|Republicans are right about one thing: Democrats.||czardonic|
Mar 13, 2003 10:41 AM
|Story today in Salon about how the front-runners for the 2004 Democratic nomination are vowing to button their lips once the war starts: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/13/dems/print.html.
"Kerry's waffling is at once more understandable, and more outrageous. The decorated Navy officer turned Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader knows one of his most valuable political assets is his stature as a guy who went to combat, running against a guy who dodged it. (Bush, you'll recall, served -- sporadically -- in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, named because it attracted other rich kids trying to duck the Vietnam War.) So Kerry explains his decision to stay mum once war begins as a gesture of solidarity with America's fighting men and women."
Trying to spare young men and women from and unneccesary war (if that is what you believe it to be) and bring them home to their families is a gesture of solidarity. Expressing support and gratitude to troops who are doing a dangerous but necessary job (if that is what you believe it to be) is a gesture of solidarity. Zipping your lip while they are put in harms way because it is politically expedient to do so is not a gesture of solidarity.
It kind of reminds me of something Bill Mahr once said (paraphrasing here): "Gore had good ideas, but he wouldn't stand up for them. So screw him."
Democrats are becoming more and more pathetic. It is getting to the point that they won't even win the "lesser of two evils test" in my mind.
|there's always the Communist party ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Mar 13, 2003 11:25 AM
|lol. But I am a two party pragmatist. (nm)||czardonic|
Mar 13, 2003 11:29 AM
|No, he already mentioned Democrats. (nm)||Captain Morgan|
Mar 13, 2003 11:30 AM
|That's right, comrade!||OldEdScott|
Mar 13, 2003 11:34 AM
|two new parties||DougSloan|
Mar 13, 2003 2:09 PM
|I say let's start over, and have two, and only two, new parties, Fascists and Libertarians.
Which would you be? Party members must vote pursuant to their party platforms on all issues.
|In that case, Libertarian for me. . .||czardonic|
Mar 13, 2003 2:29 PM
|. . .but that doesn't mean much given the alternative.
Brings to mind and interesting philosophical question: When freedom is cast in stark relief to authoritarianism, is it really freedom? Or is it yet another "choice" coerced out of fear (in this case, of the alternative). Maybe freedom really is slavery.
I'm sure brighter people than I have already hashed this out.
|see, we're more alike than different nm||DougSloan|
Mar 13, 2003 3:26 PM
|them's fightin' words! }: ] (nm)||czardonic|
Mar 13, 2003 3:35 PM
|this, from a pacifist? ;-) (nm)||DougSloan|
Mar 13, 2003 3:45 PM
|I lapsed, but I'm trying not to beat myself up over it. (nm)||czardonic|
Mar 13, 2003 4:01 PM
|I thought that the Bush "win" would have been the single||eyebob|
Mar 13, 2003 2:28 PM
|best thing to happen to the Dems. They finally had an election that only an idiot could lose (given the setup by Clinton) and they lost. They lost in part because the Republicans were smart enough (eventually) to rally the troops and circle the wagons around one person. They all spoke the same language and marched to the same tune. Brilliant.
Nadar comes along, and actually articulates the issues that the Dems should have been and takes enough steam out of their sails to affect the election. You'd think that the Dems would take this as a sign of the things that they need to do to re-envigorate their base, but they have not. 9/11 has nothing to do with why they just lost the House, the Senate and will likely lose the White House again. If you're going to play Democrat but act Republican you have to be very adept at playing one side off of the other, take your opponents issues and make them your own when politacally necessary and be truly intelligent enough to talk a good game. Or as we knem him, Bill Clinton. THe current cast of characters (with the two possible exceptions of Dean and Edwards) will be beaten badly by a guy who cannot speak, has disenfrancised our allies, and has presided over a horrendous economic recession (though not his fault).
|Nadar had issues???||hycobob|
Mar 13, 2003 6:19 PM
|Oh yeah, I forgot. Eating Mexican and Chinese food is bad for you. But what can you say about a guy who lives in a state where they don't even have chili con queso!!! COME ON, if I ever vote for another Democrat (or other) he better damned well know not to mess with my TexMex.|
|I would take Lieberman||Alpedhuez55|
Mar 13, 2003 4:52 PM
|John Kerry is a fraud. He likes to play both sides of the issues. He of course voted for the war since as a presidential candidate, a no vote would have hurt him with most moderates, then right after he votes for it, he is against it. What more would you expect to someone who threw his war medals into a river to protest Vietnam, who when asked about it said that they were not his medals, they wer somebody elses!!!
His latest is the fact that he is not Irish despite claiming he was in the past:
He made numerous statements and always implied that we was Irish. He talked about how his British ancestors discriminated against his Irish ancestors!!! It turns out he is not half Irish but half Austrian & Jewish. Of course now he has been exposed trying to say he never claimed to be Irish. He will not be caught at the Boston St. Patrick's Day parade this year.
The only reason he is even in the race is because his wife is worth $600,000,000 and will right a blank check for a chance to be first lady.
If I had to pick from the Dems, I would go with Joe Lieberman. I have always liked him. He is not afraid to go against his party when he feels the need, though he did back off some of his positions.
|He waffles just like the rest...||hycobob|
Mar 13, 2003 6:23 PM
|Remember his stance against abortion (based on religious views)? As soon as he was selected for #2 he was suddenly Pro-Abortion, er choice. And he's just as funny looking as Perot.|
Mar 14, 2003 6:39 AM
|Honestly?... I would't go for Joe. There are several reasons, some of which might surprise a great many. I won't go into to those right now (I'm on assignment and don't have much time to scan RBR for my hourly fix of bicci-political goofiness), but suffice it to say that I doubt the man's sincerity and like so many other so called, self appointed pious men of God, I think he plays the religion card too much.
Here's a different name that I'll throw out: Wesley Clark. He could potentially be just what the Dems need in terms of somebody with a credible record of public service in a capacity that is beyond reproach by the right. We'll see if there's any substance behind him once the rhetoric begins.
|I met Howard Dean this very morning||jtolleson|
Mar 16, 2003 2:00 PM
|at a small fundraiser here in Denver. I went (and spent) more as a courtesy to knowing the host, but I was very, very impressed.
He shares my odd brand of social liberalism with an old fashioned devotion to local control (schools, guns, marriage, whatever). Funny that. His opposition to Bush's (and Gore's too) desire to federalize educational policy, for example, could very well resonate with middle America.
Although he opposes the war (and unlike his Democratic peers doesn't try to tap dance around it) he has articulable public policy reasons for doing so (ie., doesn't come across as a blanket pacifist, because I don't think he is).
IF he can hit the national radar enough (and raise enough dough) to make a splash in the first 1/2 dozen primaries, I think he'll be a major force to contend with.
But what do I know.
And then he'll be president and I won't have had my camera when I met him. :)