Gasp! It's the "I" word!!

[Wildcard Ky]

Yes, I do think Kerry is an ultra lib. I place him right up there with Shumer, Kennedy, Lautenberg and Feinstein.

Kerry tried desperately to make himself seem like a moderate during his presidential run. He had 20 years of history in the Senate that said otherwise.

A regular lib would be Gore. Bill Clinton was definitely left leaning, but I still put him in the moderate category. That's why I voted for Clinton. Clinton had the track record to prove that he saw both sides of an issue. Kerry didn't. Kerry tried to pass himself off as a moderate, but the record says otherwise. It was his phoniness that cost him the election. Bush beat the term flip flop into the ground, but it stuck because there was a 20 year history to contradict the things Kerry was saying on the stump.

One prime example was gun control. It never was really an issue in the election, but Kerry had what sounded to be a moderate stance on gun control. When read verbatim and taken at face value, I agreed with every word of it, and I'm very pro gun. Yet in his 20 years in the senate, Kerry voted for EVERY piece of gun control legislation that came through. The actions were inconsistent with the man on the stump. A whole lot of people saw through it. That's why Kerry lost.

I was desperately hoping that the Dems would come up with a good candidate in 04. Bush was leading us down some wrong paths. I agreed with Afghanistan, but not Iraq. He was cutting taxes too deeply, and spending too much at the same time. The recession caused by 9-11 wasn't his fault, but he definitely handled it wrong. Anyway..........I was hoping for a good candidate. Bush was even more beatable than his father was in 92. In 92 I was hoping for a good Dem candidate and got Clinton. In hoping for a good Dem candidate in 04, I got Kerry. Bush grudgingly got my vote.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The nomination race didn't help the Democrats last election, either. A large field of candidates tends to dilute the voters' connection with any one of them, and they spend enough time attacking each other that whoever wins the nomination is already a bit dinged and dented.

And, as Wildcard points out, they had a great deal of trouble enunciating a platform and a plan of action. I wouldn't call Kerry an ultra-liberal myself, but then to me that would have been preferable to someone who seemed to be trying to play both sides of every issue. Bush was deceptive about why he chose to take some of his actions, but he was pretty clear about what he planned to do, at times to the point of becoming grating in his bluntness. Kerry was more ingratiating in individual speeches and meetings, but in the big picture he was very difficult to pin down. His desire to tell people what they wanted to hear obscured his message and his goals. I think he'd have done better if he'd picked his chief two or three issues and stuck to them - and if he hadn't made one of his "hammer it home" points "Bush is a liar." All politicians are liars; I strongly suspect that Mr. Bush is a liar, but then I strongly suspect that Mr. Kerry is a liar as well. Tell us something we don't know, and preferably make it a goal you plan to achieve tied to a means to achieve that goal, not a complaint about the other candidate being a politician.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Kerry tried to pass himself off as a moderate, but the record says otherwise. It was his phoniness that cost him the election. Bush beat the term flip flop into the ground, but it stuck because there was a 20 year history to contradict the things Kerry was saying on the stump.

I was writing while Wildcard posted this. I think he's quite right.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Rob, if you have to compare him to europeans or canadians, that prety much is a lock he's an ultra liberal by U.S. standards.

In my opinion, Kerry lost for several reasons.

The first, is his record, which makes him nearly as liberal as his partner from Mass. Kennedy. To counter that, he didn't have much, and touting what little he did have made accusations of flip flipper stick even better. Admittedly, anyone who has been a senator for more than two terms can be made out to be indecisive by his record, it's all in the way you present it.

For me, I had but to read his statements to congress in protest of the vietnam war. Any man who villifies his brother soldiers and it is later shown his testimony was for the most part lies... I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

He vastly miscalculated the concern of americans for keeping our ties with our allies strong. He paid for it, being painted as a francophile. At that point in time, and even now I think, holding the French in anything but contempt is political suicide.

His campagin was just out Clintoned by Karl Rove. The GOP went on the offensive and stayed there. Kerry made the fatal error of trying to refute the acusations and got bogged down in them. He never mounted much of a counter until it was too late. I would even go so far as to say, Rove's genius was to have defense of marriage laws on the books in many pivotal states. Exit polls, in general, can dissuade a person's supporters from coming out. If however, you are dead set on making sure the gays don't take over, might as well vote for georgie boy while you are there. It was genius. Clinton was the master politican. The GOP learned from the drubbing he gave them and the Dems got complacent. And it cost Kerry.

Finally, he was about as personable as Manson. That never helps.

 

[BigAndTall]

This isn't really the newspaper advocating impeachment is it?

Seems more like its an opinion piece submited to the paper by an interest group.

 

[thebullet]

Wildcard KY said:

You've gotta hand it to bullet, he's passionate. His passion has made him lose touch with reality concerning politics, but the passion is undeniable. Bullet also suffers from a problem that infests the Democratic party right now. They can bitch their ass off about anything concerning Bush, but they can't offer an alternative thought or idea. There's no answers or solutions sought. Just bitching.

NONE OF YOU PEOPLE GET IT!!! Colly doesn't get it. Black Shang doesn't get it. Wildcard KY doesn't get it.

In most elections, the 'lesser of two evils' method probably works. That's generally the way I vote. I am a registered INDEPENDENT. I AM NOT nor have I ever been a Democrat. Yes, I voted for Clinton, but I also voted for Bush1 and for Reagon and for Nixon.

I recognize that Kerry was a terrible candidate. I recognize that Gore was lame. I was totally aware that supporting Kerry was a damn shitty alternative.

But we are dealing with NEOCONS. These guys will go to any lengths to control this country. They are truly evil and they are un-American. The fact that they happen to be terrible at running the country is their only redeeming feature, as far as I can see.

They are governing by ideology, the facts be damned!

It boggles my mind to hear the 'lesser of two evils' argument from conservatives who then blythly vote for this lying, incompetent pseudo-fascist.

Damn right, Wildcard KY, about this I am passionate.

Of course, there is no doubt that the Democrats are a bunch of incompetent pussies. I hold them in total contempt. Even my wife, who is a lifelong Democrat has left the party and is now an Independent. Unfortunately at this time they are the only semi-electable alternatives to the NEOCONS and so I must support them.

Doesn't anyone long to have an intelligent, moderate American stand up and take on these fucking losers from the right and the left and who doesn't feel the need to have his dick sucked?

ps: for background: I was a history major in college. I wrote my Junior thesis about the pre-WW2 extreme right and their attempts to keep us out of the war (they supported Hitler and were anti-semetic). I wrote my Senior thesis about the mid-1960's extreme right and their influence on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign (sometimes they were refered as 'the little old ladies in tennis shoes'). I've always thought that if they gained control of the country we could kiss democracy goodbye. They don't believe in democracy. I believe in democracy. That is why I am passionate. But like most of the country, you 'lesser of two evils' people haven't done your homework. To you, GW is just another candidate, not too bright, but he smiles nicely.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ahmad Chalabi in 2008.

In your heart, you know he's right.

 

[thebullet]

In your heart, you know he's right.

Dr M! You're another Barry Goldwater fan!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Wow. That would bring out the lynch mob tout de suite.

Wow. I don't think I've ever been in a win-win situation before.

 

[BlackShanglan]

NONE OF YOU PEOPLE GET IT!!! Colly doesn't get it. Black Shang doesn't get it. Wildcard KY doesn't get it.

Or possibly we just happen not to agree with you.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Or possibly we just happen not to agree with you.

That's the same as not geting it Shang. You either agree or you're an idot. Sorry to break it to you horsey, but you and I are both consigned to the same pasture for the mentally incompetant.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's the same as not geting it Shang. You either agree or you're an idot. Sorry to break it to you horsey, but you and I are both consigned to the same pasture for the mentally incompetant.

Well, at least the company is good.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, at least the company is good.

Amen & pass the hops. You can have the ones in the nose bag, I'll take the ones in the bottle

 

[Wildcard Ky]

That's the same as not geting it Shang. You either agree or you're an idot. Sorry to break it to you horsey, but you and I are both consigned to the same pasture for the mentally incompetant.

Is there room for a third in y'alls pasture? I think I'd fit right in and it seems like it would be pretty good company.

 

[rgraham666]

It ought to be the happiness and a glory of a representative to live in the strictest union…with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him…their business unremitted attention. It is his duty…to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you…or to any set of men living.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices to your opinion.

Edmund Burke in his Address to The Electors of Bristol

This is the problem. It isn't that the Reps and the Dems can't serve the public interest. They have in the past.

Now both are in hoc to the special interests that own them.

You can change that if you wish. It will be hard but it can be done.

I don't think you will do it. I don't hear people bitching about the system, I hear them bitching about not getting their own way and how dare anybody disagree with them.

And again I notice America's greatest weakness, you hate one another almost as much as you hate your foreign enemies.

"A nation divided against itself cannot stand."

 

[BlackShanglan]

This is the problem. It isn't that the Reps and the Dems can't serve the public interest. They have in the past.

Now both are in hoc to the special interests that own them.

You can change that if you wish. It will be hard but it can be done.

I don't think you will do it. I don't hear people bitching about the system, I hear them bitching about not getting their own way and how dare anybody disagree with them.

With you on that. The candidate for me is the one from any camp who proposes serious reforms in the way that political campaigns are funded and carried out, and the ways in which industries and monied interest groups exert pressure on legislation. Unfortunately, such a candidate will never stand for either of the two main parties because s/he'd be proposing eliminating their gravy train. Ironically, the candidate's inability to access those vast war-chests funded by the sale of votes will prevent him/her from doing anything about the sale of votes.

And again I notice America's greatest weakness, you hate one another almost as much as you hate your foreign enemies.

"A nation divided against itself cannot stand."

The thing is, Americans like to argue. We like to wrangle. We like to scream and yell and call each other names and stamp off in hissy fits and sulk when we don't get our way and villify the opposition - especially in politics - because that appears to be the way to win.

Don't mistake that for who we are. That's just how we handle politics - or how the most vocal and annoyed of us handle politics. Real day-to-day life is quite different.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

The thing is, Americans like to argue. We like to wrangle. We like to scream and yell and call each other names and stamp off in hissy fits and sulk when we don't get our way and villify the opposition - especially in politics - because that appears to be the way to win.

Don't mistake that for who we are. That's just how we handle politics - or how the most vocal and annoyed of us handle politics. Real day-to-day life is quite different.

Shanglan

Thanks for the correction, Shang.

Still, I'm worried. If a place as calm, rational and good hearted as the AH can devolve the way it so often does; what happens in places that don't have those traits?

It seems to me that one day Gresham's Law, 'the bad drives out the good', is going to come into play.

I really am concerned about that.

 

[TheEarl]

With you on that. The candidate for me is the one from any camp who proposes serious reforms in the way that political campaigns are funded and carried out, and the ways in which industries and monied interest groups exert pressure on legislation. Unfortunately, such a candidate will never stand for either of the two main parties because s/he'd be proposing eliminating their gravy train. Ironically, the candidate's inability to access those vast war-chests funded by the sale of votes will prevent him/her from doing anything about the sale of votes.



The thing is, Americans like to argue. We like to wrangle. We like to scream and yell and call each other names and stamp off in hissy fits and sulk when we don't get our way and villify the opposition - especially in politics - because that appears to be the way to win.

Don't mistake that for who we are. That's just how we handle politics - or how the most vocal and annoyed of us handle politics. Real day-to-day life is quite different.

Shanglan

It's a pity you guys don't have the same rules as in England; there are limits on how much a party can spend on an election which cannot be exceeded. Amicus will probably talk this up as proof that Europe (sic) is in terminal poverty, but most constituency candidates aren't allowed to spend enough to buy everyone in their area one drink. It stops being a race over who has the money that way.

It's like the line from Brewster's Millions: If someone spends fifty million dollars on campaigning to get a job that earns him fifty thousand, then he's gonna be looking to get his money back from you.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Is there room for a third in y'alls pasture? I think I'd fit right in and it seems like it would be pretty good company.

Pull up a lawn chair. we can allnot get it together.

 

[bearlee]

Just a note from Dumbfuckistan

Now I'm not sure why Ohio hasn't been mentioned here but you know, in '03 13% of us supported Jerry Springer for Senate. It's early yet and the numbers will grow and from the Senate, well it's a springboard to the presidency. Sure, he was born in London and all that but Schwarzenegger will get constitutional amendment passed so it won't really matter. It just could be in '08 we'll see a Springer/Schwarzenegger race and if that happens, I predict someone with a last name starting with "S" will win. Okay, back to exile for me

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Now I'm not sure why Ohio hasn't been mentioned here but you know, in '03 13% of us supported Jerry Springer for Senate. It's early yet and the numbers will grow and from the Senate, well it's a springboard to the presidency. Sure, he was born in London and all that but Schwarzenegger will get constitutional amendment passed so it won't really matter. It just could be in '08 we'll see a Springer/Schwarzenegger race and if that happens, I predict someone with a last name starting with "S" will win. Okay, back to exile for me

LOL. Somehow methinks his show will keep him from ever getting the nomination. He was a pretty popular mayor though, wasn't he?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks for the correction, Shang.

Still, I'm worried. If a place as calm, rational and good hearted as the AH can devolve the way it so often does; what happens in places that don't have those traits?

It seems to me that one day Gresham's Law, 'the bad drives out the good', is going to come into play.

I really am concerned about that.

*nuzzles*

Don't let it depress you too much, Rob. You might always look at it this way: people who put a great deal of time and effort into political debate on Internet bulletin boards are generally people who like to argue and are unusually passionate about their beliefs, not to mention addicted to bellowing into the rain barrel to see if it answers back. See Exhibit A for the prosecution, a genderless horse I love the AH for its vivacity and spirit, but we are a passionate bunch and I think relatively likely to come to slanging matches, especially given the provocation of Internet anonimity. We get rowdy, and there are sometimes harsh words and nasty digs. But that's the nature of the Internet - basically, what the class looks like when the teacher steps out of the room for a moment. It's mostly just high spirits and people trying out the "being a jerk" behavior that they can't practice in normal life. I don't think it means anything serious about human nature or the state of the world.

Shanglan

 

[bearlee]

LOL. Somehow methinks his show will keep him from ever getting the nomination. He was a pretty popular mayor though, wasn't he?

Yeah, but not the smartest one-had balls though. Not many guys pay hookers with checks

 

[SlickTony]

Please don't tell me that you still support this guy. Don't you get it? He IS NOT a conservative. He is a neo-Con puppet. Check out another thread I started today. The movement is starting to allow Bush to run for election again. If it happens, kiss democracy goodbye.

That can't happen. Term limits, remember? They'd have to amend the constitution. OTOH, there are lots of other Bushes that can run. Jeb's name keeps being bandied about, for instance. He says he's not interested, but that's what they all say.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I have to agree with Rob about the polarization in the US today.

Despite all we say about having a great constitution and system of government, what really holds our government together is a strong sense of mutual trust and respect between all sides. That trust and respect is under serious attck these days.

Not to open that old can of worms again, but what if the 2000 presidential election really had been stolen in Florida? Who has the power to correct that abuse of power? What would that do to our sense of trust and alliegance to our government? Would you still feel bound by its laws?

Our naive sense of trust and respect is ripe for exploitation and there are people at large who have no qualms about exploiting it.

Things are getting more polarzied, and the sense of co-operation and compromise for the greater good seems to be a fading factor in government, which is increasignly a dictatorship of the majority.

I think back to the days of Nixon when we thought that the government was polarized, but even then we had dems and repubs putting their differences aside and working together in the best interests of the nation on the impeachment issue. Does anyone really think we could see anything like that today? Highly unlikely.

The gloves have come off and the situaton is ugly. Moderate politicians and those willing to compromise are under strong and effective attack. This is an entirely different era.