Bush Won - What are YOU gonna do about it?

[Edward Teach]

The Red States of America ain't gonna have no gays gittin' married and they ain't gonna elect no woman President.

You can take that to the bank if they are still taking anything besides Euros.

Per Bloomburg - The dollar dropped to an all time low (1.2964) against the Euro today amid international concerns about the US deficit since Bush was reelected. Money is beginning to flow out of the US into the EU.

it's almost 30% now folks - the oil guys ain't gonna take them dollars much longer and when they quit we ain't gonna have shit


Ed

 

[Weird Harold]

And I can only offer as argument my own status as a female. Do you know in grad school when I first began publishing articles in my field I used my initials (first and middle) so people wouldn't know I was a woman?
...
No matter how professional or well-educated or even how well-connected a female candidate may be, there is an enormous segment of the population which will always believe a woman is not fit to lead this country.

I do understand what you're saying and agre with SR that it's the insecure men who feel threatened by women with power.

One of my favorite authors is Andre Norton -- I didn't know she was a woman for about the first five years I read her work -- that would be the late sixties, BTW. Another author I started reading about then was C.J. Cherryh (sp) anothe woman who HAD to hide behind a psuedonym or her initials to get published.

Only near the end of the sixties could someone like Anne McCaffrey get published and have a leading character who both female and heroic.

When I first started voting (at age 21, in 1970; because I'm older than the voting age being reduced to 18) It was absolutely scandalous for a woman run for election to anything but the school board and that was frowned upon unless she was a retired teacher.

The idea that a woman would be chosen as a VP candidate fourteen years later wasn't even science fiction for the most part -- women in science fiction were still seldom more than window dressing and BEM-bait with a few glaring and controversial exeptions like Anne MCCafrey and R. A. Heinlein.

It's now twenty years since Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP and thirty-eight years since I first voted.

There are several highly competent and respected women governing states, mayoring cities large and small, and and filling political offices all across the spectrum of possibilities: With the lone exception of President.

We're having a serious discussion based on many peoples' assumption that Hilary Clinton will definitely run in 2008. I think Hilary's politics would make that a bad idea, but it would break yet one more barrier -- Earning the Presidential Nomination -- and pave the way for a serious challenge by a woman in 2012.

Times they are a changin' and they will continue to change more rapidly than you might believe.

54% of the people who voted last Tuesday were women -- That alone is enough to elect a woman or anyone else if you can get women to vote in a real block.

Based on the increased role of women in public office I've watched over the last 40 years, A woman might]/i] be able to win in 2008 and almost certainly could win in 2012, and quite probably would win in 2016 -- provided women can be convinced it's really possible; the politicians and pundits are already convinced or they wouldn't be talking seriously about Hilary running in 2008.

 

[Guest]

. . .Times they are a changin' and they will continue to change more rapidly than you might believe.

54% of the people who voted last Tuesday were women -- That alone is enough to elect a woman or anyone else if you can get women to vote in a real block.

Based on the increased role of women in public office I've watched over the last 40 years, A woman might]/i] be able to win in 2008 and almost certainly could win in 2012, and quite probably would win in 2016 -- provided women can be convinced it's really possible; the politicians and pundits are already convinced or they wouldn't be talking seriously about Hilary running in 2008.

From your lips . . .

 

[Weird Harold]

From your lips . . .

It won't just happen, you know.

If it's going to happen in 08, a "suitable" candidate needs to start making a name for herself NOW and N.O.W. has to start working to mold the Women's vote into a cohesive block -- without some of their more feminist positions alienating those insecure men that SR mentioned.

I think a good place for you to start is writing to all of the female governors and suggesting they start positioning for a presidential bid in '08 or '12 to plat the seed of the idea.

 

[Somme]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110204_mckinney_fitts.shtml


?

 

[Guest]

It won't just happen, you know.

If it's going to happen in 08, a "suitable" candidate needs to start making a name for herself NOW and N.O.W. has to start working to mold the Women's vote into a cohesive block -- without some of their more feminist positions alienating those insecure men that SR mentioned.

I think a good place for you to start is writing to all of the female governors and suggesting they start positioning for a presidential bid in '08 or '12 to plat the seed of the idea.

I agree.

But I think the N.O.W. as an organized group should stay out of it, however. The mere mention of that acronym sends men with small egos running for cover. Too much history.

I am encouraged by our Kansas governor - Kathleen Sibelius. She is a progressive mind in a bass-ackwards kind of state. I wonder?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I still feel that wanting a woman for president just because she's a woman is as wrong as wanting a man for president because he's not a woman.

It's still sexist politics, just pro instead of anti.

---dr.M.

 

[cantdog]

If Hilary runs for president, the Republlicans (GOP) will be handed the Election by a landslide.

Hilary is disliked by more people than disliked her husband.

Hilary is a woman.

Those two factors would combine to generate a defeat of historic proportions.

For example, I'm just waiting for a chance to help elect the first woman president of the US -- I routinely vote for women over men when the decision is close otherwise; it's one of my main tie- breakers.

I would probably NOT vote for Hilary though. I don't want a woman president badly enough to compromise my principles quite that much -- the Repblicans would have to choose a serious loser AND campaign for her before I'd even consider voting for her.

The right woman could be elected president in 2004, but Hilary is NOT the right woman.

You might not actually be lying, I can't tell. But the same mass of "moral" voters who voted to slaughter more muslims for the sake of being able to repress gays would hold prayer meetings and wail and vote the woman out just because you need a penis to do the presiden't job. You could nominate any woman, those moral haters would stop it.

I might have said the same thing about a woman being electible before the last election. But it showed me something.

 

[cantdog]

It won't just happen, you know.

If it's going to happen in 08, a "suitable" candidate needs to start making a name for herself NOW and N.O.W. has to start working to mold the Women's vote into a cohesive block -- without some of their more feminist positions alienating those insecure men that SR mentioned.

I think a good place for you to start is writing to all of the female governors and suggesting they start positioning for a presidential bid in '08 or '12 to plat the seed of the idea.

It just won't happen, is the truth of the matter. And the reason they're going to run Hillary is because internally in the party, Hillary heads up a big bloc of dems. That wing of the party is large and influential, and they've already started, your "now" is too late. They were planning to run Hillary in '08 back in 2002. You'd have to change the structure and power relations within the Democratic party to keep Hillary off the ticket.

Which means she will lose, the dems will be shown once again to be clueless, and the Republican party gets another unchallenged four years. They've already made this stupid decision, and the wisdom within the party right now is we ran the wrong candidate, and Hillary will fix it all.

 

[cantdog]

She may not lose because she's a woman per se, but add in the fact that she's Hillary and she'll lose for certain.

Believe me about the opposition. I've seen these churches.

I work in an office for a pasotor who's female, and these people react to her very existence with such distaste you'd think someone handed them dogshit on a stick for supper.

They really believe a woman has no business in such a position.

Rove could rally that vote as easily as he did this time, especially if it's Hillary.

And if you'd ever gone to any meetings or caucuses of the democratic party, you'd know they're gonna run her an you'd know why.

 

[Weird Harold]

I still feel that wanting a woman for president just because she's a woman is as wrong as wanting a man for president because he's not a woman.

It's still sexist politics, just pro instead of anti.

---dr.M.

That's why it has to be the right woman running for president.

I'm predisposed towards "something different" and I think a woman candidate is more likely to provide that.

Cantdog:
But the same mass of "moral" voters who voted to slaughter more muslims for the sake of being able to repress gays would hold prayer meetings and wail and vote the woman out just because you need a penis to do the presiden't job. You could nominate any woman, those moral haters would stop it.

CD, If you truly believe what I quoted, I don't believe you have taken much time to look at the demographic information on who voted for whom and why.

For starters, while large numbers of those exit polled cited moral values as the bsis for their vote, the split was pretty close to the totals when it came to which way they voted.

Forty-Eight percent of this country voted AGAINST all of those catch-words and sterotypes you throw about so blithely.

I don't see anything about THIS election that would invalidate the idea that the right woman candidate in '08 couldn't win.

 

[cantdog]

Maybe it's me, but I just can't see Hilary any differently than i saw Bill. A little yes, but not enough. I wonder with a shiver what Bill would have done after the WTC bombing. Gotten a hummer to relax, then what?

I don't think we're ready for a minoty President yet, anyway, especially her, given that she hardly seems to represent the rest of American women.

As for how I'm gonna deal. I voted Bush, basically because Kerry gave no inkling of what he'd do if elected. But even if I'd voted for Kerry, I'd still stick it out. Mostly because I feel that I dedicated myself by voting to begin with. I said I was an American and willing to take enough responsibility for the outcome that I was involved in the making of it. It's a ball-check.

Testes in place; I'll vote agian in four years..

Q_C

kerry told you straight out what he was gonna do. First, listen to his generals, which Rummy has NOT been doing. We already lost a diplomatic showdown with the provisionally appointed current government of Iraq-- people who owe their position solely to US power-- because of Rummy's poor judgement.

They balked on something because they objected to the excessive civilian deaths in the Fallujah campaign.

We said fine and let the balk go through.

Beacuse, first off, Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and consistently refused to send the number of troops the generals told him they needed to do the fuckin job. Not having enough people, the generals say, has two effects: 1) we have to bomb a lot and cause excessive civilian casualties. and 2) we can't defend ourselves from a real resistance to occupation except by bottling ourselves up in enclaves, which enclaves become targets for Beirut-style bombings.

The generals are totally right on this, as we see from the war news.

But Rummy ain't gonna send in more people, even now. Rather than reduce the excessive casualties the appointed Allawi government objects to, he opted to give in to their pressure on the matter they balked on.

Kerry knows about this conflict between the civilian and military Pentagon. The pros over there, the military ones, are seeing Rummy's direction throwing them into another Vietnam, and they are feeling a bit helpless about it.

Kerry has said 40,000 more troops, Kerry has said less civilian casualties, and he said it straight out. If he was elected, he'd inherit Rummy's mess, including the distrust of the world at large, and he said he was going to internationalize his foreign policy to correct that, too.

If you'd cared enough to check anything but your shorts, you'd know what Kerry's plan was for Iraq and for re-establishing a little trust among our allies abroad, such allies as we still can boast.

Your ignorance is regrettable.

 

[rgraham666]

Quiet_Cool?

Reaganomics did not improve the U.S. economy.

During Reagan's terms the deficit quadrupled and the debt doubled. The U.S. changed from the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation.

More importantly, the gap between rich and poor grew enormously.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 to 1997 the median income in the U.S., in inflation adjusted dollars, went from $41,400 to $45,100, an increase of nine percent.

The income of the top 1 percent went from $420,200 to $1.016 million, a 140 percent increase.

The only people who benefited from neo-conservative economics are those who didn't really need it. Those well past the blowjob limit as cantdog would put it.

Social mobility is rapidly resembling that of a monarchy than a democracy. Infant death rates in some areas are at third world levels.

The American dream is dying, by slow poison. And in my opinion, it's the neo-cons who administered the venom.

 

[cantdog]

weird:CD, If you truly believe what I quoted, I don't believe you have taken much time to look at the demographic information on who voted for whom and why.

For starters, while large numbers of those exit polled cited moral values as the bsis for their vote, the split was pretty close to the totals when it came to which way they voted.

Forty-Eight percent of this country voted AGAINST all of those catch-words and sterotypes you throw about so blithely.

I don't see anything about THIS election that would invalidate the idea that the right woman candidate in '08 couldn't win.

So what? There won't be a "right" woman, so the idea is moot. Null. Void.

And purblind.

I'm tellin' ya, since ya don't seem to know, that they are running Hillary. Do you think Hillary is the "right" woman? Well, duh! Of course not. She'd be the easiest to mobilize the hate vote against.

So go ahead and talk about electing the right woman if you want to, I guess I can't stop you. But what the fuck party are you going to use to run her? The dems won't, and that's a cold solid fact, as the situation stands now.

Just realize that talk like that is a waste of time.

Unless you got a new party up your sleeve?

 

[cantdog]

Of course if you actually participated in your party instead of offering sage advice from outside it, and if enough sensible people got involved in their party along with you, then you might be able to shift the power situation in that party and make them quit holding on to the shit stupid notion of running Hillary.

 

[cantdog]

And weird, what does this mean? It's too encoded.

Forty-Eight percent of this country voted AGAINST all of those catch-words and sterotypes you throw about so blithely.

Didn't I say they voted against gays? Didn't I say they voted despite the fact that it meant more crusade against muslims?

I was at a peace rally on the street and a four-year old was being held up so he could yell out the window at us as the car went by. "Kill 'em all! Kill 'em all! Kill 'em all!" he yelled. It had a Cheney/Bush sticker on it, that car. Another one said, "You people really need to read your Bible!" That was a middle aged woman. [Matthew 5:9]


What the hell catchwords did I say that they voted against?

 

[cantdog]

I really don't get what you intended to say, Weird. Was it the 48% anti-gay-marriage-and -abortion? Or the other 48% anti-Bush-and-torture?

I'm willing to move beyond catchwords if I only know what catchwords we're speaking of.

 

[cantdog]

For starters, while large numbers of those exit polled cited moral values as the bsis for their vote, the split was pretty close to the totals when it came to which way they voted.

Well, of course. There are numerous moral objections to the likes of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft! It is absolutely a good idea to vote them out if you are voting your conscience!

Now what 48% are you talking about??

 

[cantdog]

Damn it Weird.

Your whole post is so full of unspoken assumptions I can't make head or tail of it.

Clarify!

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Okay,

I was gonna post a response to both of you, on every point you two mentioned, but the truth is, neither of you mentioned anythng that actually had anything to do with what I was saying.

Reaganomics. I won't defend it. If I was wrong, and I don't know that the stats you posted proved that or not, especially given that there are more stats out there than just those (meaning other stats, as in many economic effects aren't represented in those few statements, not implying that your stats were wrong) then I was wrong. But the statement I was making was in reference to a recession, the beginnings of which were apparent during the Clinton administration. And that recession, magnified by the 9/11 bombing, was a major decider of people voting in my area. And I'm in PA, a Kerry state. Now, I can't say what affected the decisions of Philly voters (a majority here, as I'm told) or other towns, cuz I'm in Pittsburgh, but... One man, one vote, yes?

And cantdog... Is there any point in responding? I voted Bush, but my point was what? Not that I was right, or even that my "Ignorance was not regrettable" (not even responding further to that, cuz I'm tired of arguing the Bush/Kerry deal; frankly the election's over, and we should have all just let them argue and listened. The answers to our questions were there, not here on the litboards), but that I voted, and in doing so, I feel I took my part of the responsibility of the outcome, whether I voted for the candidate who won or the candidate who lost. I'm an American at the end of the day. I deal with what my country brings me. This country is similar to family. I didn't choose it, I was born here, but I love it. And I'll stick by it, right or wrong, just as I would a relative or family member. That was what I was saying. That was my point. You can attack my choice in votes all you like. I don't care any more, and I didn't care much to begin with. As for your point about Rummy (wan't going to try to remember the spelling just then; not a name I use often) I hear you, and I remember Kerry saying those words about Iraq, but the election came down to many things. And Kerry often said he had a plan, but I heard those words "I have a plan" constantly, enough that I heard those more than I heard attacks on either party. I don't remember too many occasions where that plan was actually spoken. No, I didn't read every political book released since 1912, or check out every FOX news broadcast or every other network, but let's face it, the word should be out if you expect to win. It's a Presidential election, and Bush didn't need to change minds. He was incumbent.

Done with the thread (maybe...)

Q_C

 

[Weird Harold]

Damn it Weird.

Your whole post is so full of unspoken assumptions I can't make head or tail of it.

Clarify!

Why, you're ranting along just fine, but you're not listening.

48% of the country voted the way you think they should have but that does NOT mean they voted for the same reasons you did.

You're ranting that 51% voted for GWB and everything you see as bad about his administration.

What your' NOT doing is looking for the reasons your platform lost and trying to understand why. it lost.

I hope you're correct that the Dems are running Hilary in '08 -- because I don't like democratic administrations. They have affected MY life adversely; every single one of them going back as far as FDR's creations that are still hanging around.

I don't expect anyone to run a woman in 08 that will present a serious challenge but a third party run by a woman would probably do better than Nader has in any of the elections he's run in.

Depending on how well Hilary and a hypothetical third party challenger does in 08 will affect the chances of a serious challenge in '12 and '16.

Of course if you actually participated in your party instead of offering sage advice from outside it, ...

I do participate in "my party" -- I'm a registered independent and my party only has one member: ME. I gve up on organized religion in 1969 and the mere existance of a "straight party" choice on some voting machines is abhorant to me.

 

[amicus]

Wierd Harold...

"What your' NOT doing is looking for the reasons your platform lost and trying to understand why. it lost...."


Well said....when the 'pity party' and whining and the denial by the Liberals is done...and it may take some time...perhaps the forum will look at the left wing issues and why they were rejected by the majority of voters...

amicus...

 

[BlackSnake]

You said a while back that you had chosen Kerry. This is what's called a flipflop.

Yep!