haters were ``so gosh-darn loud'' they were drowning out the president's supporters, who were more numerous, Luntz said. ``It was a real problem.''

---

A problem for? I think it's outrageous that MSNBC has someone so partisan as Luntz running its focus-groups. Why the heck were the president's supporters more numerous, when that's not reflected in the polls?



Then there's this:

Quote:

---

Bush was asked about the anger in a recent interview on NBC and said he found it perplexing and disappointing. ``When you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And heck, I don't know why people do it,'' he said.

---

I'll tell ya why, Shrub: because you ask "hard things" of everybody except your people: straight white male Republican millionaires!

Quote:

---

John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University, said resentment of Bush is particularly strong among liberals who already hold three things against him: ``First, he's a conservative. Second, he's a Christian. And third, he's a Texan. When you add all of those things up, that invokes pretty much every symbol of the cultural wars.''

---

This is so much BS: every President of my lifetime (and almost all of 'em for the last 200+ years) has been a Christian (and one was Texan also: LBJ, who was much loved till Vietnam). Virtually nobody hates Dubya for being a Christian, they hate him for his Far Right theocratic *way* of being a Christian (or, as I prefer, "pseudo-Christian").

Quote:

---

The possible pitfall for Democrats, however, is that strident anti-Bush rhetoric could turn off swing and independent voters who like Bush personally but might be convinced through reasoned argument that his policies are wrongheaded.



``Anger is not necessarily a productive emotion when it comes to politics,'' Luntz said. ``The anger against Bill Clinton was so fierce and over the top that it helped him in 1996 and then again during the impeachment in 1998. People got more angry at those yelling at the president than at the president himself. You could easily see the same thing happening here.''

---

There might be some truth to this. I'm really leery of any WTO-type anarchical protest that could get out of hand (i.e. violent) between now and Election Day. My sentiments are "F*ck Dubya!" w/ the rest of 'em, but we've got to keep our cool in public. For example, crashing a Dubya campaign event might be fun, but it could be counter-productive if it's seen as irrational: anger for anger's sake.



GG Working the system, and voting Dubya's sorry *ss out of office is the Best Revenge! Out

[justin]

Quote:

---

ohn McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University, said resentment of Bush is particularly strong among liberals who already hold three things against him

---

I think that McAdams is right when he says that liberals hold three things against Bush. He's just wrong about what those three things are. In truth the reasons for people (even people who aren't American, such as myself) disliking Bush are



1: His unitlateral decision to invade Iraq

2: The way he has made a mockery of the constitution with acts such as the patriot act

3: His continued descrimination against homosexuals.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[Ben Varkentine]

He's also wrong that there are just three things...

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[The Partisan]

Kerry cleans up on Super Tuesday, Edwards expected to concede today or tomorrow. So, it'll be Kerry v. Bush in the national stage.

[Gatito Grande]

I watched Kerry's victory speech tonight: it was pretty good. Like how he trashed Dubya over the "divisive, political Constitutional amendment." Not crazy over the fact that he can't bring himself to say "gay" or "same-sex marriage." What's that amendment about, John? (At least his daughter Vanessa was forthright in her support of gay marriage).



I also love how he makes an issue of the "most ill-conceived, reckless and ideological foreign policy": I just hope that's not over the heads of the American voter! (it wasn't for the cheering crowd, but those are Demo party activists).



GG Now, onto competing w/ Dubya's hundreds of millions of $$$$$$ Out



And yay Howard Dean---still luv ya, Howard!

[The Partisan]

Ok, now that the nominee's set...Let's let the speculation as to who his VP candidate will be...I don't think it'll be Edwards, or for that matter, any of the Dems who ran for the nomination this time 'round.



As a bonus question, anyone taking odds on whether Bush cuts Cheney loose in favour of, say...Giuliani?



Edited to add:



After reading Xita's link...I'm really disappointed in Kerry.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/2/04 11:09 pm

[xita]

I am not trusting Kerry especially because while he doesn't support the national constitutional amendment, he does favor an amendment in Massachusetts.

story.news.yahoo.com/news...mentinmass

Quote:

---

Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said Wednesday he would support a Massachusetts constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage as long as it allowed for civil unions.

---

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Ben Varkentine]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...rrer=email

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Big Dummy]

I regards to Bush possibly taking on Rudy as his VP, does anyone know if a President has ever run for re-election with a new VP before (whether or not they actually won)? I searched for it online, but I haven't been able to get my query right to get an answer.

[The Partisan]

Nixon's original VP, Spiro Agnew, resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford, but that was a result of scandal, not a re-election decision.



Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his four terms, went through three VP's. He had John Garner 1933-41, after which Garner retired from politics, and was replaced by Henry A. Wallace as his running mate for his third term (1941-45). Roosevelt opted not to run with Wallace for his fourth term, choosing instead Harry S. Truman. Shortly after Roosevelt won his 4th term, he died of a cerebral hemmoraghe, and Truman became President.



There are a few more incidents of VP's being replaced mid-stream if you go back before the 1900's, but that's not quite as relevant to our modern situation.



As for incidents where a VP was replaced, and the ticket did not go on to win...



Eisenhower v. Adlai Stevenson (1952). Eisenhower keeps Nixon for both terms (and wins both elections). Stevenson runs first with John Sparkman, then again in 1956 with Estes Kefauver, and lost again.



Carter kept Mondale both times he ran (losing in the second term). Reagan kept Bush Sr. for his two terms, and Clinton kept Mr. Roboto for both of his.



I think that's all correct.



Edited to add; George H.W. Bush kept Quayle as his mate for both of his runs, losing the second to Clinton.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/3/04 3:08 pm

[Big Dummy]

Thanks muchly, Partisan.

[Gatito Grande]

It's pretty clear that the John Kerry who voted against the (so-called!) Defense of Marriage Act in '96 wasn't running for President (as opposed to Bill Clinton who signed the mo'fo' thang ), whereas the John Kerry saying he supports a same-sex marriage-banning amendment in Mass. in '04 is.



GG What? When you run for President, you have to cut off your own cojones to "toss into the ring"? Out



The Good News: this story---same-sex marriage---is moving so fast, in so many places around this country, that wussy (if not downright evil) positions are being made irrelevant. (Like my former hometown: Yay Portland! )