Jackson Free Press

OK, here's your chance. Gloat. Whine. Vent. What are your thoughts on the very decisive mandate the country sent last night? Let 'er rip.

Previous Comments

ID

89890

Comment

Y'all hearing that Bush's new secretary of defense choice could be an Iran-Contra friends: obert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. Link Does he know anybody without a history of shady dealings?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-08T14:57:30-06:00

ID

89891

Comment

Whoa. Can you say "John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee." Some folks are quaking today in Washington. Here's ABC blotter piece that lays out the likely committee chairmen and talks about Pelosi's top priorities: Halliburton, the CIA and big tobacco companies are among the early targets identified by top Democratic staff to ABC News as likely targets for investigation once the Democrats take control of the House at the beginning of next year. The staffers say Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), now expected to become speaker, has told top Democratic donors there is a "100-hour agenda" she wants to push through -- taking on the minimum wage, drug and energy prices and corruption. Defense contractors, including Halliburton, the intelligence rationale for the war in Iraq and CIA secret prisons are what one staffer called "uninvestigated scandals." The skinny lady is about to belt out some interesting tunes, I'd guess.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-08T15:00:13-06:00

ID

89892

Comment

Also, I wonder about how the Waxman asension is making Haley Barbour feel today?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-08T15:00:56-06:00

ID

89893

Comment

Looks like another mossback resurrected from Papa Bush's stable of failed appointees. And we wonder why there's nary a fresh, progressive, bright idea to come forth from the White House since the Supreme Court granted Shrub squatter's rights.

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-11-08T15:03:22-06:00

ID

89894

Comment

I don't have a whole lot to contribute except to say that even though I've had a crappy day, I've continued to have a smile on my face. It's good to see that a lot of this country is FINALLY paying attention.

Author

kp

Date

2006-11-08T15:13:08-06:00

ID

89895

Comment

In the spirit of generating discussion--and of being a spoilsport--I would like to suggest that we are all excited over very little. Now I do look forward to Congress acting as an independent branch of government once more rather than the Roman Imperial Senate: President Nero, that is a FANTASTIC idea! Investigations aside, what do we really get from a Democratic victory? To be sure, it is 1 times 10 to the 17th power preferable to Republican rule. For instance, we will probably get a minimum wage increase. We will probably get negotiation on drug prices from Medicare under Plan D. Of course, Bush has vowed to veto the latter. Still, these are very modest actions to address what I regard as a dire crisis: The decay of American democracy. I always despised Nader when he said that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans was the velocity with which their knees hit the carpet when their corporate sponsors came calling. That is stupid, I humbly submit. However, it contains the truth, which is that our system is glutted with money. It like we have representation for 50 states and 400 corporations. Democrats are marginally better than Republicans because they retain some meager interest in restraining corporate power, but tiny nudges in the minimum wage matched with small increases on taxes on the rich are not going to address the devastating disparity in income that has developed in our plutocracy. Let me get Biblical: We are a corrupt society, enamored with a superficial celebrity culture. We spend $600 billion on war (not defense) every year. We have more than 1,000 nuclear weapons. Just this year, we were finally nudged out of first place in selling weapons to developing countries by Russia. Our health care system is broken. Our pension system is broken. Our manufacturing sector has been gutted by profiteers. The housing and banking sectors are extremely vulnerable to destablization. Our currency is overvalued. The Democrats will fix none of this.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-08T15:20:06-06:00

ID

89896

Comment

It's not even the fixing I'm most worried about, Brian. It's slowing down the bleeding, and I do think that will happen. The American people seem to be in the mood to insist on it. So let me be clear: It's the citizens I'm pleased with today much more than the Democrats. It's up to them to prove they are up to the task provided them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-08T15:23:27-06:00

ID

89897

Comment

And besides, there are definitely some good things that will come out of the election... I don't expect to get everything I want. I'm just happy to get so much less of what I don't want. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-08T15:33:29-06:00

ID

89898

Comment

Brian: The Roman Senate? It was a pretty damn independent bunch all the way up to Phillipi.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-08T15:43:26-06:00

ID

89899

Comment

Well as the Slogan goes, "Stay Out of the Bushes" now we must "Close up the Gates." He will never learn. I guess some people just don't learn from history or they just don't give a do.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-08T16:03:24-06:00

ID

89900

Comment

I can't wait to see who runs the house and senate. Wake up everybody. No more backward thinking. It's time for thinking ahead. It's time to save the children and protect the old folks. Wake up everybody. No more (unnecessary) sleeping in bed. Stop the "war against error" and bring our soldiers home. It's time to stop lying and deceiving the people. Wake up yeah, Wake up yeah. Save the children. Save the old folks. (Harold Melvin's Blue Notes and RCC).

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-08T17:42:55-06:00

ID

89901

Comment

King, I shoulda known better than to bring up the Romans with you around. ;) Of course, I was playing devil's advocate to a certain extent by being so grim, and I appreciate the need to stop the bleeding. Maybe I'm just being contrarian since most people I know are sunny today. Or maybe I'm just feeling a little battered after the last six years. We have fallen so far, so fast. For the rest of the day, however, I'll stop being a curmudgeon and try to think about all the good that might come of this.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-08T18:27:25-06:00

ID

89902

Comment

I think what we'll get (after this brief honeymoon) is more gridlock as usual. Dems will attack everything attached to the Iraq war as a scandal, and... Just more of the same; pure darkness.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-08T19:35:01-06:00

ID

89903

Comment

Watching Bush's press conference today, it struck me that the central theme behind his comments and concessions was simply this -- he's going to have to think about stuff now. And I don't say that simply to make fun of his intellect...I don't think he's as stupid as he's made out to be, at least in the sense that his intelligence is an organic one. I believe he can make people *like* him and he probably has a gift for reading people's emotions quickly and making them feel valuable. He seems to be able to get people to work and stick together in his administration, which is a gift for a manager and a politician. The small number of people who have left his administration over six years must be a record for a modern White House. But the problem with the whole administration is that their reasoning hasn't been challenged -- with the rubber stamp Congress and the he-said-she-said MSM, they haven't been forced to convince anyone that their ideas are good before their policies are put into place. And their essential problem is their penchant for inductive reasoning. Because (a.) liberating the Iraqis and creating democracy is a grand ideal then (b.) we can do anything necessary to make it come about. Nevermind that the very process by which you go about trying to reach your goals could be wrong -- strategically, tactically, morally -- and, hence, more destructive than no action at all. Now, Bush, in some cases, will have to convince skeptics that his plans can carry out his ideals, and that the ideas behind his administration's plans have merit. That is a better place for our country to be, IMHO. I don't believe we'll "go back to gridlock" -- not immediately. (And, some "gridlock" seems to be good for the economy, judging from historical patterns.) Everyone recognizes that we've got serious problems that need to be addressed, hopefully by thinking people who meet in the middle on their ideologies in the interest of injecting some sort of wisdom into the process. For RIGHT NOW, that's what voters appear to have demanded, in a way that is impressive, if not utterly unprecedented. If the Dems become entrenched via elections in 2008 and beyond, then they, too, will likely corrupt eventually...perhaps not as quickly as the Rs did...and it'll be time to throw the bums out again. In the meantime, I think they can get some good work done.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-11-08T20:20:36-06:00

ID

89904

Comment

I expect some positives to come out of this. One positive would be holding anyone who has lied to the American people, and put our soldiers at risk in so doing, responsible for their actions. Another would be raising the minimum wage. Another would be actually funding No Child Left Behind (did you hear him talk about NCLB as a bipartisan "success" today—yeah, until they stabbed Dems in the back by not funding it). Another would be actually putting 9-11 Commission's recommendations into place. Another would be starting to rebuild international alliances that Bush ruined with his whacked Iraq scheme. Another would be to control the Repubs' crazy spending. I could go on, but that's a fine start.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-08T21:52:33-06:00

ID

89905

Comment

Indeed, this is an excellent opportunity to begin healing our relationships with the rest of the world. No, the democrats have not historically acted in a manner that i imagined to be the model of "integrity" governing, but all times can be fresh, especially with the catalyst of immense disruption. The past 6 years have been phenomenal in how drastically our programs and policies have descended into fear-based reactions without consideration for our higher ideals of true community and stewardship, now we have created a major overhaul in how we the people want to delegate reaction. To some extent, all legislative body action comes across as reactive and dichotomous, especially to the uninformed citizen. But before it gets to a yes or no vote there is a party of individual decisions and feelings in the populace. A vote for the democrats, considering the circumstances of today, is a vote for no child left behind, a more reflective stance on aggression, more consideration for the meek, and a different sense of security. This is now the national weather instead of cloudy with a chance of nuclear winter. One hundred percent chance of surveilance. No, all the important things won't change. But one very crucial thing has changed. America is choosing to be more empathetic in their government representation.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2006-11-09T08:44:02-06:00

ID

89906

Comment

Nothin like a change in managment! I look forward to the gridlock this will likely entail. Having congress and the white house on the same page was a bit too much, although I would hardly call it the Roman Imperial Senate. Decadent society? Wow, yall sound like a bunch of my eoR conservative buddies. Back in the day...... it was SO much different. Oh! but we must perservere in this mere age of iron. Life goes on; the republic shall endure. Meet the new boss, mostly the same as the old boss. The status quo, tax cuts, aggressive foreign policy; these items will stay right where they are, and maybe GB will get to actually veto something for a change - perhaps a spending bill. My prediction is that this "madate" will be about as useful to the dems as GB's "mandate" in the last election was. My main expectation/hope is that this will continue to move the center to coalesce into a reasonable alternative to the further wings in each party, and perhaps, dare I suggest it - result in a viable third choice at some point in the future. The republicans played too far right and got bashed. I doubt Pelosi and company will do much better with the center given their policies. I will be entertaining for sure.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-09T09:04:35-06:00

ID

89907

Comment

as long as the Saudis are exporting Wahaabism all over the globe and Iran is fervently pursueing nukes while exporting terrorism (through Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgency) while Russia and China consider the Iranians to be their best customers, there will not be too much repairing of many relationships.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T09:25:21-06:00

ID

89908

Comment

In fact, here is what two friends of mine wrote me about Rummie. One is a former Marine who heads up a firm that studies terrorism, the other is a current marine officer who has served several tours over in Iraq and is pretty well informed. first email: Anyone who thinks Rumsfeld wanted war with Iraqand planned it all with Bush way ahead of time is just delusional. Rumsfeld came in with the mission of "transforming" the military, especially the Army, to bring it fully out of the Cold War era and into the 21st century. That was his number 1 mission. If anything, World War IV, and especially the Iraq campaign, made that almost impossible. Rumsfeld was hugely unpopular before 9/11, especially in the Army, mainly for his management style, but also because he was forcing change and breaking rice bowls. He was popular for about a year after 9/11, maybe two. But that wore off. He went back to being hugely unpopular in 2004 or so My comments on his email: I remember when Rummie came into office he immediately set about changing our military to one that could fight assymetrical warfare and away from one that only fought heavy land-based wars against other nations like Russia. The generals did not like that BUT people like Colonel Hackworth praised him for doing so and shaking up the Pentagon, which needed it. here is the second email, continued:

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T09:29:20-06:00

ID

89909

Comment

he listed the good and bad things Rumsfeld did: to clean up the acquisitions process and eliminate much of the corruption in the Pentagon. He fought the Generals( both active and retired) tooth and nail, often on good things. It was his leadership that has kept us at only 2400 KIA in Iraq. He is the reason we have 357 different types of effective Counter IED systems and every vehicle in Iraq is uparmored. He is also the man to credit for the vast improvements in info warfare and UAV integration that we see. Perhaps his best legacy is the way he has completely destroyed some of the petty interservice rivalry stuff that was there before he got there. Look in Iraq today and see the USMC/USA/USAF integration and it is a sight to behold in terms of efficiency and integration. We would have never had a Marine CJCS without Rumsfeld.None of those things happen without Rummy. I dont know if all of that makes up for losing the chance to win this thing in 2003, but I think we should appreciate the man before he goes. He also proves just how ruthless and petty the media and the left are. They wanted his scalp ever since he made a habit of pointing out just how stupid and uninformed on military matters they really are back in 2002/3/4. They have never forgiven him for that. not fired the iraq Army and civilian administation, -not cancelled deployments of three divisions and then wait an extra month or three to deploy those same divisions when it became clear they would be needed because it sent the message that the war was not "over". -not sent the MEF home when it became clear that sending them home was not the right idea in September of 2003, redeploying those units to Anbar then would have been the right call -not spent a year operating under ridiculous "phase IV" ROE when it was clear that we were very much still in a shootting war, -Not declared Anbar province, where all of our real enemies were, an "economy of force area," -not sit back and watch the massive looting in Baghdad and not repond by immediately sending another 15000 troops to secure the area, -not allowed the UN to get attacked adn then leave, I am pretty sure they would have stayed if we have guaranteed their security, - not waited for Fallujah to hang Americans from the Brooklyn bridge before we did something about that sh!thole -not peicemeal deployed MP units around the Army reserve which led to totally unqualified California National Guard units at the nations largest detainee facility at Abu Grayhb, we know how that ended -not invalidated the elections that the Marines held in places like Samarra, Najaf and Karbalah. We would up fighting some of the very guys who were elected in Najaf in the summer of 2003 in the summer of 2004. -Not allowed Al Sadr to start organizing a militia in Sadr City -given up the stupid search for WMDs early and fight the insurgency in its infancy in the summer of 2003. Here is a quote " if we could just say that they were emplacing IEDs with chemical warneads, we might get some ISR or intel support" and Finally, got rid of Tommy Franks early. -- My take on this second email is that he was good at fighting the bureaucratic wars and reforming the military but not so good at making strategic and tactical battlefield decisions, which in the end, is what everyone sees. Having said that, too often he is the one implementing strategy of policy and in this case, I'm sure Rove, Cheney, and Bush ran the show more than you would think the tightfisted Rumsfeld did over in Iraq.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T09:33:13-06:00

ID

89910

Comment

Here is Novak on the election today: http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/130266,cst-edt-novak09.article

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T09:44:43-06:00

ID

89911

Comment

Well now, I listened to Pelosi quite a bit last night, and finally saw a brillant, talented, caring, and beautiful soul who happened to be a politician and woman. Something quite rare and contrast to crazy and arrogant white wanna-be Kings. I saw her answer tough questions from people who seemed hostile to her with amazing poise and forethought. And she didn't even need people to tell her what to say or think. And I saw a woman who knows what the country needs and who's determined to try and make it happen. I don't blame Republicans for hating and plotting her downfall, especially Republican males, as I expect her to show them how to be responsible, statesmanlike, brillant, thoughful, determined, and a real leader not blinded by race, zenophobia, hegemony, arrogance, greed, corruption, and deceit. And no I don't blame her for trying to run Jefferson the hell out of congress. I hope she succeeds at that. There want be any more pure darkness for a long while. No one can stoop lower than the party of the HORSEFLY already has. Don't get me wrong now. I'm all for those invesigations to show the public just how corrupt and deceitful the Republican party really is. The public needs to know this so that we won't ever stoop that low again for decades. They've got to be forced to change. I told everyone earlier that the Republican party had to self destruct as about half the population doesn't care that they're an abominable group of people. In my humble opinion, the race superiority or white supremacy element of that party trumps everything for its members.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:00:48-06:00

ID

89912

Comment

That's bull ray. The Repubs don't have a problem with women in leadership. Dole was in charge of the Senate election committee. Kaye Bailey has held prominent roles herself. Then there is Condi. last time I checked, neither party had a monopoly on corruption or arrogance. You really want investigations? You really want it to get to where each side seeks to win elections so they can investigate and criminalize the other side? That is a nice slippery slope to civil war.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T10:05:27-06:00

ID

89913

Comment

Nall, King, you're full of bull. I'm talking about a women who isn't a puppet. Kay Baliley is a republican tramp who would continue the same crap that got y'all in all this trouble. I'm well aware of that trifling heifer.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:11:26-06:00

ID

89914

Comment

King, the future will tell the story. Denial (the Nile) is a river in Africa. Egypt more particularly.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:18:43-06:00

ID

89915

Comment

I wasn't aware that Dole and Rice were puppets. Remember Jeane Kirkpatrick? She was no ones puppet either. of course, then there are the loose cannons like Cynthia McKinney on the other side. Of course, I don't take that racist and think the Democratic Party or all Democrats are like her either.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T10:26:37-06:00

ID

89916

Comment

Cynthia was a loose cannon in many regards but she was on the money about Bush and Cheney. Don't get mad, King, that white supremacy thing preceded and will outdate you. Rice isn't a puppet? Stop playing. When has Dole had an independent thought?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:32:40-06:00

ID

89917

Comment

Also, King, I could be wrong, but I doubt it!

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:34:03-06:00

ID

89918

Comment

Cynthia's anti semitism is well documented. and thinking Bush and Cheney planned or knew about 9/11 before it happened is just plain nuts. If you want to say she was on the money about that, go ahead and be my guest. Rice is appointed but she probably does most of Bush's foreign policy thinking for him. Dole is a go along get along type. I wouldn't call her a puppet, I'd say she is like most republicans in Congress right now and not a leader.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T10:36:06-06:00

ID

89919

Comment

Perhaps she was around the money on that issue (not totally wrong or totally right) and on the money in her overall opinions about them.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:39:12-06:00

ID

89920

Comment

I don't know or agree that Cynthia is an anti-semite. Anyway, she's gone. Hopefully, some more of your party members will soon receive the same fate including some jail time. This is not about revenge, it's about taking responsibility. and doing the right thing. Doing the right thing will surely be more important to Pelosi and the head of the Senate than mere revenge.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T10:44:27-06:00

ID

89921

Comment

Republicans, both male and female; White, Black and Brown, played their roles in the Bush Administration. The script was written, produced and directed by Karl Rove. Remember his famous "October Suprise," a manuscript for Re-election of Republicans? Condi made it crystal clear that she was marketing the message of "This President." She probably did a great job at Stanford as a provost but Rove had everyone's balls in the Bush Administration. Make no mistake about that. Bush is probably an ok guy: A great party animal and with the helplessness of a Rodney King "Can We All Just Get Along." He (Bush) was/is the Rove puppet being strung along by the puppeteer. This, in my opinion, is still another who has gone too far, too fast with too little.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-09T11:51:16-06:00

ID

89922

Comment

The Bob Woodward "trilogy" is a fascinating look at the Bush White House and the rise to power of this administration. I haven't been able to read thru "State of Denial" as much as I would have liked because of my workload, but I recommend them for anyone who wants to get a good sense of how the Iraq nightmare came to pass.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-09T12:24:50-06:00

ID

89923

Comment

King, I don't think the media had it out for Rumsfeld because he showed that they didn't understand military matters. I think they asked him tough questions because he consistently overstated the success of his operation in Iraq, consistently underestimated the insurgency, and generally acted toward both the media and the public with disdain and arrogance. Even in his resignation comments, he implied that the problem was people didn't understand his war rather than that it is and always was a fiasco. One immediate benefit of the Dems taking power is that Rumsfeld will be replaced by Robert Gates. Like Rumsfeld, Gates has no problem with lying to Congress--he really shouldn't be confirmed considering his role in Iran-Contra--but at least he is from the realist wing of the Republican Party rather than the fantasyland, neo-con wing. (I don't think Rumsfeld is a neo-con, but he hitched his star to theirs. He wanted war in Iraq by any means, as has now been well-established by multiple sources.)

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-09T12:49:17-06:00

ID

89924

Comment

And yes, my comparison to the Roman Senate was hyperbolic, but the spineless enablers fell so low that they came to regard their role as making Bush's illegal actions legal for him. Every time it has looked like the Senate might restrain Bush, on torture and illegal wiretapping, for instance, they have buckled and done their part to give him a fig leaf. That, I trust, is over.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-09T12:52:20-06:00

ID

89925

Comment

I'm going to read every one of these posts as I am sure they are very insightful. But as a conservative Centerist....if I may term myself... I think this election was a "no confidence" vote against the Administration as a whole and a rejection of extremist politics. The anti choice initiative in Dakota failed overwhemingly......the anti gay marriage initiative failed in Arizona (very conservative western state); Santorum the "goose stepin" fascist was put out in Penn; Mucaca Allen is out; and early on we here in Georgia smushed the christo fascist Ralph Reed and Cynthia Mckinney on the same skewer........also Hilary swepted the conservative Northern New York counties with her campaign and did quite well. Balanced Government at last!.....now President Bush will actually be required to govern.......

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-11-09T13:08:25-06:00

ID

89926

Comment

My take on this second email is that he was good at fighting the bureaucratic wars and reforming the military but not so good at making strategic and tactical battlefield decisions, which in the end, is what everyone sees. Having said that, too often he is the one implementing strategy of policy and in this case, I'm sure Rove, Cheney, and Bush ran the show more than you would think the tightfisted Rumsfeld did over in Iraq. It would actually be operational and tactical levels that Rumsfeld lacks competency in. I do think politicians spend too much time messing with tactical levels and sometimes operational levels. If you start a war let the military fight the war. I have no problem with the reasons we are in Iraq, just a problem with the way we are fighting (or lack of fighting). I don't know who set the guidelines for the ROE, all I know is it comes from CFLCC and they are about as F'ed up as it gets. I'd say the current ROE and excessive CID investigations are indirectly the cause of a large number casualties and loss of ground in Iraq. That's right, Loss of ground, we gained quite a bit until we recently let the Mahdi militia walk all over us while we sat in the wire and waved. CID and the media has soldiers so scared half of them are afraid to pull the trigger. They figure they'll end up crucified on CNN for wacking some assbag that doesn't report the IED's that have been laid in front of his house. Almost all of our politicians are weak cowards that let the enemy walk all over us. Until they let us fight violently we will lose this war and any other war that comes along.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-09T13:12:49-06:00

ID

89927

Comment

I think democrats have already made their first big mistake. They put pelosi as the Speaker of the House. She is way to far left to ever provide real leadership. I'm having a hard time understanding why she was selected to tell you the truth. The republicans will certainly rebel every chance they get and the more centered democrats will find themselves at odds with her on more than a few key issues. Ultimately it will just lead to a greater polarization of America.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-09T13:20:46-06:00

ID

89928

Comment

"I think democrats have already made their first big mistake". If they don't rule from the center they are going to loose it starting in 08.....that's for sure. This was not a far left mandate by any stretch of the political landscape......

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-11-09T13:31:39-06:00

ID

89929

Comment

Is Pelosi really "far left"? Are you sure you're not measuring the spectrum here from the far right? I'm not getting that part. And Kingfish, I think it's say to say that the Repubs don't mind *compliant* women in power; the same could be said for people of color.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-09T13:47:38-06:00

ID

89930

Comment

Yes she is far left, maybe not by your standards. I do not consider myself far right at all, actually I'm pretty centered minus 2 issues, gun control and iraq.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-09T13:49:33-06:00

ID

89931

Comment

What are your standards for calling someone "far left," nothing? Maybe that would help clarify your argument. Of course, I don't believe in the left-right spectrum—it doesn't reflect the complexity of American politics—but for the sake of clarity, please provide the way you measure it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-09T14:00:28-06:00

ID

89932

Comment

Maybe I'll write you a detailed inventory some time, but right now I'll assume you are are just playing devil's advocate. With all due respect I'm really not in the mood and we'll leave it at that.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-09T14:06:35-06:00

ID

89933

Comment

No, I'm not playing devil's advocate. I believe that if you are going to dismiss something in such a way as "far left," then you should be willing to explain how you came to that conclusion. How hard can that be if you're not just throwing out a sound bite? It's fine if you're not, but it doesn't exactly make you seem convincing.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-09T14:12:38-06:00

ID

89934

Comment

Donna, I'm afraid that nothing appears to be correct about Pelosi being off to the left, at least by US standards - although that's only half the story in the bigger scheme of things (more about that shortly). The American Conservative Union has yearly ratings of all Congressional Members and Senators. Their scorecard of 25 questions, IMO, covers a sufficiently broad range of issue to serve as a somewhat reasonable measure for a lawmaker's ideology. On that scorecard, 100 = perfect conservative; 0 = perfect liberal. In 2005, Pelosi's lifetime score was 3, which seems pretty strong evidence favoring nothing's viewpoint. On the other hand, both Trent Lott's and Dennis Hastert's lifetime scoreds 93. So while nothing does have a good point about the Democrats choosing as Speaker someone from their strongly faction, I hardly see it being any worse than having Hastert as Speaker or Lott as Senate Majority Leader

Author

Philip

Date

2006-11-09T14:37:13-06:00

ID

89935

Comment

Heck, I consider it angelically or favorably positioned to be the polar opposite of Lott and the present freaker of the house. I can't remember his name but I think it's haggard or hastert or something like that. She will be whatever the call of duty requires her to be. Just watch!

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T14:53:46-06:00

ID

89936

Comment

Most articles that I've come across that describe Pelosi, even in mainstream media, describe her as being left of center or liberal. But I don't think its a label she runs from, but she also hasn't given in to being villified by it either. The problem with politics today, even sometimes around here, is that it's become a cycle where disagreement becomes hatred. Many liberals (or progressives, or whatever) hate Bush and ALL Republicans just like many conservatives (the Dittoheads, Neo-Cons, etc.) hated Clinton and ALL Democrats. And I'm beginning to hate both sides...why can't there be balance and centrism? The reason people like me identify themselves as independents is because we don't get down with all the fiery rhetoric and the "us-verses-them" lecturing, and I'm tired of being told which side of the playground, left or right, I should stay on. Politics is so black and white, good and evil now.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-09T14:55:47-06:00

ID

89937

Comment

No, I know you are baiting/patronizing me. Once I put out the issues that concern me you will then start debating them as well and how they relate. Heck, you don't believe in "left and right" anyway, and to an extent that's true. So by your clarification I can't be looking at things from the far right because it doesn't reflect the complexity of american politics to you and that's fine. I don't agree or disagree with that statement. I don't really see a reason to go into it. You can read her voting record and statements just as well as I have. I have an opionion and so do you. Hooray, we are Americans. Besides, surely by now you have seen both parties have polarized themselves on key issues such as: welfare socialized medicine environmental abortion immigration military gun control free speech Now you can take that list apart and debate it as much as you want, (and yes I know she votes for military spending look deeper). Keep end mind you probably only have a clue about my personal beliefs on 2 issues. Now I'm calling EOM (end of mission) and displacing south.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-09T14:58:21-06:00

ID

89938

Comment

I'm not getting that part. you are correct I am measuring this from the far right......but that was my take on the election mandate. "We" flushed the lines of the far "rightism" tht had infested the scene (I hope)......so can I say Pelosi is far left....no....I don't think she is. But true center....well.....??????hmmmmm.

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-11-09T15:05:29-06:00

ID

89939

Comment

"Politics is so black and white, good and evil now". man is that the nail on the head.....and even if Pelosi was just a little to the left of center she would be labeled "super liberal mommy" by most right wing pundits.....today.

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-11-09T15:12:12-06:00

ID

89940

Comment

Nothing, I'm still not following you. Are you saying that anyone who votes in favor of any kind of welfare, "socialized" medicine (I assume you mean universal health care), protecting the environment, abortion rights, etc. (including "free speech") are somehow on the "far left"?!? With due respect, you sound like you are out of touch with mainstream America. If you are going to go around painting people in broad stroke, in order to dismiss them without bothering to address a single specific position of theirs, it is VERY important to define what your labels mean. And you're not doing a very good job at it. And, ejeff, certainly there is nothing wrong with being "liberal" for goodness sake. It's nothing's "far left" jab I'm trying to explore here. He seems to want to paint Pelosi as some pinko commie with no actual examples to back it up. It sounds like B.S. rhetoric so far.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-09T15:19:03-06:00

ID

89941

Comment

Will somebody please tell me what's so great or even good about being a conservative? I've been trying to read Thomas Sowell (I kind of like him because he's smart and not totally crazy) Walter Williams, (the biggest nut I've ever encountered) , George Wills (sneaky and dishonest in my view), and a few others so-called conservative who aren't total Nazis or skinheads trying to understand what is the big issue about this. It sounds like utter bullshit to me. But I'm open to seeing if anything really exist pertaining this this word or identity.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T15:25:43-06:00

ID

89942

Comment

ATL, your remarks are *exactly* why I reject the left-right spectrum. Most Americans get left out in that paradigm or end up being placed by others in places where they don't belong. In your post, you say maybe she's not "far left," but she's not "center," either. Is there nothing in between on such a spectrum? Isn't it more likely that she is more left on some issues, centrist on some, etc.? I hate political dialogue that doesn't even allow people to be individuals and make independent decisions. I'm a good example, on this imaginary spectrum, I have some "left" ideas (few, if any "far left"; I don't believe the government should own the means of production, for instance; thus, I don't believe in socialism); I have some people consider "moderate," and I have some that are called right of center. I have none that are radical right, however, I don't believe. I do pray, if that counts. ;-) This week, it wasn't the "far left" that defeated the radical right; it was a coalition of Americans who disgree on many issues, but realized that the folks in power have been corrupt and inept. So far at least, Nancy Pelosi seems focused on issues that have little to do with being on the "far left," and I'm thrilled to see that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-09T15:27:06-06:00

ID

89943

Comment

Pelosi is center-left, and anyone who sees her as far left has obviously forgotten what the far left is (see also Kucinich, Dennis). She really is viewed as too conservative in San Francisco--a few months ago I ran across a liberal alt-weekly op-ed that very reluctantly endorsed her over a primary opponent, based only on her rank in the House. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-09T15:38:01-06:00

ID

89944

Comment

What I don't like is the idea that there's left, right, and center, and that the objective of every politician should be to play to the people further in "their direction" while "claiming the center." That paradigm is as obsolete as the flat Earth. The truth is that there are ideas that represent change, ideas that represent the status quo, and ideas that represent the status quo ante. The real debate is between change and the status quo ante; to the extent that the status quo represents a "compromise," what it usually represents instead is a failure of will. Take abortion, for example. "Abortion with restrictions," with the exception of those established in Roe v. Wade (e.g., nothing past 24 weeks), is an incoherent idea. If abortion is murder, then it's always murder, even in cases of rape or incest, and it doesn't really matter if the parents or spouses are notified or not; if it's not murder, then it's always not murder and it's not the government's business to get involved. Yet the rhetorical "center" is supposed to be abortion with more restrictions, and if that logic were carried further then I suppose abortion would be the option considered by women who are half-pregnant. Pelosi's ideas seem to be consistent, they're not false compromises, and they don't reflect the social agenda of the radical right, ergo she is a liberal on social issues by default. But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans would be liberals on social issues if they were consistent in their beliefs--all these folks who have sex outside of marriage (which I don't consider a bad thing at all), but are willing to concede--incoherently--to a radical right idea of "the sanctity of marriage" when determining how lesbian and gay couples should define their relationships. What we need more than anything else in this country is a real, rigorous discussion of these issues, and for media personalities to stop being such hacks and develop working bullshitometers. Either the Bible is the basis of our government or it isn't. Either sex outside of marriage is wrong or it isn't. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. Enough with the self-contradictory "compromises" that define the political center. They exist only so that politicians can please the largest possible number of constituents, and for the most part make zero sense from a philosophical point of view. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-09T15:52:51-06:00

ID

89945

Comment

**...They put pelosi as the Speaker of the House. She is way to far left to ever provide real leadership. I'm having a hard time understanding why she was selected to tell you the truth...** <--nothing

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-11-09T16:00:50-06:00

ID

89946

Comment

**...They put pelosi as the Speaker of the House. She is way to far left to ever provide real leadership. I'm having a hard time understanding why she was selected to tell you the truth...** <--nothing If that is true of Pelosi, then a converse premise would have to be true for George Bush, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, and any other person whose political views are unlike Pelosi's, including *nothing*. And if *nothing* doesn't understand why Pelosi was "selected", I suspect that he/she does not understand how the seniority system works in Congress. Plus, for the record, Pelosi is the presumptive Speaker of the House by virtue of her current position as House Minority Leader (the highest ranking Democrat in the House). Tradition has it that she would be the heir apparent to the speakership, and we will most likely be referring to her as Madame Speaker after the Congressional session convenes in January; however, that is not an absolute given. So, as a result of yesterday's election, nobody "selected" Pelosi for anything...yet.

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-11-09T16:11:47-06:00

ID

89947

Comment

Left, right, center - just 3 words to me. I take all 3 routes when playing sports and sometimes politics. What's in a word. Or particularly those words? All of this takes me back to a scene in a war movie where soldiers from both sides were dying way too often. Some American soldiers got into an argument and near fight over a word. Finally, one genius of a soldier stood up and told everybody "if I'm going to fight over a damn word then I'm picking that word that I got plenty of before the war, and don't know whether I'll ever get any more of now that we're at war." Do I need to say anymore?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T16:16:32-06:00

ID

89948

Comment

What wonderful and enlightening comments by everyone except me and that other person who isn't willing to even give Pelosi a chance before berating or degrading her. I learn so much from all of you including nothing. I'm behind Pelosi %100 percent. If she's not the speaker in January I'm defecting to Brazil or somewhere. I'll keep trying to find out what is a conservative on my own. The so-called ones I've met and worked with scare me a whole lot more than the other so-called enemies or terrorists.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T17:09:18-06:00

ID

89949

Comment

you are right ray. Someone for liberty, smaller government, and lower taxes should scare the hell out of you. and McKinney is an anti semite. I'll be more than happy to dig up her quotes.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T17:45:42-06:00

ID

89950

Comment

Kingfish, I love you brother. However, y'all were so busy lining your pockets, having orgies, perverting religion, lying to the people, and being irresponsible in every way possible that you didn't provide any liberty (I'm more afraid and bound now than I've ever felt), smaller government (although I know that has often been a trick for local governments to screw minorities and the poor) or lower taxes that amounted to anything. I'm not afraid to pay more taxes for good reasons. I don't recall any jewish organizations being up in arms about McKinney. I won't even mention "the war against error."

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-09T17:59:37-06:00

ID

89951

Comment

Tom: Just as a point of order, "abortion with restiction" is not incoherent. You are absolutely correct when you say that abortion either is or isn't killing a person - that much is true. But what is also true is that none of us can be certain uncertain whether it is killing a person or not, or when it is killing a person. That is, there is an answer to the question, but no one is sure what the answer is. And that uncertainty is at the heart of the abortion debate (it forms the foundation of the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade) and represents a logical foundation for restricting abortion. I am not here arguing for or against restictions. I'm just saying that is it not icoherent to propose restrictions, precisely because we are uncertain of what abortion does.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-09T18:35:10-06:00

ID

89952

Comment

It would not be incoherent to propose restrictions if one is uncertain of what abortion does, I agree. (Though I think it's wrong, for reasons I'll get into below.) But the stated logic of the anti-abortion movement usually goes like this: "I believe that there should be restrictions on abortion because my faith teaches, and I sincerely believe, that life begins at conception." Well, if that person were a full human being at conception, then all abortion would be murder--period--whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or not, and it would be no more ethical to terminate a pregnancy under those circumstances than it would be to murder a child who resulted from such a pregnancy. But if that person is not a full human being at the moment of conception--which is not something that the vast majority of abortion opponents are willing to concede, or even entertain--then one is not in a position to dictate the terms under which the pregnancy may be terminated. Only the pregnant woman is. As far as uncertainty goes: Let's imagine that you had an engineer at MIT who stated the controversial theory that all complex software is self-aware. Should it be illegal to delete software because of the possibility--which is actually not as easy to dismiss as the possibility that a first-trimester embryo is sentient--that the software is self-aware? Or should the government be forced to make a credible case first? We know that if an embryo or fetus is not a person, then it is part of a woman's body. If an embryo or fetus is a person, then it is not. Only personhood can establish the independence of an embryo or fetus. For the government to say that it can restrict abortion without proving personhood is tantamount to saying that the government has authority over what a woman does with her body anyway, and is choosing to exercise that authority just in case a first trimester embryo is sentient. This is why feminists, such as myself, see abortion as a basic human rights issue. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-09T18:46:55-06:00

ID

89953

Comment

Interesting Tom. So, IF you were given convincing evidence (to you) that abortion is killing a person, would you support resticting a woman's right to choose? To answer the MIT question -- the self-awareness of the software is not what makes it human. Being human is what makes it human. I don't think a newborn infant really qualifies as being self aware. The software may indeed be worth saving, and if a CONVINCING case can be made, then we may indeed do something about it. It may be gradual, however, beginning with RESTRICTIONS on the use or deletion of software, and going from there. I think the 3/5 compromise is evidence of a population of people in th eprocess of being dragged kicking and screming into the reality that it is immoral to enslave black people because they are fully human. They built an economy on an immoral and untenable premise, but they couldn't let go because they needed so badly for it to be true. So I think this sort of thing happens in history. I now have a question for you. If you were in charge of demolishing a building, and you heard a rumor that someone MIGHT be in the building, would you knock it down?

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-09T19:17:32-06:00

ID

89954

Comment

I should correct one thing. The 3/5 compromise is not a great thing to cite, because it had more to do with taxation and represetation than recognizing anything much about the inherent nature of black people. But the point I was making was about the slow process that took place of accpeting the obvious reality that black people are fully lhuman.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-09T19:25:05-06:00

ID

89955

Comment

Kingfish, one of the principles of the Republican Party (the classic version, not the current corrupted one) that I could meet y'all halfway on is the smaller government idea, if only because I worked in government for 3 years and witnessed firsthand the kind of waste, malaise, and inefficiency that tax dollars pay for on a regular basis. In my office alone I had a half dozen co-workers who I could easily see getting rid of for laziness, duplication of services and all around inefficiency, but couldn't because of civil service protection. And the amount of waste that went into supplies, equipment, yada yada yada at taxpayer expense made me sick. Not everyone in goverment is lazy and every department isn't inefficient; there are a lot of government agencies that are strapped and deserve a larger budget to cover their expenses. But once I jumped ship and went into the private sector I began to appreciate the need to be accountable for service and work performance, because in the private sector profit is everything and being lazy can easily get yo azz fired. And I co-operated a small business with a friend in AL for a couple of years and believe me paying those tax bills changed my opinion about the tax burden for small business. That's not to say that the private sector is the model of efficiency... my current company could use a few lessons in efficiency and waste. But that's why I get skeptical of government officials when I'm told I have to just accept a tax increase, and I'm more conscious when I look at my withholding or write a tax payment every April as to whether the money I'm sending to the government is being used as effectively as it could be.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-09T20:01:24-06:00

ID

89956

Comment

[quote]I don't think a newborn infant really qualifies as being self aware.[/quote] GLB, I know adults who don't meet that criteria. On the other hand, a baby can tell you exactly when it's diaper needs changing and it needs a bottle. Trust me. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-09T20:54:44-06:00

ID

89957

Comment

Ray: just enter in google Cynthia Mckinney and anti semitism and see what you get. time for some learnin on your part. Her father is an anti semite as well as the people that work for her. The only thing she is missing is a swastika brooch. Quite a few organizations were upset about her conduct over the years in terms of anti semitism. Orgies? How did I miss out on that? damn. Here is what Armey had to say in Wall Street Journal today and it was pretty damning of the current batch of Republicans. There have been quite a few Conservatives telling them they were going down the wrong path, all to no avail. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009218

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-09T23:38:27-06:00

ID

89958

Comment

True, Ironghost, but if you replace the word "diaper" with "litter box", the same can be said of your cat. As for adults who are not self-aware, I would include every single grown man (that doesn't have the body of an olympic swimmer) who has ever chosen to wear a Speedo to the beach. {:)

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T00:31:53-06:00

ID

89959

Comment

As others have noted, this election is in a large way a referendum on republicans more than an endorsement of democrats, particularly as they do not have well-known positions on many issues other than Iraq or budget issues. For the GOP, major issues hurting them were the amazing fiscal irresponsibility during the last several years, highlights by the transportation bill and the infamous 'bridge to nowhere.' I believe a LOT of GOP voters were livid about the GOP clarifying that IT is the big spending party, and as much a big government party as the DNC. The amount of federal debt added by 5 gop budgets is staggering, and completely unacceptable. Failure by the white house to recall that there is something called a VETO is complicity, IMHO. Hopefully the spending party in congress is over now. The debate on what to do with millions of illegal immigrants that Fedgov has clearly been complicit in allowing to get into the system hurt as well. GOP voters saw their senate worry more about formalizing status of those here (read: tax) rather than do what was actually politically doable after 2001 - control the southern border. Clearly bush didn't want to do this. I think this single issue more than any other opened the eyes of many that the GOP simply doesn't care what the party voter base thinks - gov wants the tax, business wants the labor, and both want the population. end of story. What the dem senate will do with this isn't going to make these voters any happier, though. Iraq - simply put, the americans have made some serious errors, regardless of whether you believe the media goes out of its way to point them out. I have never seen a country invade and occupy another, then allow their political enemies in that country to gain a notable role if not actual power while still running armed insurrection (al-sadr the most notable). This boggles the mind, and is only one of a large list of concepts that simply do not fit into any historical model of 'how to invade & occupy and construct civil institutions that have not existed since who knows when (roman asia minor? and british colonial rule, to some degree?) This was probably more of a motivating issue for dnc voters rather than a gop vote depressor. What will we get different? well as Niles said, meet the new boss.... 1) continuing mind-boggling trade deficits with China....hope they keep buying our bonds. If folks haven't figured it out, globalism/free trade is a duopoly party issue - it is the one more than any other than will get the fortune 500 interested and both parties are on the team. Clue: what is good for GE, Wal-Mart, and other multinationals is NOT necessarily what is good for US citizens in the short- to mid-term (i.e. 10-20 years). 2)continued increases in federal spending, though there might be a hiccup here. 3)possible gridlock on any new federal programs of any size, though have to see how bush approaches this, as a lame duck. He seems to like federal programs too. 4)Any SCOTUS nomination will be a moderate rather than a conservative. The judge issue is a major loss for the GOP base as it is one of the only ones they actually got what they wanted from the white house on domestic policy. 5)DPRK/Iran nuclear issues - I don't think anything will be done by the US on DPRK anyway, but the Iran issue is now off the table. Regardless of what you think of bush, a theocracy with a long history of supporting terrorism and a president who sounds more like hitler than anyone since 1945 is not a country you want to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T00:49:20-06:00

ID

89960

Comment

"You really want investigations? You really want it to get to where each side seeks to win elections so they can investigate and criminalize the other side? That is a nice slippery slope to civil war." It is actually becoming vogue in some central american countries to immediately start very public actions against people in the previous government, though admittedly they are in some cases flagrantly guilty. They aren't being investigated for that reason, though - but to demonize them and their party. Maybe folks think the Cunningham bribe list or Jefferson's frozen 90K are sort of isolated incidents, but any grasp of history or politics show that corruption is quite normal, and you should assume many congressmen who don't enter with high digit net worths will be tempted to augment their salaries, though presumably most are smart enough to cover their tracks a little better. It is always best to assume the ones who get caught are the SLOPPY ones. This child-like notion that corruption in normal business is normal, but in politics is sort of impossible or unlikely is perplexing at times, as if politicians were saints or something. Its the other way around!!! I guess comments some places that 'republicans are corrupt' or 'democrats are corrupt' just puzzle me. Using two eyes would show that 'politicians' as a class are corrupt, and that is one of the prices we have for not living under another form of government.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T01:10:27-06:00

ID

89961

Comment

"I guess comments some places that 'republicans are corrupt' or 'democrats are corrupt' just puzzle me. Using two eyes would show that 'politicians' as a class are corrupt, and that is one of the prices we have for not living under another form of government." clarification, in case some miss it: the benefits of living in a society with a republican form of government are great, and corruption in the legislature and other bodies, as well as in procurement and spending, contracts, etc is simply a price we pay and it is a fact of life that it exists. Other options, including police states, communist states, one-party 'republican' states, monarchies, theocracies, tribal thugocracies, and routine despotism, not to mention *kleptocracies* will have corruption issues as well, often on a scale which shames ours, at least %-wise.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T01:24:44-06:00

ID

89962

Comment

Scott Thomas writes: I guess comments some places that 'republicans are corrupt' or 'democrats are corrupt' just puzzle me. Using two eyes would show that 'politicians' as a class are corrupt, and that is one of the prices we have for not living under another form of government. Agreed--how quickly we forget the Keating Five, largely Democratic U.S. senators who were tied to the S&L scandal. Speaking of which--fun trivia for the day--there was exactly one Republican among the five (though he, along with Senator John Glenn, was later exonerated). He's still very much in the news. Without checking Google or other search engines, can anyone name him? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T01:43:53-06:00

ID

89963

Comment

No clue...Dick Cheney?

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T02:22:54-06:00

ID

89964

Comment

Nope--Cheney actually never served in the Senate (he was in the House)--but good guess! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T02:27:11-06:00

ID

89965

Comment

mccain was a keating five, right?

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T02:56:59-06:00

ID

89966

Comment

You are correct, sir! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T03:04:50-06:00

ID

89967

Comment

Meanwhile the terrorist drumbeat marches on.............. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/10/nterror10a.xml

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-10T08:46:36-06:00

ID

89968

Comment

I thought the public voted out republican control so we could stop the terrorists. Later. I'm gone.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-10T10:11:06-06:00

ID

89969

Comment

Yes, we are still at war, Kingfish. Let's hope the dems don't forget that. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228636,00.html

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T12:16:52-06:00

ID

89970

Comment

How could anyone FORGET it? We lost three more soldiers YESTERDAY. Don't insult us here, boys. At this stage, it just sounds silly to try to make it sound like the Democrats don't care about the damn war. Grow the hell up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T12:26:47-06:00

ID

89971

Comment

Regarding abortion, how would one "discover" whether or not an embryo is a person? You write, GLB, that there is one right "answer" to that question, which we cannot know, but I don't think that's true. The real question is: What constitutes "personhood"? There is no way to settle that question empirically. We have to decide on an answer, yes?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-10T12:53:16-06:00

ID

89972

Comment

I'm not insulting anyone. When I said "let's hope the dems don't forget", I'm meant "let's ALL hope the dems don't forget." And I meant the dems who are now in power. Believe me, I'm rooting for them. I'm very hopeful that some new ideas and new policies may surface that will help us achieve our goals. But...the dems campaigned on a change of course without ever defining what that was. Well, now is their chance to let us know what they are going to do, and why. And I will be listening

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T12:56:32-06:00

ID

89973

Comment

Brian: Your point is a very philosophical one -- it goes right back to our previous debate about whether ethical laws are something objectively real that we discover or something we just decide upon, by mutual consent. The danger with most definitions of personhood I hear in the abortion debate is that they invariably rule out some real, living people. That is, the definitions are designed to exclude embryoes and young fetuses, but if they are strictly applied, they end up ruling out infants, or severly retarded people, or people like Stephen Hawking (who are entirely dependent on others for their survival). So it gets messy. I'd be happy to discuss it, but we should probably politely start a new thread, don't you think?

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T13:03:59-06:00

ID

89974

Comment

Update: Just saw that 25 soldiers have died in Iraq already in November. At some point here there is going to be a serious conversation about whether or not the war is *winnable,* and how long we keep leaving soldiers there without a good strategy or enough soldiers to keep them safe. It's not as simplistic as the Dems having a better plan; that's a silly and hackneyed partisan sound bite. Bush's biggest problem is that he started a war on false pretenses, without a solid plan (as the generals are publicly saying) and now insists that our soldiers there there even though we may never that war. We need unflinching honesty first, and a willingness from the administration to listen to experts and criticism. That wasn't possible until this week. They refused to admit they had done a single thing wrong, and you sure can't fix anything under such arrogance. And that arrogance has cost American lives, money and respect around the world—and has helped build a haven for terrorists. *That's* why the bums were thrown out. The blind arrogance. The summit would be a good start.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T13:04:44-06:00

ID

89975

Comment

Fine, Ladd. But at some point, someone has to be a leader and actually propose something that can be debated. So let's go. I want to see the discussion happen and happen now. By the way, there are resons why, as commander in chief, you don't publically vacillate and wring your hands. I'm not saying you don't look with "unflinching honesty" at the situation, but a lot of that can be done out of the media spotlight. Publically, the commander in chief must project confidence and resolve to the soldiers in the battlefield. It makes a big difference, both to the morale of our soldiers and the morale of the enemy.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T15:04:49-06:00

ID

89976

Comment

By the way, for anyone who is curious, this is a link to some of the construction projects in Iraq. Here's some of what goes on over there with respect to rebuilding. http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/20061027.pdf

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T15:32:15-06:00

ID

89977

Comment

"At some point here there is going to be a serious conversation about whether or not the war is *winnable,* and how long we keep leaving soldiers there without a good strategy or enough soldiers to keep them safe." Militarily this war is quite winnable, though the body count to get it done would be a lot higher on both sides now if the traditional 20th century methods were used that it would have if it had been done from the start. We would probably need a draft as well though the pipeline would be pretty long, and geopolitically a return to 'total war' by the US would create some unintended consequences which certain bear on the decision by the administration to try to avoid this. I think fairly brutal suppression of dissedent/troublesome elements early in the invasion, along with maintaining the iraqi army intact and restructuring it from within, might have provided some framework to start, though I am honestly dubious about the viability of iraq as a single country without a very powerful and fairly brutal central government to hold it together, a la yugoslavia. There is just no internal basis for cohesion of the disparate ethinic/religios groups. The 'serious conversation' is will americans tolerate extreme suppression of all hostile elements in iraq with prejudice, with all the associated graphic images and stories this would bring. War is hell, after all, despite the expectation in the media and some people that it shouldn't be, and efforts by the administration to make it look like it is not. Personally, I think that with our modern media as it is today in coverage of this conflict, we would not have been able to win WWII, at least in europe, as political will would have been destroyed domestically by constant images of the horror of war, suffering germans/vichy french/italians, wide publicizing of casualty figures vastly larger than the current toll, etc. I can just see Christine Amanpour talking about the efforts of survivors of US/UK bombings in german cities to find food and water.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T15:42:33-06:00

ID

89978

Comment

GLB, you make a good point above re: abortion--which is why I (rudely) dropped the discussion, because I realized that it was monopolizing the thread--but I definitely agree that your comments here are worth saving, and maybe cut-and-pasting to a new thread. Part of the problem is defining personhood. Briefly speaking (I think I owe you this much), I agree that intellect and viability are inadequate standards. But I also think that human DNA is an inadequate standard, because that would also grant personhood to kidneys--not to mention sperm and eggs. The number one thing I think someone would have to demonstrate, in order to make a philosophical argument against choosing abortion (much less in favor of banning it), is to explain what it is about a first-trimester embryo that makes it different from a kidney for ethical purposes, other than the fact that the DNA doesn't match. My pro-choice position is not grounded in the belief that I have a perfect standard by which personhood may be determined, but rather that there is simply no reason to believe that first-trimester embryos are persons and that the burden of proof rests with the claim that they are. To answer the building demolition scenario: That's not quite the same, because it's possible to determine whether there's a person in the building and so there's no reason not to delay things and check, just to be safe. A better analogy would be if the demolition company had already been exhaustively searched many times and the folks involved weren't able to find anybody inside, but a large number of people still insisted, on religious grounds, that there was a person in there. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T15:47:57-06:00

ID

89979

Comment

Scott, I agree that it would have been harder, but I suspect Christiane Amanpour would have been more concerned about the death camps on the Polish border. The problem with Saddam was that he committed most of his mass atrocities 20 years ago, back when we were, you know, funding him. That undercuts our credibility a little bit--"Well, yes, okay, we helped make the Anfal Campaign possible, and ignored it at the time, but now we want to invade and overthrow the guy." If he had millions or even thousands of people heading off to the gas chambers right now, public support for the war never would have declined. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T15:51:13-06:00

ID

89980

Comment

Thanks for the response Tom. I agree we should take this thing outside...to another thread that is. Just one brief comment. And I'll avoid my demolished building analogy, because I think we are in danger of destroying the fabric of space-time if I try to stretch it any further. But I wil say that I think the only real point of departure between you and I is that I think the burden of proof is on the other side. We KNOW that it is human at birth, and we know it is human sometime before that. We just don't know when. I think it is most reasonable, in this case, to eerr on the side of caution. I think that is most consistent with traditional ethics regarding the preservatin of human life. Anyway, we can pick this up somewhere else if you want, but either you or Brian will have to do it because I'm to dumb to know how to start a thread.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T15:55:19-06:00

ID

89981

Comment

Tom, that's a good point about Sadaam. It doesn't nullify everything else, but it's a good point.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T15:56:50-06:00

ID

89982

Comment

GLB, if it makes you feel any better--and my posts over the past three years will verify this--I have never been 100% solid in my opposition to the Iraq War. I can sympathize completely with Dick Gephardt, who said something the other night that I had never heard a Democratic presidential candidate say before: "I voted for the Iraq War, I supported it at the time, and I realized later that I was wrong." In other words: He acknowledged that the Iraq War was a bipartisan war, and not just a Bush thing. That's important to recognize, I think, because without Democratic support it's doubtful that Bush would have been able to pull it off. The Senate was majority Democratic throughout 2002. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T16:09:06-06:00

ID

89983

Comment

By the way, hearing Gephardt say that put him near the top of my list of 2008 presidential contenders... He seemed VERY presidential (as Chris Matthews put it) on MSNBC. I wasn't excited about him in 2004, but now I kind of hope he gives it another go. At the very least, I think he's excellent VP material--Missouri is a swing state. I would so vote for a Feingold/Gephardt ticket. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T16:12:02-06:00

ID

89984

Comment

"but I suspect Christiane Amanpour would have been more concerned about the death camps on the Polish border." thanks for your reply tom. i actually thought about the german camps in eastern europe when I wrote that reply, but I figured balanced coverage would show moral equivalence (such as palestinian children being taught to strap bombs on compared to israeli bomb strikes on suspected targets during action is today), and also even CNN wouldn't have gotten into auschwitz or other camps except at extraordinary risk. Also there may have been intentional suppression of certain types or tones of news, like cnn *admitted* they did in iraq under saddam and i bet almost all media do to some degree in nasty places where access is a privlege (DPRK, for example, or cuba, which our media would have you believe is some sort of health-care worker's paradise where Castro was re-elected with 100% of the vote. Curiously I don't see a line outside the cuban embassy here ever, much less every single day like at the US consulate.) You are right on the moral quandry of the US re our past history with saddam; I think the best approach would be to discard the morality card since it is mainly used to justify realpolitik and sell voters on various things, but obviously you cannot sell a war like that.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T16:19:35-06:00

ID

89985

Comment

Right--I think that's a large part of the problem. Bush for some reason--maybe because of our history--did not want to sell the war on moral, humanitarian grounds before the fact. Tony Blair did, and his rationale for the war always made more sense to me than Bush's for that reason. I agree that the moral equivalence thing is a very serious problem in the media--this is a pet peeve Donna has had with the mainstream media for some time, that I've only recently picked up: the idea that if you show "both sides" of an issue, you're being "balanced." Well, sometimes that's not true. Showing "both sides" on Holocaust denial, for example, is irresponsible journalism--some people do it, but it's irresponsible journalism just the same. (I agree with Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who has a policy of NEVER agreeing to publicly debate Holocaust deniers--even if that means they get the platform to themselves.) The media needs to give up on the illusion of objectivity, because it doesn't exist, and just try to be fair and tell the truth. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T16:25:09-06:00

ID

89986

Comment

GLB. there are proposals and ideas out there. You seem to be drinking the GOP Koolaid (or talking points) that no Democrat or non-Bushie has offered one single idea about how to get out of this disaster. We've been this road already. You seem to want me, or someone, to post all this stuff for you, so you can shoot them down. I have an idea: Why don't you do some homework, post suggestions, and then tell us what you do and do not think will work about them. Otherwise, you're just baiting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T16:25:47-06:00

ID

89987

Comment

That said, I would argue that Christiane Amanpour is one of the more responsible journalists out there and would never have suggested, even contemporaneously, that the death camps and U.S. bombings were morally equivalent. The issue with Israel-Palestine is obviously much more complicated than that, because Israel is so much more powerful militarily, because the Palestinian casualties are so much higher, and so forth. Is targeting civilians for suicide bombings morally worse than shooting kids who throw rocks at you? I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that judgment. Clearly Israel deserves to exist. Clearly Israel has a more enlightened view of democracy and human rights, on the whole, than the violent theocrat-influenced Palestinian movements--but that doesn't mean that Israel doesn't also do unacceptable things, and I don't think it suggests moral equivalence if we say that. The fact that agents of the U.S. government tortured Manadel al-Jamadi to death does not make us morally equivalent to a terrorist group, but it is still a moral problem. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-10T16:29:55-06:00

ID

89988

Comment

I didn't ask for ideas of "how to get out of this disaster". I asked for ideas for how to succeed. However, I know there are some ideas that have been floated, such as dividing the country into semi-autonomous regions. But the Democrat campaign policy was clearly to campaign against the status quo, without proposing specifics that could be suject to criticism. And that's fine for a campign -- its just smart politics. But when you're in power and have a responsibilty to made choices, then that doesn't work anymore. So let's get the ideas on the table and work through them. They must now be subject to that criticism and spotlight, so that we don't make changes that just make things worse. Some of this is beginnig to happen. For example, there are suggestions to negotiate with Iran and Syria with repect to Iraq, and public debate is beginning on that. So let's go!

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T16:37:59-06:00

ID

89989

Comment

I didn't ask for ideas of "how to get out of this disaster". I asked for ideas for how to succeed. Wouldn't getting "out of this disaster" amount to "succeeding"—the "disaster" isn't necessarily the war; it's the *disaster* that this administration has gotten us into in this war. People who can't see that part aren't exactly going to come up with smart solutions because they, like Bush, are too busy pushing the idea that we stay until we win, and the only solutions are how "win." Maybe we can win, but it is naive (and dangerous to our soldiers) to push "winning" as the other solution, as we may not be able to. It sounds to me like you are defining what you allow others to say very narrowly, and that isn't going to help anything at this point. It is time for brutal honesty about where we are and what our options are, regardless of who that makes looks bad. And, GLB, there have been specifics. I find it interesting that you're ignorant about that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T16:48:22-06:00

ID

89990

Comment

... You're the one who seems bent on politics—bashing the Dems and building up the GOP at any cost, ignoring actual suggestions and repeating Bush's mantra. It's too late in the game for that B.S. More soldiers are dying everyday in a war that wasn't done right from the beginning—and that's the generals on the ground talking, not me.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T16:49:53-06:00

ID

89991

Comment

"The media needs to give up on the illusion of objectivity, because it doesn't exist, and just try to be fair and tell the truth." have to run and will do a more detailed reply later, but something that struck me as a great example of the media grossly misinforming the american public on a topic is the danish cartoons of mohammed, which were used to provoke riots across the muslim world and europe. The media, if it had any desire to show some sense of proportionality, should have discussed in detail, if not actually shown, the anti-semetic and anti-american cartoons that run in the major arab media regularly. I am not talking about the iranian-sponsored contest, which isn't much worse if worse at all from what I have seen. Most americans don't know such cartoons exist, and if they did they might have a much more informed opinion on exactly how 'offensive' the danish cartoons were, and how appropriate calls for controlling such images were from the countries in question. My point - the media uses its power to direct american public opinion to its own ends not just in this case, but all the time, and often (I think informed internet users are a small % overall of voters) it works. i will reply in detail to your other points later have to run.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-10T16:54:37-06:00

ID

89992

Comment

I agree that the moral equivalence thing is a very serious problem in the media--this is a pet peeve Donna has had with the mainstream media for some time, that I've only recently picked up: the idea that if you show "both sides" of an issue, you're being "balanced." Yes, that's one of the biggest tricks that corporate media play on the people. Worse, they make up what the two "sides" are too often. It's like "balancing" an NAACP spokesman with a Klansman. There is nothing "balanced" about that, and it's unconscionable journalism. Journalists have no responsibility to give "equal" time to people they know are lying, cheating or harming the public—and by doing so they are degrading our profession. The "objectivity myth" is one of the great problems of our time, and is a primary way that the radical right has manipulated the media since the time of Reagan. And Haley Barbour gets a lot of credit for this scheme. Journalists' goal must be to tell the *truth*, in all its complications. That is not the same as dividing a story down the middle and obscuring the truth by giving half the story to a side with less credibility.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T16:56:12-06:00

ID

89993

Comment

I'm looking at this as a "glass half full" deal. I am hoping to see some new ideas here. But, Ladd, I in turn find it interesting that you haven't given me ONE of these ideas that you speak of. But you don't have to, of course. I have indeed heard several tenative suggestions, that involve redeployment, or negotiations with Iran and Syria, or dividing the country up. So it is no longer true that I have heard no ideas, although other than dividing the country up I don't know of other suggestions for how we might succeed. The dems have certainly not united behind anything, and definitely didn't campaign on any certain policy, but I'm not really interested in that. But, regardless of al that, I WANT to hear all this stuff and have it debated. I really care a lot less than you think about the politics, I just want leadership and debate. One more thing. I don't think it is "too narrow" to want ideas that leave Iraq stable and capable of defending itself. That may be difficult, and we may yet fail, but I think we are morally obligated to implement policy with this goal.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T17:07:27-06:00

ID

89994

Comment

I know I don't have to, and you will find that I often refuse to do people's homework for them. I actually think you're just sitting wait for me, or anyone else, to post an "idea," so that you can say it doesn't count for some reason because you or Bush didn't come up with it, perhaps? Also, you seem bent on defining what is acceptable—it's not, for instance, to say "get out this disaster," but the goal is "success" (or "winning," I suppose, when they might not be possible at this stage; if it is, we need to start seeing the evidence). I think it would be great to "leave Iraq stable and capable of defending itself." I wanted that back in 2003 when this war started, and it was obvious that the neo-con strategies were naive. Remember Chalabi-the-savior? The problem is that it may not be possible for the U.S. to do that with the water under Bush's bridge to date, and I am among the people who do not believe we stay there indefinitely hoping that someday we might win, as three soldiers a day get butchered. I'm one of those folks who believe the burden of proof is on y'all right now to show that the war you have supported so vehemently is still viable and tell us *how* to win it. If you can't do that, it's ridiculous to stay hoping we might still "win." And the idea that we stay in order to "leave Iraq stable" is illogical, being that every day we're there, under conditions, we are making it less stable. It's time to put politics aside and shift the brain into gear. It is time for supporters of the war to offer ideas on how to clean up the mess that has been made by their strategy. If you were serious about this discussion, you would put aside your apparent bias and say, OK, here was an idea that was presented, what do y'all think? I think you're waiting like a rabid dog for someone to thorw a piece of raw meat that you can rip apart. Maybe that's a hunch, but you've given me no reason to believe you actually want to have a serious discussion on this point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T17:34:07-06:00

ID

89995

Comment

Ladd: You do indeed have me mistaken for a partisan who likes belittling people's ideas. I don't think any of my other posts in any of these threads gives you just cause to think that about me. But, you and I have never even met, so undoubtedly we have a poor understanding of one another. So I'm not gonna sweat to much about what you think of my motives. I am happy if the ideas come from democrats or republicans - I don't care where the burden of proof is. I just want success. However, it is just the naked truth that the Democrats CAMPAIGNED on a "change of course" in Iraq, so all I'm asking is "o.k., you won -- so what's our new heading, guys?" As for posting ideas to discuss, I really don't know one idea that I have been excited about, that I thought was obviously better than the current policy. So that's why I want to hear some new ones. If I hear one that I think is a winner, believe me, I'll post it.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T17:46:49-06:00

ID

89996

Comment

That impression comes because you seem so bent on proclaiming that there are no better ideas. It's funny that you now say you're not posting because there is nothing you're "excited about"; before, it's because you hadn't any ideas. Which is it? With due respect, your opinion about the ideas might not be the end-all. Why don't you try some on us? Much of my point here is that one is going to have to open one's eyes and realize that "staying the course" may well not translate into "success," and there is no evidence that it will. And it's not very inventive or insightful to argue that if no one has an idea that you like better, that we should just stay the course on a strategy that is failing so dramatically. In other words, your parameters for ideas that would your muster (for "success") seem way too limited to even have the discussion, That's typical coming from many conservative camps right now, and that's sad. It leads to the conclusion that politics matter more than our soldiers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T18:49:43-06:00

ID

89997

Comment

And it's extremely political to ask, "o.k., you won -- so what's our new heading, guys?" Come on, GLB; shouldn't the response be, "OK, you won—clearly the country doesn't approve of our choices. Let's sit down and really put our heads together to come up with ideas now that politics aren't forcing you to say that even having the discussion amounts to 'cutting and running'?" Of course, to be willing to do that, one would have to understand that a major reason that we're in such a mess is that, politically, this president would admit to doing nothing wrong or take wise measures that would lead others to believe that he was admitting that he messed up in the first place. That's truly sad, as soldiers die every day; more would likely be alive if he weren't so mired in political quicksand here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T18:56:37-06:00

ID

89998

Comment

To wit: Interesting analysis. Although both parties want to salvage political and military success in Iraq for its own sake, the war's prominence as a political issue complicates bipartisan cooperation. That may be especially true for Democrats if they conclude that anything shy of a demand for fast withdrawal of U.S. troops looks wishy-washy, or that the modest course changes possible by cooperating with Republicans would be jumping onto a sinking ship. Cooperation is possible if both parties see it in their interest to lower the political temperature on Iraq, making it less of a rallying cry for the next campaign, said James Carafano, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He argued that both parties and the country would benefit. "There is a remarkable opportunity to change the politics, for Democrats and the president to take the Iraq issue off the table as an issue to play political pingpong with," said Carafano, who studies politics and military issues. More than half of voters said they disapproved of the war in Iraq, wanted troops to start coming home and didn't think the war has improved security in the United States, according to exit polls conducted Tuesday for The Associated Press and the television networks. Those most unhappy with the war helped put Democrats in control of Congress. Democrats say the first step to repairing the situation in Iraq is putting substantial pressure on its government to take more responsibility. The best way to do this, they say, is by pulling out some troops right away to signal the U.S. commitment is finite. Democrats also have called on Bush to convene an international conference on Iraq and say the military mission should begin to switch from a leading role to a supportive one. Other proposals the administration may be asked to consider include a regional dialogue with U.S. adversaries Iran and Syria, or remaking the Iraq political federation into three largely autonomous sectarian states. Major changes such as a wholesale withdrawal of troops are unlikely in the near term. Bush's reversal of fortune this week means he can entertain ideas from his own generals and advisers that would have looked like an admission of failure before the voting, conservative and liberal analysts said. [emphasis added] The changed political circumstances also mean Bush can look statesmanlike by adopting recommendations from Democrats or from an independent bipartisan panel headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, whose report is due soon. Democrats who take control of Congress in January say they will try using their clout to force a change in Iraq policy and demand that Bush start bringing troops home. I.e., GLB, it is your starting premise I am challenging. I'm not going to get sucked into a defensive conversation where I believe the entire foundation of discussion is skewed; that would make no sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T18:57:45-06:00

ID

89999

Comment

"That impression comes because you seem so bent on proclaiming that there are no better ideas." No, I am asking for them from the people who just asked for my vote saying that they want a change of course. I am just asking them to do what they said they would do. Why is that so partisan? " It's funny that you now say you're not posting because there is nothing you're "excited about"; before, it's because you hadn't any ideas." Both are true. Sure I have thoughts of my own, but I recognize that my view and knowledge base about this is limited, and therefore my ideas aren't worth discussing. I am looking to my leaders and to other foreign policy experts to prospose ideas, and to explain why they might work. "With due respect, your opinion about the ideas might not be the end- all. Why don't you try some on us?" So now I have to dig up these ideas? {:) I think the AP article you posted has a few The ones I know of are these, and various scenarios for staged redeployment -- i.e. just getting out of there. The ideas Kingfish posted in the other thread are interesting, but they are also new to me. I haven't posted them because he posted them, and that's where I learned of them. "And it's not very inventive or insightful to argue that if no one has an idea that you like better, that we should just stay the course on a strategy that is failing so dramatically." So you would change just for the sake of change? And if that results in even more death and pain, what then? "In other words, your parameters for ideas that would your muster (for "success") seem way too limited to even have the discussion," So asking that the policy is deisgned to leave Iraq stable and able to defend itself is "way too limited to have discussion"? What is the alternative? If we just want to discuss ways to get out, that's not really all that hard -- we just get out. There are strategic considerations, but not policy considersations. You just --- leave. But, in any case, I don't want that to be an issue. So I cede to you, then, the parameters for ideas. After all, even if I want to define parameters, I have no authority to do so. Anyone is free to post whatever they want to here -- I have no power whatsoever. Why should anyone listen to me? IF the AP anaysis is correct, then that's good. That is, if the politics have been a stumbling block to the implementation of policies that might be more effective, then I'm glad the politics have changed. But change for change's sake can easily make things worse, so we just have to debate these ideas and proceed wisely. Like I said before, I am looking at this hopefully.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T19:31:39-06:00

ID

90000

Comment

No, I am asking for them from the people who just asked for my vote saying that they want a change of course. I am just asking them to do what they said they would do. Why is that so partisan? But can you really not see that "a change of course" first requires the administration to admit that their way may be failing so that they're can be a meeting of the minds and brainstorming in order to together come up with said solutions? So far, the administration has blocked that, and what is sad is that it took such a major overhaul of Congress to even get Bush to allow that maybe anything could change. People did not vote for Democrats because they had the perfect solution; they voted for Democrats in order to get this administration to even admit that they are doing something wrong in order to clear the way for other possibilities than staying in a bad war and denying problems as our men and women die there. Again, that is, your premise is flawed, and you're setting yourself (and us) up for failure if you think Democrats will magically have all the answers. The American people didn't ask for that; they asked for open minds and for leaders who will admit what we can all clearly see. This isn't a "whose bigger" game, or ought not be. The solutions will be found by putting aside politics and letting the chips of responsibility to fall where they may, and by being brutally honest about where we are now and how we got here and how we can get out of the quandary—not by shooting down ideas because another party came up with them, but by listening. And it's vital for one of the options to be to cut our losses and get out if no better solution can be had. We've destabilized the region already; we cannot continue losing soldiers if we cannot prove that we are improving the situation, or even if it's status quo. Status quo, at this point, is unacceptable. Any ideas must make our choices of "success" better, or we must bring our troops home.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T19:43:35-06:00

ID

90001

Comment

One more thing. It is possible that the policy we have will yet work, and we just have to have patience. I know that is a very unpopular view, but it might be true. A Marine who has been in Iraq on 3 tours just expressed that view on T.V. In any case, I think we can and chould make changes, but only if we have some reasonbale expectation of more success with the changes in place.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T19:44:16-06:00

ID

90002

Comment

Well, that Marine may have, but the generals themselves disagree. Status quo is unacceptable; the people said that Tuesday night as loud as they possibly could.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T19:45:55-06:00

ID

90003

Comment

"People did not vote for Democrats because they had the perfect solution; they voted for Democrats in order to get this administration to even admit that they are doing something wrong in order to clear the way for other possibilities than staying in a bad war and denying problems as our men and women die there." That's probably true. But, regardless of what the American people voted for, I am asking these newly elected politicians to transition from being critics to being leaders. And one aspect of that is going to be for them to propose and advance alternatives, rather than just saying that the adminstration is screwing up and we need a change of course. Like I said, that's fine duing campaign season, but not anymore. I will be very happy if we are able to make some policy changes that work better in Iraq. But I am going to be very, very unhappy if these guys who campaigned on a change of course don't work on proposing one, but just continue to be critics. It looks like they are, though. It looks like the dems are trying to get together and work out a policy. So that's good. Now we'll just see what it is. Like I said, change for change's sake isn't necessrily good. So we'll see.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T19:57:52-06:00

ID

90004

Comment

They are trying to do that, GLB, if you pay attention. But I kinda doubt you'd ever admit it, and that's fine. Change to save lives is often very good. Cheers to the American people for forcing this administration to admit that changes in course are necessary. That was a vital first step.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T20:02:20-06:00

ID

90005

Comment

Ladd said... "They are trying to do that, GLB, if you pay attention. But I kinda doubt you'd ever admit it, and that's fine." GLB JUST said in the previous post ... "It looks like they are, though. It looks like the dems are trying to get together and work out a policy. So that's good. Now we'll just see what it is." ~sigh~

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T20:07:11-06:00

ID

90006

Comment

Sorry. I was responding to the top of your post, and your previous comments. Glad to see that you're not pre-judging.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T20:15:11-06:00

ID

90007

Comment

Thanks Ladd. And sorry for the ~sigh~. Tht was kind of juvenile of me.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T20:23:13-06:00

ID

90008

Comment

U.S. Army to 'Suggest Iraq Changes' Sounds like the ideas are going to come exactly from where they need to, now that the American people are forcing the administration to allow this is happen: US military leaders are preparing to recommend changes in strategy on Iraq, America's top military officer says. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Peter Pace said commanders were having their own dialogue and would make the changes that were needed. President George W Bush is to meet members of a panel drawing up proposals for ending the conflict on Monday.[...] The White House says it is open to new thinking on the conflict, and correspondents say it would not be surprising if a real change of policy emerged soon. Gen Pace told CBS that military leaders were taking a hard look at what they were doing in Iraq. "We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working... and what should we change about the way we are doing it."[...] His comments came as the White House announced Monday's meeting with the bipartisan task force asked by Congress to examine the effectiveness of policy in Iraq. The panel, which is led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, reportedly think that "staying the course" is an untenable long-term strategy. It is said to have been looking at two options, both of which would amount to a reversal of the Bush administration's stance. One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran to help stop the fighting. Democratic Party leaders visiting the White House in the wake of their poll victory have raised the idea of an Iraq summit. [...] In Iraq, the health minister has said between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, far more than other previously accepted figures. Officials say the total is based on estimates of the number of bodies brought to mortuaries and hospitals. Casualty figures are a controversial topic, with estimates or counts ranging from 50,000 to 650,000 deaths.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T20:25:34-06:00

ID

90009

Comment

Let's all hope and/or pray that these things result in a better future for us and for Iraq.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T20:29:21-06:00

ID

90010

Comment

Then there's this: Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind has accused the US of delaying the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial to coincide with the mid-term polls. He told BBC One's Question Time he had no evidence but the timing of the verdict was "deeply suspect". The former president of Iraq was this week sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The White House has dismissed similar accusations as "preposterous" and said the Iraqi judges determined the timing. Bloodshed warning It comes as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that hanging the former dictator could lead to further bloodshed in Iraq. [...] Making the first public comments by an Arab leader on the sentence, Mr Mubarak said such a move would only enhance the country's sectarian and ethnic divisions. Tory MP Sir Malcolm said he believed the US told the Iraqi court to hold off until just before the US elections. I hope they didn't do this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T20:29:55-06:00

ID

90011

Comment

Well I hope not too, but the guy said he had no eivdence, just suspicison, so who knows? Maybe more will come out later.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-10T20:32:40-06:00

ID

90012

Comment

The really sad part is that it's believable. And, certainly, we have made the rest of the world believe the worst about us based on the lies and contortions of this administration. We have to believe in a time when our government isn't so corrupt and partisan at all costs. This is what Rove told Time this week: "The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I'd expected," Rove tells TIME. "Abramoff, lobbying, Foley and Haggard [the disgraced evangelical leader] added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached critical mass." People are tired of this lying, conniving crap. The current round of Republicans took it to a new level—but I believe there are good Republicans out there and that they need to throw the bums out of their party and rebuild it into something trustworthy again. It may well take a while, but they got nothing but time.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-10T20:36:27-06:00

ID

90013

Comment

Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind has accused the US of delaying the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial to coincide with the mid-term polls. He told BBC One's Question Time he had no evidence but the timing of the verdict was "deeply suspect". For crying out loud, I just brought that up on another thread. So I wasn't losing it?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-10T21:51:37-06:00

ID

90014

Comment

Well, remember how easy it was for people to believe that Clinton used "wag the dog" tactics when launching missles at suspected Al Qaeda training camps, to distract people from Monica? I don't think there's much evidence about that either, but there are plenty of people around the world who still firmly believe that. International credibility is certainly not just a Republican problem. As far as this latest accusation goes, I guess we just see if any evidence comes to light on this one. I would not be happy to hear that we were doing such things to manipulate the Iraqi judicial process.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-11T02:09:52-06:00

ID

90015

Comment

I for one do believe some of clinton's foreign military actions were timed to take news coverage away from other events, including the missile events and what was essentially an undeclared war against serbia (without the UN approval that became so important when the iraq thing came up) right when the cox report (a report everyone here should think through the implications of) was released. You can only beg 'coincidence' so far, and anyone who thinks those attacks had to occur or start on those exact days has way too much faith in our political class. We are not talking about a major military campaign involving assets deployed with limited time value. I do find the timing of saddam's verdict suspicious as well. Bush and Clinton are both politicians, after all. I will offer that I felt the decision to allow the saddam trial to become a circus rather than a nurmberg-type affair (to the point and terminal) was grossly stupid. As I have said before, politicians are politicians and thinking that whether they have a D or an R after their name makes a difference is horrible naive - they are all potentially corrupt and self-serving. What is true is that the GOP has had control of the congress and thus has been in a better position to get their ill-advised or corrupt interests promoted. That will obviously change now. Ladd says "The solutions will be found by putting aside politics and letting the chips of responsibility to fall where they may, and by being brutally honest about where we are now and how we got here and how we can get out of the quandary—not by shooting down ideas because another party came up with them, but by listening." You might find the event/process you suggest in a very tightly run small corporation or group on a rare day under very controlled conditions. You will never find this in a government. Politics is always and everywhere in government, period, and even more so when there is a fair amount of blame to lay and political advantage to be had, and another presidential election just around the corner (2 years)... Surely people realize this. This reminds me of folks who believe when a congressional committee is formed, it is to investigate and find out who is responsible for (whatever). This is simply wrong - such bodies are to make sure no-one with any power, in congress or the WH (past and present), actually gets much of any direct blame, unless of course they are already dead!

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-11T17:27:04-06:00

ID

90016

Comment

I, too, think Clinton may have timed actions to "wag the dog." I don't think much of Clinton, either. You will never find this in a government. Yeah, and Mississippi would never integrate, either. Never say never, Scott, if you want our vote someday. ;-) Obviously, you can't take politics completely out of the equation; however, there is a lot of gray space between what we've had in Washington in recent years and how it could be if enough people keep their eye on what really matters. Truth is, a lot of the worst bums are gone now, others have been neutered, and the American people are keeping close eye on the people still there and in power (and a bunch of them have to run again in two years). If there has *ever* been a time to try to shift the dynamic a bit in Washington, it's now. Surely people realize this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-11T18:41:28-06:00

ID

90017

Comment

"Nothing, I'm still not following you. Are you saying that anyone who votes in favor of any kind of welfare, "socialized" medicine (I assume you mean universal health care), protecting the environment, abortion rights, etc. (including "free speech") are somehow on the "far left"?!? ." nope, not at all

Author

nothing

Date

2006-11-11T19:29:35-06:00

ID

90018

Comment

I tend to think that elections like this, where people got fed up with public corrpution and elected new blood, are the only remedy we have for corruption. It doesn't eliminate it, but it mitigates it -- it reminds the politicians they will pay a price for being corrupt - or at least for getting caught. So we maintain a dynamic equilibrium between corrpution and throw-the-bums-out elections that keeps the corruption in check. When you throw party politics into the equaiton, it has another dynamic. You can get punished in an election, not just for your actions, but for the perception of your party. It's like a boot camp -- everyone has to do extra push-ups if one guy screws up. So, that helps the parties police themselves. It's not perfect, but neither is democracy. We try to keep our corrputon below the level of dictators and commies, and hope we do our best. I tend to be pretty cynical, in that I assume that many politicians of both parties are corrupt, and they either hide it well or pay someone off to keep it hushed up. So it only bubbles to the surface when it is politically expedient for someone (e.g. Mark Foley). But, anyway, democracy is messy, but it's the best thing going. especially ours. I am proud of this country, where we can have such incredibly contentious party politics, and follow it up with peaceful elections are are (generally) accepted by everyone. It's a miracle, really.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-11T19:35:39-06:00

ID

90019

Comment

" Yeah, and Mississippi would never integrate, either. Never say never, Scott, if you want our vote someday. ;-)" It ain't in me to make a living out of essentially lying to people and taking their money, and I am not an ideologue with gospel to spread/enforce. I must have a defective gene somewhere. On a serious note, there are a few thousand years of generally accessible history (spotty in europe in for a few centuries early on) pretty much supporting my contention that government and corruption are synonymous, more to the point on the primary model of american republicanism, republican rome. We do have our military in much better control, thank you founding fathers. I do appreciate the future potential voter support message though...:)

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-12T01:41:38-06:00

ID

90020

Comment

GLB, your post reminds me of Jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty occasionally needing to be watered by the blood of tyrants. The beauty of a stable, liberal democracy is that actual tyrant blood is no longer required as it was in the 18th century--symbolic tyrant blood, in the form of crushing political defeat, will do. Better for us, and certainly better for the tyrants! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-12T04:37:14-06:00

ID

90021

Comment

And I agree with Scott's post about never aspiring to politics... While I seriously might run for U.S. House District 3 as a protest candidate one of these years if nobody else steps up, I'd be very unhappy if I actually got elected and I certainly wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in politics. Politics is for milquetoasts, social climbers, and ingratiating money-grubbers, folks who are always worried about their own vulnerability and how much they can wring out of their donors. (That's something they have in common with many clergy members.) I'm more of an activist. I enjoy raising hell, and I really don't mind looking undignified. In fact, there are times when I'd rather look undignified to make a point. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-12T04:43:24-06:00

ID

90022

Comment

Ladd: Republicans took corruption to a new level? Do you REALLY want me to start itemizing all the corruption of the Clinton years on here? last I checked no nuclear secrets went to the Chicoms under the Republican watch for starters. Remember Tony Coehlo (Sp?). He was just as dirty and disgraced as Abramoff is now. Then there was the firing and false prosecution of the White House travel office staff to give the contracts to the Bloodworths. I could go on and on and on and on.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-12T08:45:27-06:00

ID

90023

Comment

Kingfish, I still admire Algore's fund raising abilities. To get money from Buddhist Monks is an amazing feat. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-12T10:06:09-06:00

ID

90024

Comment

can you imagine the shrieks on this board and how they'd be saying this administration had no respect for civil liberties at all if it had been the Bushies that swiped 300 FBI files on their political opponents?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-12T10:36:32-06:00

ID

90025

Comment

Tom said... "While I seriously might run for U.S. House District 3 as a protest candidate one of these years if nobody else steps up, I'd be very unhappy if I actually got elected" In the proud tradition of good 'ol dirty American politics, I'm filing that away to use against you later. {:)

Author

GLB

Date

2006-11-12T12:37:57-06:00

ID

90026

Comment

GLB, I'd already be a NOW officer and card-carrying ACLU member who supports amnesty for undocumented immigrants and same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Something tells me it wouldn't be a very competitive race. ;o) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-12T14:04:04-06:00

ID

90027

Comment

Kingfish, that wasn't in my article on the Clinton civil liberties record, but in retrospect it probably should have been. I may need to expand it one of these days. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-12T14:07:15-06:00

ID

90028

Comment

[quote]Kingfish, that wasn't in my article on the Clinton civil liberties record, but in retrospect it probably should have been. I may need to expand it one of these days.[/quote] It's all about the search for truth, Tom. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-12T15:11:34-06:00

ID

90029

Comment

"can you imagine the shrieks on this board and how they'd be saying this administration had no respect for civil liberties at all if it had been the Bushies that swiped 300 FBI files on their political opponents?" one of the participants in this affair may become president of the US in 2 years. I expect the silence on this topic and others to be deafening. Everything that has come out about that administration, and her own subsequent carpetbagging selection of residence in a location that allowed her to become a senator of a state she had NEVER lived in pretty much enforces the belief that she was very active in the Clinton administration.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-13T03:15:08-06:00

ID

90030

Comment

Scott, let me be crystal clear: If it comes down to George Pataki versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, right now my vote would be for Pataki precisely because of what happened during the first Clinton administration. The ONLY way I would accept Hillary Rodham Clinton as a candidate would be if either (a) her Republican opponent was so unspeakably dangerous as to force me to hold my nose and vote for her (which is a distinct possibility), or if (b) she were to completely, and in unambiguous terms, repudiate what had happened under her husband's administration vis-a-vis civil liberties. I do not look forward to 2008 now that Russ Feingold has left the race, and I am very concerned that we will elect a candidate who will be, at best, another Clinton. I feel very much the same way about Al Gore, except in his case there are also completely INDEPENDENT civil liberties violations to worry about, such as the whole business with Al-and-Tipper versus rock-and-roll. The fact that he managed to keep his fly zipped is canceled out by his apparent need to keep everybody else's fly zipped, too. I say all of this not to reassure you that I'm not a flaming liberal--I am--but to reassure you that some flaming liberals are very aware of HRC's record, and it is my sincere and earnest hope that there are enough of us to keep her away from the party nomination. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-13T03:57:00-06:00

ID

90031

Comment

Re who I do like: So far, I'm a huge fan of Clark, Dodd, and Obama; I might be able to get behind Richardson or Vilsack; I have a visceral distrust of Bayh, Biden, and Daschle; I do not want to see Kerry enter the race; and Rodham Clinton and Edwards are my two least favorite choices. On the Republican ticket, I like Pataki the most, like Romney the least, and would put everyone else somewhere in between, with the exception of Tom Tancredo, who stands no actual chance of getting nominated but would rank below even Romney if he did. The two other candidates who would rank below Romney for me--George Allen and Rick Santorum--are actually no longer viable candidates. So I guess this week has almost balanced out in that it has eliminated my favorite candidate (Feingold) by far, but also eliminated by two least favorite candidates (Allen and Santorum) by far. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-13T04:05:54-06:00

ID

90032

Comment

Obama is not qualified to be president. What has he actually done? Been in the senate for a few years and that is it. He makes a good speech, sounds good, but we have no record to really judge him on. Richardson is a much stronger candidate. I also have the same criticism of Edwards.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T12:18:01-06:00

ID

90033

Comment

Fish, does that mean you didn't support Bush, since he didn't have much a of record either? Other than gov of Texas for a short time, and a few business failures...

Author

kate

Date

2006-11-13T12:45:50-06:00

ID

90034

Comment

And, Fish, lest I sound like to much of a snark head here, I agree with you that Obama's a bit untested to be considered as a presidential candidate. just couldn't resist poking at Shrub.

Author

kate

Date

2006-11-13T12:48:53-06:00

ID

90035

Comment

Kate: I didn't vote for Bush either time. I voted Libertarian. I'd say that Bush was better qualified. Being a two term Governor of Texas is nothing to sneeze at. Bill Richardson is much better qualifed. Guiliani is probably the best qualified out of all the contenders. Cheney was a good choice for VP when you look at his record: Chief of Staff, SecDef, House Minority Whip. Clinton was governor of Arkansas for several terms. Panetta would be a decent selection as he has been in house and was chief of staff. However, being a senator for only a few years is definitely not a qualification to be president. I didn't like the Edwards nomination for the same reason. Would you elect Richard Schwartz or Morris Bart VP? Obama has only been a senator for TWO years!!! before that he was only in the state legislature. What is it that makes him even worthy of consideration as a candidate besides the fact he gives a pretty speech?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T21:22:00-06:00

ID

90036

Comment

uch better qualifed. Guiliani is probably the best qualified out of all the contenders. Yeah, but he has no moral center.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-13T21:24:14-06:00

ID

90037

Comment

Tom: about the FBI files. Don't think all of those files were just on Republicans. I can assure you that they were digging up dirt on people that might be a threat to their future ambitions and were Democrats.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T21:53:43-06:00

ID

90038

Comment

I agree with Donna's assessment of Giuliani as a human being, but I saw him on C-SPAN the other night and was completely floored at how charismatic he was. I can totally understand why people think he might win the presidency. I don't think he will or should, but I can see why people think he can. As far as how he goes on civil liberties issues, it's a mixed bag. One underrated Republican candidate, I think, is Mike Huckabee. He has compelling right-wing credentials (Southern Baptist minister, social conservative, chief architect of the "covenant marriage" movement), is governor of a purple state (Arkansas), has a great inspiring-moderate-appeal story (lost a phenomenal amount of weight), and is incredibly charismatic in front of the camera. Frankly, I'm kind of scared of this guy because he is so immensely charismatic and so immensely far-right at the same time. And he doesn't have the meanness of an Allen or Santorum to derail him, either. Kingfish, I agree re: John Edwards and I have to admit that what you're talking about is my main concern re: Barack Obama, though he's actually much better qualified than Edwards was in '04 (state legislative experience, editor of Harvard Law Review, etc). If he runs in '08 I'm inclined to support him, but it may be too early. Not too early for a VP spot, though, and that would put him in a good position as heir apparent in 2016. Right now, I'm actually leaning towards Wesley Clark now that Feingold's out of the race. But it's early yet. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-13T22:05:22-06:00

ID

90039

Comment

Charisma is way overrated. Give me a dull guy who works hard, cares about people and doesn't announce first that he's leaving his wife at a press conference any day.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-13T22:10:00-06:00

ID

90040

Comment

I kinda dig Clark, too. At least for veep. Barack in another four or eight years. I want to like John Edwards—but I still smart at the way he twisted Howard Dean's "Confederate flag" comments out of context for political effect. As for Rudy, if you live in NYC, you know that he's a whiner, too. And supported police policies that got innocent people killed, and a whole lot of unnecessary lawsuits against the city. He has more than a little in common—not in a good way—with our current mayor when it comes to rhetoric and recklessness.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-13T22:13:38-06:00

ID

90041

Comment

One thing to it, Donna: If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination without changing his platform, that'll demonstrate that the Religious Right is much, much weaker than any of us had ever imagined. Looking at the way he has treated the women in his life, and his progressive positions on social issues, I can't see him getting more than 20% in the South Carolina Republican primary. That said, if the Republicans do nominate a socially progressive New Yorker, I hope to God it's George Pataki. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-13T22:15:09-06:00

ID

90042

Comment

editor of Harvard Law Review should have no bearing whatsoever on the qualifications for being a presidential nominee or any other higher office. The problem with being a Senator only, or Congressman for that matter, is that the one skill you need for the Presidency is decision-making, the type that executives have to use in the daily performance of their duties. Unfortunately, Debating and running campaigns does little to develop those skills or prepare you for the office.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T22:15:21-06:00

ID

90043

Comment

The religious right is alot weaker than you people give them credit for. Rove plays them like a fiddle at election time then ignores them during the rest of Bush's term in office. Then at election time he trots out the old line about how you have no choice but to vote for us, look at the other side. The so called religious right has little effect on Bush/Rove.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T22:19:02-06:00

ID

90044

Comment

Donna, who do you like for president right now...? I don't think I'll ever be able to get behind John Edwards. That man is nasty--I'd put him in the Giuliani category, in fact, in that I can't figure out where his moral center is or if he even has one. Kingfish, I've said for a long time that the skills needed to actually get elected as president have more to do with running a game show than running a country. That said, I think the fact that Obama has a visible love and respect for the rule of law means something, especially after the Bush administration. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-13T22:20:00-06:00

ID

90045

Comment

Tom discovers lawyers have no moral center.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T22:24:54-06:00

ID

90046

Comment

Right now I lean towards Guiliani. I don't agree with his social positions on several issues. However, I generally am not a single issue voter. The way I see it, we have a war against terrorists and their state sponsors/enablers such as Iran and Syria. We also have a shooting war in Iraq. I want someone who is pretty damn experienced in government right now. I want someone who has some damn backbone and will lead and doesn't necessarily need a guru to do his thinking for him. I don't want someone who is going to need much of a learning curve. The economy is doing fine for the most part right now so I'm looking for someone who at a minimum, will not institute policies that will screw it up. Having said that, I'm thinking Guiliani or McCain. I'm not a big fan of McCain however, looking back at Bush's term, Bush has probably governed more liberal, yes more liberal, than McCain would have when it came to issues such as spending. I opposed McCain Feingold but Bush did sign it so I can't say he was any more conservative than McCain on that issue. I know alot of conservatives have a problem with Guiliani. However, they need to focus more on electing Conservatives to Congress which will offset any problems they may have with Guiliani.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-13T22:34:10-06:00

ID

90047

Comment

The president is responsible for controlling the agenda of the FDA, the FCC, and--oh, yeah--appointing new federal justices, including Supreme Court justices. His ideological wing matters a heck of a lot, which is why I was so strongly against Bush even in 2000, when I had no real reason to be other than that. I can understand the Giuliani appeal from a platform perspective--let's finally get rid of the whole religious versus secular model and focus on policy--but I have to agree with Donna that the man has no soul, and in a way that I think will ultimately make him unelectable. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-14T00:06:37-06:00

ID

90048

Comment

from tom "(b) she were to completely, and in unambiguous terms, repudiate what had happened under her husband's administration vis-a-vis civil liberties." she never apologizes for anything, apparently not her alpha-personality type. Ain't gonna happen, snowballs in hell, etc. from kingfish "I'd say that Bush was better qualified. Being a two term Governor of Texas is nothing to sneeze at. " Bush's biggest qualification, in 1999 and 2000 after 7-8 years of clinton politics, was his name and electability. He raised an enormous amount of money early on, and his opponent was terribly uncharismatic. The GOP was desparate to get a candidate that could WIN, and he fit the bill. from ladd "Charisma is way overrated. Give me a dull guy who works hard, cares about people and doesn't announce first that he's leaving his wife at a press conference any day." agreed, though while charisma is part of getting to the top, too often it allows people with various other serious defects to get somewhere it might be better that they are not. It is something we are stuck with to some degree in the media age of politics. general comments comments about being a senator or on a law review as being good qualifications for being (not getting elected) president are something I completely disagree with. Useful skills as president would seem to be an ability to manage and delegate, critical thinking skills that can override the ego (hard to find this in presidential candidates, they all have to have egos as big as skyscrapers just to allow themselves to go through the process of getting nominated and elected), and just hoping (luck) that his cabinet consists of competent people. Not very inspring, but... Regardless of which party controls what, at this point I think it is clear that both the GOP and DNC are for bigger, larger, more expensive government - the main area of disagreement being in what areas (to some degree). If the dnc can get both the white house and congress in 2008, presumably we will see some of their political philosophy turned into large spending bills. The best hope, at least in terms of domestic policy paralysis, seems to be gridlock, a la 1995-2000. I do expect HR Clinton to get the DNC nomination despite great concern in her party about both her personally and her electability (her negatives are so high there is a big chunk of voters that will never vote FOR her, and would even be inclined to vote against her no matter who ran against her.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-11-14T00:52:27-06:00

ID

90049

Comment

My concern, Scott, is that you're right and that we'll be saddled with a Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Mitt Romney race. I don't like that prospect. I think it would be very bad for the country, both the campaign and the long-term effects. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-14T02:19:49-06:00

ID

90050

Comment

Donna, who do you like for president right now...? Nobody, really. I'm excited about Obama in a way I haven't been excited about a politician in a long time. He's extremely intelligent, well-spoken and compassionate—and he's a realist. But I see the point that maybe he's not ready to run. Although I don't buy the argument at all that Bush was somehow *more* ready. Governors in Texas have little power and, besides, he wasn't particularly interested in his job there; he cared more about watching sports. He has no intellectual curiosity about the world, he is willing to take really stupid ideological advice that makes no sense, and he easily sells out to extremists when Karl Rove tells him they can bring in votes to give him power. Of course, a failed president like Bush shouldn't set the bar on whether *anybody* else is qualified compared to him. Most people would seem more qualified at this point. Tom Head for president. I also don't see why Rodham Clinton is any more "ready" than Obama. And I'm sick. to. death. of Bushes and Clintons. I want them all to just go away. And I don't get what about Rudy makes him qualified to lead a so-called "war on terrorism." He's too impulsive and not nearly diplomatic enough to get more of the world back on our side. He would be likely to try to justify many of the stupid stunts that the Bush administration did—and get us in more trouble in the long run. Personally, I'd rather see McCain, at least from an international standpoint. Also, I find it ironic that I care about Rudy's moral center than many conservative, er, "family values" types do. 8-0 Rudy's a cad.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-14T11:06:38-06:00

ID

90051

Comment

Nobody asked me, but I prefer Rudy's son - the little boy who helped Rudy perform one of his speeches. Obama will be a great test to judge how far the country has come. I'd like to see an Obama and Colin Powell ticket or Nancy Pelosi and Obama ticket, or a Hillary and Obama ticket, or a McCain and Obama ticket although I don't like McCain as much as I formerly did due to his going along with corrupt party lines. Y'all now finally see I don't really care about political parties. I hate to disagree with any of my friends, but I don't see how Hillary deserves the bad rap she gets constantly. Sure she made a few errors while the first lady of Arkansas and a practicing lawyer. Who hasn't at one point or another. Many of the same people who hates Hillary had little or no complaints about Bush for years despite his monumental bad performance. Can she possibly be any worse? She's smarter than Bush and likely will surround herself with a better cabinet. From what I can see she's not a moron or phony (excepting that little investment situation). However, I understand that there are people we just don't lke sometimes for no good reason. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Dole and that other hounddog women from Texas that Kingfish mentioned earlier. I just get bad vibes from them. I can't wait until all of them start running for election so I can finally ferret out the meritorious ones from the bullshooters. We need desperately to have a woman or women in this hunt. Sho Nuff.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T11:48:07-06:00

ID

90052

Comment

Agreed, and that's the one thing that makes me feel bad about not supporting HRC--but it isn't really about bad vibes or anything of that nature. It's about the fact that she's running as a Lurleen to Clinton's George Wallace, has not established her own identity, and has given no indication that she will not continue his vacuously centrist policies. I agree with Donna: I just don't like dynasties. It would be one thing of HRC had taken on some really remarkable ideas that her husband had never championed and some remarkable qualifications that her husband had never achieved, but she hasn't. She's running as the next best thing to Bill, and that's not what I want to see in our Democratic candidate. I also think that the Clintons are slimy. But if she gets the nomination, I'll probably wind up voting for her--and, hell, I'd support her over John Edwards. Not that this is saying very much. George Pataki is the only Republican I can really see myself supporting at this point; McCain is, contrary to his public image, not really that different from any other conservative Republican (83% rating from the Christian Coalition; 19% rating from the ACLU), and I predict that by the time the Republican primary process is over, he'll come across more as an orthodox party standards-bearer, a la Bob Dole, than the maverick his personality leads us to believe he is. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-14T13:02:36-06:00