PeterDavid.net

See, this is where I disagree. What we need is a person who can appeal not only to Democrats, but also Republicans, but mostly to the centrists.

And I do think there is at least one (I know which one, because I'm voting for him) in there. Two, if you count Kerry.

Extremists not allowed, neither ex-Yankee governors.

Anyway, I'm glued to the set today.

Travis

Gotta have hope, PAD. A lot can happen between now and November.

See, this is where I disagree. What we need is a person who can appeal not only to Democrats, but also Republicans, but mostly to the centrists. And I do think there is at least one (I know which one, because I'm voting for him) in there.

Dude, believe me, I'd be *thrilled* to be wrong. My concern is that they're focusing on the sense of outrage they feel with Bush which a majority of Americans just don't seem to have. I mean, the White House blocks investigations into 9/11 and wants to make sure the committee is shut down altogether well before election day. Where's the outrage? The White House starts a smear campaign to attack the guy who confirms what I think even his staunchest supporters knew in the first place--that Bush wanted Saddam out in the first place and 9/11 was just a convenient excuses. Where's the outrage? I mean, maybe it's out there, but I'm not seeing it.

I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.

I'd love to believe Dean or Kerry or one of them could carry more than two, three states. But I don't.

PAD

Let me just say that I fervently hope you're wrong. (PAD, that is, not Travis -- though as a fan of said Yankee ex-governor, I'd rather you not be entirely right either. :-)

I've got my preferences in the primaries, but the fall is a foregone choice for me. To paraphrase Asimov (talking about the Kennedy-Nixon campaign), I'd happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he's the one running against Bush.

TWL

I think the opposite, I think we need someone who is truly on the left, not the middle, look where the middle to the right has gotten us...democrats need to be democrats again! I dont think dean is the guy, but I wish someone would stand up for what is truly opposite of bush....why can he be so right, yet the dems have to be so center, i thought the left was what we dems were supposed to be!

I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.

If so, I'm frankly worried it's going to be too late for the country as a whole. I'm frankly terrified about all the stuff this administration will pull once it doesn't have to worry about the election.

(As just one example ... people around here are aware that the Selective Service is ramping draft boards back up, yes?)

I haven't gone out and walked precincts on behalf of someone's campaign since I was in college. This summer may change that.

My hope is that some reasonably big revelation is going to break that finally wakes the electorate up. My fear is that it won't happen -- or worse, that there's an October surprise in the works. (I could think of several varieties.)

TWL

Where's the outrage?

Do you mean in the media? I would agree there isn't sufficient outrage there, but there's plenty of outrage among ordinary everyday folk who are seeing their sons and daughters die in Iraq, and who are seeing this Congress spend money "like a drunken sailor" to quote John McCain. Even if the polls show Bush with an edge, it's the turnout that counts, and people who are not happy are far more likely to turn out than those who are. I would say Dean, Kerry, or Edwards could beat Bush, if their campaigns are run properly.

Dean is the only one with a hope in hell of defeating Bush: When is the last time a Senator won the presidency?

I read a very good piece on how a Southern strategy is not necessary to carry the election: doing sufficiently well in a coalition of South East states and similar will see someone win, and they are easier to turn Democrat based on last time.

Dean has the machine, the energy and the finances to take on Bush. I honestly believe he is the only chance anyone has this time. The NYT poll this weekend shows Bush is vulnerable, particularly if the election can be campaigned on the economy and domestic policies.

Dude, believe me, I'd be *thrilled* to be wrong. My concern is that they're focusing on the sense of outrage they feel with Bush which a majority of Americans just don't seem to have.

And I definitely agree with you 100% about that. That's why I'm voting for the guy who's not focusing on that. He's pushing for a better America. (I know, cheesy and all, but I've been pushing for this guy for awhile)...

Anger cannot win a crowd, only a message of hope can win (very Clintonesque, I know.)

That's why I'm going for who I'm going for.

And for a bit of grins:

http://flash.bushrecall.org/

Travis

Just wanted to toss in a "me too" on the whole befuddling issue of non-outrage-ness in this country. Between the insider croneyism oozing from the White House, the ever-shifting excuses for the Iraq war, the record deficit and millions of jobs lost since 2000, and the reports from folks like Paul O'Neill, the CIA, and the Army War College that this Administration does whatever the heck it feels like with no regard for reality, I'd almost expect there to be folks camped in front of the White House every day, banging on drums and demanding for immediate change.

And yet... nothing. This perplexes me in a way that nothing in American politics has ever perplexed me before. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person watching the news, while the rest of the nation is in ennui, doped up on American Idol while mumbling "...the terrorists hate us because we have freedom..." As PAD said, where's the outrage?

I don't know, but I do have the same hope that Matt Adler has, that there's a "silent majority" of outraged Americans who will go to the booths this November and make themselves heard.

And I disagree with Peter that the only reason folks are (seemingly) so complacent is because they're shell-shocked. I think a part of it is that a sizable number of folks are simple bamboozled by the White House, and the "liberal" media is quietly going along and spreading their nonsense without a peep of challenge. I still cringe at that pre-war press conference from last March, where the reporters' questions were pre-screened, and the most challenging thing George had to answer to was "How has your faith sustained you during this crisis?"

(And in a related vein, last week's Salon.com had an article comparing Dean's current media coverage with Al Gore's media coverage in 2000. Just as Gore was falsely accused of "exaggeration" and being "stiff," Dean is now being accused of being "angry" and 'unelectable." Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?)

Gee, thanks for brightening my day. So you are resigned to the fact that it's going to be 4 more years of neo-conservatism who justify any form of military action to serve their own isolated purposes, which in turn creates more seething animosity towards the U.S. Not to mention we are going to have 4 more years of Ashcroft debasing our civil rights while implementing his puritan beliefs on our justice system. So there is going to be 4 more years of turning back the clock in achievements towards racial equality, environmentalism, and freedom of speech and I'm supposed to live with this over my fucking head!?!?!

As of now, I can only think of two options of how I can cope with all this:

A. Prepare to move to Canada or New Zealand.

B. You really DON'T want to know.

I think that's possible if you just articulate differences rather than "Bush sucks." Focus on how you can make things better. The problem with anger is that it's sort of depressing after awhile. Everyone was so damn excited about Clinton because he was going to change things and he had a plan. When Dean manages to articulate that, he sounds compelling but he rarely does it. The others don't seem to articulate much of anything other than "I'm a better guy than Bush."

Still, I think the election will be fairly close -- much like last time's but I don't see -- at least at present -- any Democratic candidate doing better than Gore did.

SunWooKong:

You know, I really hate the "move to Canada" philosophy. It strikes me as arrogant because the people *most* affected by an administration's poor policies are those who can't even afford to leave the state (check out this week's New York Times Magazine for an example of this) let alone move to another country. It's also a trifle benighted because U.S. policies affect Canada, as well.

That said, it's not the end of the world if Bush is re-elected. Rebuild. Restructure. But don't run.

OMG, I'm almost agreeing with PAD on something political! Where we disagree is that I want Bush to be reelected, but the democrat candidates aren't going to win until they come up with something other than "I'm against Bush". They are spouting off ideas, but no details. That's what's going to hurt them.

I disagree completely - if the job situation doesn't improve (and it probably won't substantially) and Iraq isn't much changed (and it probably won't be), then I think the Dems have a good shot. I think Clark is very electable, but Dean and Kerry have a decent shot as well. Edwards still seems like a pod person to me, admittedly, and Gephardt is the Democratic version of Bob Dole, and the rest are probably totally unelectable, but also don't have the slightest chance of getting the nomination.

Iowa is not a major part of the process, though; there's no statistical corelation between performance in the caucas and getting the nomination. The real story starts with New Hampshire, and I'm guessing we'll see Kucinich, Lieberman, Gephardt, and a player to be named (or two) all drop out by mid-February at the latest.

Remember, the Dems are actually polling significantly higher now than they were at the same point in 1992. The vast majority of the population doesn't really care prior to about convention time.

You know, I really hate the "move to Canada" philosophy. It strikes me as arrogant because the people *most* affected by an administration's poor policies are those who can't even afford to leave the state (check out this week's New York Times Magazine for an example of this) let alone move to another country. It's also a trifle benighted because U.S. policies affect Canada, as well.

Not to mention the rest of the planet, given both foreign policy concerns and the environmental policies at work.

For me, the "move-to-X" option would simply be one of mental self-preservation: I'm not sure I'd be able to look in the mirror every day knowing that I live in a country that put these SOB's in power a second time after seeing the results of the first one.

I agree that it wouldn't solve the bigger problem -- but frankly, if Bush wins a second term I may have to personally consider the problem unsolvable for a while, simply for my own sanity.

TWL

As just one example ... people around here are aware that the Selective Service is ramping draft boards back up, yes?

I hadn't heard that, but I do remember last year one particular congressman going around on the talking heads shows fighting for the draft to be reinstated.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D), NY 15th District.

But if you listen to any military leaders, they don't want the draft back. They would rather have the volunteer fighting force (even if some are too stupid to realize when they signed up, it wasn't just for school and medical benefits).

Since PAD has shown himself to be worth the benefit of the doubt I'll believe it when he says that he doesn't see any way that Bush can lose.

Usually when you hear someone say that about something so fraiught with uncertainty as a presidential election its because they want to play the "I can't lose" game. They predict the worst case scenario and then they either are proven right ("I was right. Yay me!") or they get the outcome they actually were hoping for and secretly thought might happen but didn't want to go out on a limb predicting ("I've never been happier to be worng! Yay me!")

reality check-- so much can happen between now and november. If anyone hear thinks they can know with utter certainty which way the economy will go in that time they should write a book on investment strategies. Suppose the terrorists strike again? It might rally people around the president...it might not. Bush might be caught in a real scandle though by now the liberals have devalued that to the point that eveyone might yawn (I mean really..."Bush wanted Sadam out in the first place"??? Holy Heck! My God! The man actually was continuing the previous administration's policies? Who knew?

Now it might be fairly said that these particular Democrats might not be up to the task. A rundown:

Dean- obviously not much of a shelf life. Very good committed core of followers, the Moveon.org folks love him but they will turn off the electorate big time. Bush by a blow out.

Kerry- has sleepwalked through this and is only now showing signs of life. Hard to see him connecting with the common man but probably has more potential than he has shown so far. Personally I see him as the one most likely to beat Bush.

Edwards- An empty suit. I live in North carolina. he would have to campaign heavily here to win. The last time a president candidate lost his own home state...well, you know. Might get the VP nod in the hope of peeling off a few southern states (the big joke here in NC is how pronounced his drawl has become since he left us for Iowa).

Leiberman--The most ethical guy in the race. has a better chance of winning the republican candidacy than he does the democrat. Would lose to Bush handily.

Clark- A serious nutcase. people see Dean as the ruination of the Democrats but I'd be more fearful of this guy. Choosing him would be a hail mary pass. However...given the right set of circumstances (terrorist attack, troubles in Iraq) I can see him pulling off a win.

Gephart-- Decent guy, not a fake, would run a Dem version of Bob Dole's campaign, with about the same outcome.

Sharpton-- ha ha, it must suck to be a democrat and have to pretend this guy is a legit candidate. Remember how funy it was when the repucbl;icans had to do that with pat Robertson? Remember how hard you laughed? Karma, man, karma.

And The Rest--- are here on Gilligan's isle.

Yes, Bush is the man to bet on but given the closeness of the last election and the electoral realities of a closely divided country it would be foolish to discount the possible roads to a Democrat victory. Harkin as a VP could peel off Florida. A Kerry/Gephart ticket would walk out of the convention with 43% support, minimum. I can think of a dozen scenarios that could get them the needed points.

I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.

A self indulgent point of view when public opinion doesn't go your way. Actually, people seem to have a much better sense of how things are going than they did just a short while ago. Bush is benefiting from this, which is why I think another attack could hurt him.

The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country. An unenviable position.

I thought Ellen Goodman pretty neatly summed it up this morning in her column headlined "Fighting for Second," or something to that effect.

Basically, the Democrats are simply struggling to stay relevant.

My problem with the surrent crop (and I'm not thrilled with any of them, not even Dean), is that I haven't had a candidate make me feel good about being a Democrat, make me believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party, since Mario Cuomo addressed the convention in, what 1988?

The last time I voted for a Democrat I totally felt good about was when I voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 primary.

Otherwise, I feel like I'm voting for JV Republicans.

Still, I think the election will be fairly close -- much like last time's but I don't see -- at least at present -- any Democratic candidate doing better than Gore did.

So long as said Democratic candidate does as well as Gore did, he’ll win. (The popular vote anyway. I can’t comment on judicial appointments to the White House though. :)

I think we need someone who is truly on the left, not the middle, look where the middle to the right has gotten us...

It got Clinton elected twice...

It got Clinton elected twice...

What got Clinton elected (and this is not a commentary on his political merits) was his personality, his ability to connect with younger voters (boxers or briefs anyone) versus Bush Srs taciturness (is that a word?)

What got him re-elected was the economy. (As a side note, presidents as a whole do VERY little to affect the overall economy, they just tend to take credit and/or blame for it).

Having hit send too early...

The problem with the current 'crop' of dems (the term crop seems very appropriate) this year, is that for the most part, they have the personality of a plank. The few who don't (Sharpton, mebbe Dean) are considered 'fringe' and non-electable. I think part of the reason Dean has become as popular as he has is that he was able to start out as a 'What the hell' candidate. Since he had no reasonable prospects of election when first announced, he could say whatever he wanted without fear of angering special interests, etc. That freedom earned him the rep as being able to challenge 'the establishment'.

Quite frankly my other beef is that, even tho I loath Mr. Bush with a passion, not ONE of the democratic candidates excites me as a president either. I'm hoping this will change as the primaries progress and into the general election.

The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country.

You mean something besides the deficit, the unilateral Iraq war, the nonexistent WMDs, Osama bin Laden running around free, 2 million jobs lost, etc. etc. etc.? Pray tell, what good things have happend in the last four years, other than a bunch of billionares have gotten richer?

Sometimes I think the Dems could easily win the election if they simply re-used the slogan "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

From what I understand, it's always about numbers. Conventional wisdom states that only about 50% of the population votes. Of that half, it's estimated that approximately 38% ALWAYS votes Republican, 38% ALWAYS votes Democrat, and about 3% (this one's the most prone to fluctuation) ALWAYS votes third-party. Which means that the only ways to win are to either a) appeal to the 20% of voters (10% of the population) who'll swing from election to election or b) appeal to enough of the 50% non-voters.

The middle-of-the-road approach (as favored by Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and (maybe) Clark) follows strategy a. The polarizing talking points (as favored by Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Bush) follows strategy b.

So do any of the Dems have a shot at taking the White House? Absolutely! If nothing else, the early polls (such as Iowa and New Hampshire) will show whether Democratic voters prefer path a or b, and the ultimate nominee can adjust their course accordingly.

Oh yeah, lest I forget: The most recent CBS/New York Times poll doesn't show things as that terribly good for the President. Here's the money quote from a Washington Times story on the poll:

Democratic voters held a 2 point edge over those who would vote for President Bush if the U.S. election were held now, a CBS/New York Times poll said.

The poll published Saturday found that 45 percent of voters said they would vote for a still unspecified Democratic candidate and 43 percent would vote for President Bush.

So all is not lost...

You people crack me up. All this hand wringing, and arrogance. It's almost as funny as the Republicans and Religious Right and their "Clinton Hired Hitmen To Kill A DOZEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE!" home videos in the 90s.

You're the Democratic equivilent of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson followers. You sicken the rest of us(those of us who hold no alliegence to a party) in the same way they sicken us.

When will both sides learn that the people who actually make the decisions that matter in this country are not impressed by this kind of stuff? Dean wouldn't win not becuase he's too far to the left(because he isn't) but because his entire campaign is based around "That guy sucks! And he's EVIL! And He's gonna EAT YOUR CHILDREN!" type rhetoric.

The 'moderates' as you call them, are outside both parites(or on their fringes) because the idealogs are disgusting to them.

And the arrogance throughout this thread is almost sad. You people act as if everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot or a sheep or just plain evil.

Yeah, well, I don't agree with 90% of PAD's politics.

But I don't think he's an idiot. I think he's just far too passionate about things that truly do not matter. Why, I don't know, but that's how I see it.

Yes, please. let the Dems be Dems.

They've been complaining since 2k that their message hasn't gotten out. They're message of...

1. our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone.

2. everyone needs to pay over 50% of their payroll to the government

3. the government is all the solution to their problem.

People who complain about what has happened to this country since 2k simply don't have a clue.

How many attacks happened against the U.S. from '92 to 2k? Now, how many since 9-11?

What was the gdp growth the last time it was announce? how about productivity? When was the last time those #s were so high? What's the correlation?

The biggest problem with the eight embiciles(sp?) is that they haven't once expressed how they're going to do anything different except raise people's taxes, and allow the u.n to take over the rebuilding of iraq, which makes as much sense as voting for one of them. (Hello? how long is it taking the U.N. to create a new government in Bosnia? How long is it taking us? Not to mention they've whined and moaned about this being "unilateral" when we have around 60 countries helping us.)

I find it humorous that they keep talking about "rolling back" the Bush tax cuts, creating a correlation between them and the wal-mart phrase of rolling back prices. Unfortunately, those numbers go up and not down. (Which, it seems, there are a lot of _stupid_ people who seem to want that. They even cheer when it's suggested that the tax cuts get moved back to what they were paying before.) And then there's the age old, page 2 from the playbook complaint that only the rich get tax cuts. Guess what -- THEY SHOULD! If you make $100k and another guy makes $10k, then you're easliy paying 16% more in taxes. (http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html) Don't you think you should pay less in taxes so that you can keep the money you earn?

it's laughable that people think any one of these guys are electable.

You know, all these Republicans talking about how the Democratic candidates are unelectable have a number of precedents in people a) who said Clinton was unelectable and b) people who said Reagan was unelectable.

All those Republicans salivating at the prospect of a Dean nomination should remember the Democrats in 1980 hoping for a Reagan nomination. And comparing Bush to Jimmy Carter isn't really that much of a stretch.

Bush might be caught in a real scandle though by now the liberals have devalued that to the point that eveyone might yawn (I mean really..."Bush wanted Sadam out in the first place"??? Holy Heck! My God! The man actually was continuing the previous administration's policies? Who knew?

You must be joking to say that Bush was sincerely attempting to follow Clinton’s footsteps. Ever since he took office, Bush has almost reflexively done away or ignored anything with Clinton’s name on it. Now he’s claiming that he was just following Clinton’s lead?

None of Clinton’s policies advocating “regime change” ever included armed invasion of Iraq. The fact that invasion of Iraq was first choice rather that last resort and it was planned from virtually Day One is what makes the current administration that much more scandalous.

And for the record (IMHO), it wasn’t liberals who devalued the concept of government scandal, it was partisans that blew-up every inconsequential muck-up (most of which turned out to be untrue – consider Haircut-Gate and Travel-Gate) to 48-point type headlines. After story followed story of yet another supposed and utterly trivial “scandal,” I’d imagine that the American populace would become somewhat inured of anything labeled a scandal.

Now it might be fairly said that these particular Democrats might not be up to the task. A rundown:

Living in Florida, I really can’t get too excited about who and who might make take Iowa. By the time they reach here, at least half of them will drop out. A few comments.

Dean- obviously not much of a shelf life. Very good committed core of followers, the Moveon.org folks love him but they will turn off the electorate big time. Bush by a blow out.

Although Dean has been accused of being “angry” and that’s his selling point, it is by no means a losing strategy. Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage by milking outrage. It’s after (assuming) he gets the nomination that we’ll determine whether or not the electorate will be alienated by him.

And I don’t believe Bush can blow out anyone. There’s enough discontent to make any race a serious one.

Kerry- has sleepwalked through this and is only now showing signs of life. Hard to see him connecting with the common man but probably has more potential than he has shown so far. Personally I see him as the one most likely to beat Bush.

Kerry hasn’t shown much until now. It’ll be interesting to see how much more life he’ll show in New Hampshire.

Edwards- An empty suit. I live in North carolina. he would have to campaign heavily here to win. The last time a president candidate lost his own home state...well, you know. Might get the VP nod in the hope of peeling off a few southern states (the big joke here in NC is how pronounced his drawl has become since he left us for Iowa).

Edwards seem like a nice guy, but unless he can get himself out there, he’ll drop out after NH.

Leiberman--The most ethical guy in the race. has a better chance of winning the republican candidacy than he does the democrat. Would lose to Bush handily.

Really nice guy, but as been mentioned, he’s considered Bush Lite. What’d be the point of electing him if the real thing’s on the table? Unless he somehow is able to distance himself from Bush further, he really hasn’t a hope.

Clark- A serious nutcase. people see Dean as the ruination of the Democrats but I'd be more fearful of this guy. Choosing him would be a hail mary pass. However...given the right set of circumstances (terrorist attack, troubles in Iraq) I can see him pulling off a win.

Clark? A nutcase? Unless you’re confusing him with [President] Clark from BABYLON 5, I really can’t see how you can seriously think of him as a nutcase. His articulate, intelligent manner would be a refreshing change from our current leader. He’s a Rhodes Scholar, 4-star general, and former commander of NATO (who’s work in Sarajevo is touted by the administration as what they’d like to see in Iraq). Quite frankly, he’s Bush’s biggest threat. I suspect that the reason that we haven’t seen any preemptive attacks on him from the right is because the RNC have no idea how to counter him.

And I don’t know which people you’re thinking of, but I doubt that many of the citizens-at-large see Dean as “the ruination of the Democrats”. He’s energized the party like no one’s done in an age, he’s gotten youth involved in politics, and he espouses core Democratic values that, until recently, no one on the Left have had the backbone to voice. (IMHO, the reason that Republicans have done so well recently is because Democrats have just been nodding along with Bush’s policies. If you’re gonna choose between two folks who agree with the Right’s agenda, why would anyone choose anyone but a Republican?)

Gephart-- Decent guy, not a fake, would run a Dem version of Bob Dole's campaign, with about the same outcome.

Gep’s cool. He’ll probably be among the last to drop out. Perhaps he’ll take a VP nomination.

Sharpton-- ha ha, it must suck to be a democrat and have to pretend this guy is a legit candidate. Remember how funy it was when the repucbl;icans had to do that with pat Robertson? Remember how hard you laughed? Karma, man, karma.

The only problem is that Robertson has a very long arm in terms of influence with the current administration. He’s probably better off effecting policy behind the scenes than if he were president.

Yes, Bush is the man to bet on but given the closeness of the last election and the electoral realities of a closely divided country it would be foolish to discount the possible roads to a Democrat victory. Harkin as a VP could peel off Florida. A Kerry/Gephart ticket would walk out of the convention with 43% support, minimum. I can think of a dozen scenarios that could get them the needed points.

The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side). Furthermore, if he decided to take off the kids’ gloves, Clark could probably shred Bush in debate. Dean would be able to draw in his enthusiastic supporters and their fantastically efficient recruiting. And as VP, any Dean-bashing would fail (if Bush tried to make this election about presidential candidate vs. vice-presidential candidate, he would look weak and desperate).

I think Americans are so shell-shocked at this point, they don't know which way is up, and they're not going to endorse a change in the White House until they do know...at which point it'll be too late.

A self-indulgent point of view when public opinion doesn't go your way. Actually, people seem to have a much better sense of how things are going than they did just a short while ago. Bush is benefiting from this, which is why I think another attack could hurt him.

I’d argue that public opinion not going PAD’s way is wrong. Many polls suggest that, although people like Bush, very few of them would want him to have a second term. (Like the man, don’t like the man’s performance. Arguably, the opposite of Clinton.)

The Democrats best shot is if something bad happens to the country. An unenviable position.

The only slam-dunk, utter blow-out reelection Bush could have is precisely if something unthinkable happens to the country (major terrorist attack). That, more than anything, would convince undecideds not to “switch a horse mid-stream.” Bush was cruising to a single term before 9/11 (he was very unpopular if you remember the polls of the time). That day helped his administration more than any amount of money or policy.

If the economy continues to tank or the excrement smothers the fan in Iraq, then yes, Bush is very potentially screwed.

Balder: our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone

Okay, I'll take the bait on this...

Please, please, please look at the pay rates of Servicemen/women during the Clinton years vs. now. Please look into who wants to cut benefits for Veterans. Please tell me that the military didn't need paring down? It doesn't need to be weak, and it will never be weak again after 9/11, but that's just a blanket statement that's about as ruthless as saying "Every Republican Politician is in the pocket of big business."...

nevermind. Bad analogy.

Getting along with everyone takes someone who wants to get along with everyone, instead of being a bully.

Anyway.

On a different note. PAD called me Dude. heh.

Travis

I don't think the Democrats can attack Bush on foreign policy. The economy is a question mark. His spending policy is his Achilles' heel.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm

The Fiscal Conservatives are starting to revolt. To my mind, that is what gives the Dems their best chance - by hoping that the die-hard shrink-the-government types (like me) stay home on election day. We won't elect a Democrat, and Bush sure hasn't figured out how to control spending either. If Bush continues to roll out more spending and bigger deficits, the Democrats may win by default.

Not that they would necessarily do better, but at least the Democrats would be energized.

To quote Isaac Hayes, "You're damn right."

On the Democrats, we hear...

They've been complaining since 2k that their message hasn't gotten out. They're message of...

1. our countrie's military needs to be weaker than, say, Jamaica's. That way we can get along with everyone.

Your interpretation. Certainly not mine. I think there's a rather large difference between "we should be able to defend ourselves" and "we should be invading countries we don't like and can feel free to delude the public about our reasons."

2. everyone needs to pay over 50% of their payroll to the government

Certainly not my interpretation, nor that of any Democrat I happen to know. How's that house of straw coming along?

[It is worth pointing out, however, that we're probably the least-taxed of all industrialized nations, and that our health care system is appropriately in tatters. I would happily pay higher taxes in exchange for a good single-payer system -- in a heartbeat.]

3. the government is all the solution to their problem.

(a) No. It's part of a solution, but certainly not all of one.

(b) Gee ... it certainly seems to have solved all of Halliburton's problems.

People who complain about what has happened to this country since 2k simply don't have a clue.

Don't we?

Here's what I see.

1) We have gone from having the respect of most countries to having most countries regard us with some mixture of fear and contempt. If you're into "Yeah! Go America, screw everyone else!" you may consider this a good thing. I don't.

2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.

3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.

So please -- explain to me why I should be sleeping soundly at night. I'm honestly curious.

For what it's worth, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or evil. I think true conservatives have usually thought out their positions pretty seriously, and I respect that while I disagree with them.

[David Brin once noted that Republicans fear the aggregation of too much power in the hands of the government, while Democrats fear the same thing happening with corporations. Both fears have merit.]

The crowd currently in office does not in my view represent true conservatism. True conservatives aren't generally interested in taking over the world. The PNAC crowd is interested in seeing its worldview writ large, and in holding on to personal power for as long as possible by whatever means.

These bastards are ones I will oppose to my last breath ... and ideally to theirs.

TWL

Very well said, TWL. Much better than my response.

I am a politcs aficionado, and I usually write better than I did earlier. Now I do have a question for you, that you might be at least inclined to answer.

There's a saying that goes "Tax and Spend Democrats."

What really is so bad about that? I mean, shouldn't we tax to get money to spend? Isn't that fiscally responsible? Isn't that better than spending money that we don't have?

Really... I am wondering about this. It just doesn't make sense.

Travis

Travis writes:

======

There's a saying that goes "Tax and Spend Democrats."

What really is so bad about that? I mean, shouldn't we tax to get money to spend? Isn't that fiscally responsible? Isn't that better than spending money that we don't have?

======

Of course it is.

The phrase is presumably so derisive because it means "oh, they want to give all your money to the government and let them do things with it" as opposed to letting us keep our money.

Unfortunately, there's this whole "no free lunch" concept which people seem to have lost sight of -- huge numbers in both parties, really.

"Borrow and spend" doesn't have the same cadence to it that "tax and spend" does -- hence, it's not as good a sound bite. Alas.

TWL

Tim said:

1) We have gone from having the respect of most countries to having most countries regard us with some mixture of fear and contempt. If you're into "Yeah! Go America, screw everyone else!" you may consider this a good thing. I don't.>>

When did we have the respect of most countries? The mixture of fear and contempt you describe is pretty much the norm (either deserved or not -- that's what you get for being a Super Power, like it or not). There was a brief period of affection post 9/11 but unlike many people I never thought that was going to last. Did Pres. Bush squander that goodwill? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it ultimately had a limited shelf life.

2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.>>

This has nothing to do with the President. I would focus on the smaller races (Congressionally speaking) if that concerns you. Also, the President's tax cuts were mostly boneheaded ("Yay! I got $300 back but I lost my health insurance!" and so on) but that doesn't affect who does or doesn't get jobs. I don't think the next person in office can wave a magic wand and fix it. It's sort of like driving in inclement weather. The driver can't make the weather go away, but it's obviously better to have a professional driver rather than some guy drunk off his ass behind the wheel.

I lived in NYC during 9/11. What I noticed was that more people were afraid of being killed than of not being able to pay rent (though more people lost jobs in the wake of the attacks than lost their lives).

So, I don't think the economy will be as big an issue as national security (the President would be foolish *not* to focus on the latter). This will make it difficult for the competition to challenge him. The best method would be to point out the failures in Homeland Security and that dismantling Al-Qaeda is more important than the war in Iraq (though I supported Iraq on the "stop dicking around with the bad guys" principle -- I just wish the administration had been as upfront about it). What the Democrats can't do is make bin Laden an issue -- they don't want a Saddam Hussein situation happening. Just focus on how they could do a better job with national security. I think Clark and Kerry would have a better shot articulating that overall.

3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.>>

This just seems a tedious complaint to me. I don't like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn't like it) but it's not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say. I can deal with a little name calling.

That sort of thing happens on both sides of the aisle. How many people were called "bigot" or "racist" for opposing Affirmative Action or for not supporting gay marriage. I think it's intellectually lazy to call people nasty names because they disagree with you, be it "unpatriotic" or "racist." Sharpton, for example, does a lot of the latter. Both needs to stop and quickly.

SER asks:

When did we have the respect of most countries? The mixture of fear and contempt you describe is pretty much the norm (either deserved or not -- that's what you get for being a Super Power, like it or not).

I don't recall that, pre-2002, countries nominally considered our allies had leaders run for reelection specifically on the grounds that they would block our policies or try to.

I think our blocking of the Kyoto Accords and Bush's statement that "the jury is still out on evolution" did a lot to affect international sentiment, as well. We're pretty much the only major industrialized nation that still flirts with creationism and has people in charge who expect the Rapture to come any second.

Me:

2) Sure, "productivity" is up -- but an awful lot of my friends are unemployed, and it's not because they're lazy or unqualified. The economic situation for an awful lot of the country, quite frankly, sucks. It's great if you're making millions, though.

SER:

This has nothing to do with the President.

Not directly, no -- agreed. It's sure as hell a record leaders tend to run on or against, though. (Please don't tell me that Bush wouldn't take credit if the employment numbers improved: neither one of us is that stupid.) And Presidents do have an effect on overall economic policy, which can affect the job market.

So far as his policies have made it clear, Bush does not seem to care a whole lot about the unemployment rate except as it affects his political status. I dislike that.

Also, the President's tax cuts were mostly boneheaded ("Yay! I got $300 back but I lost my health insurance!" and so on) but that doesn't affect who does or doesn't get jobs.

Agreed on the jobs situation. We're leaving out the whole issue of structural deficits and the absolute Everest of debt we're passing along to the next generation, but that's a conversation for another time.

I don't think the next person in office can wave a magic wand and fix it.

Nor have I suggested such -- but the next person in office can go a long way towards not making it worse.

I lived in NYC during 9/11. What I noticed was that more people were afraid of being killed than of not being able to pay rent (though more people lost jobs in the wake of the attacks than lost their lives).

Most of my immediate family lived in and around NYC during 9/11, too. Not one of them supports Bush's policies, be they economic or otherwise.

Me:

3) Every attempt to question our government's policies is met with cries that we're unpatriotic and in many cases treasonous. That sure as hell doesn't match the America I learned about in school.

SER:

This just seems a tedious complaint to me.

Sorry to bore you. You haven't been termed an "enemy combatant" and tossed into jail w/o benefit of counsel, it seems. (Neither have I, of course -- but it's the same principle at work.)

I don't like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn't like it) but it's not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say.

Yet. And I mean that quite sincerely.

I can deal with a little name calling.

From average people, yes. Online, sure. From folks in the street, sure. From fellow citizens, no problem.

From the people directly in charge of my government, who have the ability to screw with my life and my freedom? No, I don't agree.

I've been told that I'm not a citizen (in one of the first Pres. Bush's announcements). I've been told that I need to "watch what I say" lest I impede the war effort. I've been told that what I really want to do is destroy the country.

And these are the alleged "good guys" saying this.

Sorry -- to me, that's more than "a little name-calling."

I think it's intellectually lazy to call people nasty names because they disagree with you, be it "unpatriotic" or "racist."

No argument, and I agree that both sides are fairly guilty of it. The asymmetry to me is that it's actively threatening when the people in power are the ones doing it. From Sharpton et al., it's unpleasant and reprehensible -- from Ashcroft, it's dangerous.

TWL

Something neat.

You might remember that Clark got a drubbing in the press a little while ago over his choice of sweater. (A ridiculous issue, but typical.)

Clark has donated said sweater to Liberty House, a transitional shelter that is opening for homeless veterans in Manchester, New Hampshire. It's on eBay and, with five days to go, it's nearly up to $13,000.

Check it out.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3655267737&category=39721

I have to wonder if the folks touting Wesley Clark have actually listened to him out on the stump. Seriously unimpressive. When he speaks off the cuff he's sound bite central for any future negative ads.

And the impression I've gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don't know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women. But we shall see...he might make an interesting choice for VP. I personally don't like it when folks enter politics as President, I always feel they should start a bit smaller and get chance to demonstrate that their preturnatural brilliance can be transferred to the political arena.

OK, let me just point out first that as a British citizen I just get to suffer your lot's choice of 'Leader of the Free World' with no say in the matter. It almost makes me wish I could dress up as an Indian and go throw some American tea in a harbour.

Alas, my gut feeling is that PAD is right. I'd love to see Bush loose again and this time see the result stick. I don't think it's going to happen.

I suppose there are things that might happen and make people change their minds. Maybe.

1: At some point someone's going to convince people the honesty is a good thing. You only have to look at the back Iraq coverage to see how much Bush and Blair lied about what they were going to do, and why they were doing it. At least I think they lied. Perhaps their judgement is so shot that they honestly thought they were telling the truth. But no-one really seems to care. Bush lied in the State of the Union FFS, and got our squddies and your GI's killed. Surely that's got to be at least on a par with shagging an intern? But no-one really seems to care.

2: At some point the galloping inflation is going to come home to roost. I don't really understand why the dollars value has held up as well as it has (which is pretty badly) and as soon as the oil and consumer electronics prices start to shoot up then things will get messy. A trip to Mars isn't going to help the deficit either.

3: Some more apparent couruption that no-one really seems to care about - Enron & Halliburton.

But so far none of these things have really laid a glove. Perhaps they'll manage it in the next nine months and then we get a new Leader of the Free World. But I don't beleive it's going to happen

Where's the outrage?

Sorry, but I'm not shellshocked at all nor do I have any reason to be outraged (well, except at the pettiness and lowdown dirty tactics of the Left). Re-elect Bush in 2004!

Firstly I am no Bush blind supporter, but I certainly get confused about him being the equivalent of Satan to some folks.

Bush quite simply is a rich kid whos grown up with privilege and a sense of entitlement his whole life. He is not interested in HOW Government works and is not the micromanager that Clinton was. Instead he has some basic Republican Party Go-To guys that feed him info and he decides. Problem is - he's probably not the guy that will fight tooth and nail for your average american when it comes to jobs etc.

The closest is his tac break - which to me is just a sad version of trickle down economics. The average american got $400. That doesn't do a whole lot. The theory when millionaires get tens of thousands back is that they PAY more so they get more. ANd then they will take it and create jobs and dump it into the economy.

Yeah? Well it's not helping the average Joe. They might just buy a preoprty and rent it out - while the previous owner then buys a house or a vacation home and so the line continues.

You want to help middle man Joe America - don't trickle down the money - give it to him. Do a tax cut that gives the middle guys MORE of a break. Maybe don't cut taxes for the highest percent.

Frankly, I don't know the answer - but I know when it's none of the above too.

SO I am NOT a Bush soldier - BUT I do think the guy is honest and he's the right kind of war time President.

But I don't get how people just HATE him b/c he's what? A Republican? The War on Iraq was his giant devious plan? Well most of the guys running on the Dem side SUPPORTED the war EXCEPT Dean.

I'd have a hard time choosing between a Bush/Lieberman race - but the rest of AMerican wouldn't and Bush would win. But I still don't see the giant conspiracy here.

Bush NEVER made it into a complete 9/11 connection. THey tried SOME 9/11 connection - but the war was based more on the following:

Saddamm is not abiding by the UN sanctions.

He refuses to let inspectors in.

When pushed on WMD's he does NOT cooperate.

That is all you need. It doesn't really matter if they ever found them -except to the question of 'if he had them and he doesn't now - WHERE ARE THEY and ARE WE WORSE OFF?'

But you can't have it both ways. You can't condemn him b/c he didn't find any and they were never there and then also claim that 'Oh look - NOW who's got them and we need to worry.'

Bush laid it out very clearly that this was a new world that we live in and we would do anything that we had to in order to protect ourselves. Granted I can't reconcile this policy with his immigration stance, but nevertheless - you have a known Human Rights violating Dictator that violates UN rules and sanctions and then DOES NOT COOPERATE when inspectors need to check certain places for WMD'S.

That's enough to get you into a war - whether you did something or not.

If I walk into a Department store and look nervous and then BOLT out and an office rtells me to stop and I don't. Guess what?

I'm going to be chased and apprehended whether I did something or not b/c I ACTED like I did.

Well, in this new world we did the same thing. We were pushed into ACTION. Unfortunately you can't just CATCH him - you have to GO IN and TAKE HIM OUT.

It was silly behavior if the guy didn't have anything.

I fault Bush for trying to appease the world so much that the war was basically announced months before we took action thus giving Saddaam all the time he needs to get the WMD's or other weapons OUT of IRAQ and into I don't know . . .Syria?

So I'm not SUPER PRO-BUSH - but I also think it's silly to nail him on Iraq as if he just wanted to finish Daddy's war.

Saddaam acted idiotic at a time where the US and other freedom loving countries will not tolerate the risks of terrorism. The bottom line is the world is a safer place without Saddaam and there's no repurcussion with the Arab world of note.

WHo hates us more n ow? Islamic fundamentalists? They weren't singing Yippity Doo Dah before Iraq either and as long as the situation in Israel continues we will always be a target anyway.

So yes, There were items like the intelliggence report with enriched uranium in Africa and the Al Queda connections that proved less than perfect - but that doesn't change the fact that we did the right thing.

Saddaam ACTED guilty so we HAD to take action to prevent any further possible attacks.

It IS fact that he's trained terrorists there - given shelter to terrorist - and now he's defying UN orders concerning WMD's. Sorry - if you're told to freeze and take it upon yorself to start tap dancing - you will be shot at.

And all those intelligence failures - well maybe someone would want to ask Clinton and Senator Toricelli about it. B/c the Toricelli principal which Clinton helped pass made it illegal for the CIA to use as informants anyone who has been guilty or suspected of human rights violations OR of any crime UNLESS specifically authorized.

So business as usual for the CIA was stopped and of course we now had to rely on law abiding citizens to tip us off about terrorist plots.

Can't talk to an ACTUAL terrorist greedy for money - nope. Talk to a nun or the head of the PTA.

SO this Iraq situation is much deeper than Bush is a war monger right wing conservative.

Yes - he's got his faults - but tell me why some of the Democrats running are better - especially Dean who got panic attacks when he won governor - what will he do running a country?

-

Sasha said:

The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush’s popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side)

Oh my...Clark is infinitely assailable on these fronts.

Patriotism: just last week Clark was saying Bush was unpatriotic. Need anyone be reminded the slams Repubs got when anyone dared suggest someone was unpatriotic? Now we've got Clark doing what Dems constantly said they were too good for.

War on Terror: He's flip-flopped so many times on this issue, had the quotes shown to him, and still insists he's been consistent. Before the war started, he said there were WMDs and we had to get in there. After the war he praised Bush and Blair for standing strong. Now he's backed off it all.

Character: Just off the top of my head, remember all the flak regarding him being contacted by a Washington think-tank...a Canadian think-tank...make that an Isreal think-tank...whatever it was, and all the "confusion" on what happened. And the whole "Dean called me up" "No I didn't" thing. His own words damn him repeatedly. "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my phone calls." Then "He never REALLY called me."

Armed Forces Love Him: Oh Dear God no. Remember, he was REMOVED from his positions, blamed for fiascos, and trust me, hated by the average soldier.

You're right...Clark/Dean is a dream ticket. Bush will have a FIELD day. You think Bush says weird things...Clark and Dean have flubbed in public enough times to make me happy to see Bush debate them.

Dennis:

Sorry, but I'm not shellshocked at all nor do I have any reason to be outraged (well, except at the pettiness and lowdown dirty tactics of the Left).

So you're fine with ...

-- Lying to the public about the reasons for getting us into a war

-- Letting Iraqi citizens get killed and museums looted while we head right on to protecting the oil ministries

-- Insisting that global warming isn't happening, or that it "needs more study"

-- Giving preference to those prison reform groups that mandate Christianity

-- Creating alleged "free speech" zones for protest which actually insulate the president from having to see disagreement.

Just checking. Have I read you wrong, or are all of those things just fine and dandy in your book?

TWL

Udog says a great deal, only one or two points of which I'm going to comment on:

Bush NEVER made it into a complete 9/11 connection.

Never explicitly, no -- but the implied linkage was very strong on many, many occasions. How else do you explain that something like 60% of this country now believes Saddam was personally involved with 9/11?

THey tried SOME 9/11 connection - but the war was based more on the following:

Saddamm is not abiding by the UN sanctions.

He refuses to let inspectors in.

Except, of course, that the latter is a complete and utter lie -- and one your president repeated, I'll note.

Saddam let inspectors in. WE told them to leave because we were about to move in.

For Bush to claim otherwise is frankly mystifying.

TWL

TWL - this is really the issue - did he LIE to the public to get into war?

I don't think so - and you have no proof he lied. Unless the Shadow appears and tells us the evil that lurks in the hearts of men I really don't believe he LIED - meaning he KNEW OTHERWISE and just MADE IT UP or had someone beneath him MAKE IT UP.

I think it is simple: There was an agenda to oust Sadaam after 9/11 - no doubt and I DO NOT have a problem with that, per se - once Sadaam acted like an ASS with the WMD's he gave us a red carpet to his palace.

I see no problem with that either.

TWL you claim that Sadaam WAS letting us in to all of the places on the UN list and we simply WITHDREW the inspectors to go to war.

Seriously, review some of the history - that is NOT how it happened. Sadaam REFUSED to let us in to certain places and others gave unnecssary delay which rendered the visits useless.

In fact - NO ONE - not even the -we would be speaking German if not the US- France claims this. No claimed they DID COOPERATE. They just wanted to wait more and more which we refused to do.

One of the sticking points were his own palaces which had been known before to house weapons - yet he claimed he would not sully his palaces with our visits or something to that effect.

But alas - so many just go back to War Monger. No one is all over Clinton when he summarily went into Bosnia or lobbed some harmless missles at an Aspirin factory in Iraq - but when Bush goes to war when sufficient reason arose APART from 9/11 - he's a war monger.

You point out that 60% of the American public believe the 9/11 connection so that somehow is Bush's fault?

That's irrelevant. The American public by and large has the attention span of a hyperactive Gnat on their best day. It's fifteen minutes of fame and next news story - you should know that.

But while Joe AMerican may not follow the exact reasons for everything - they do have an inner guidance that's not all that dim witted - for instance - they know Sadaam has DONE bad things - they also know that Sadaam was not cooperating with UN inspections with weapons - they also know that we lost over 3,000 lives to terrorist - so in the end Sadaam's removal can only be a better place and not worse.

To them they are not caring about whether or not Sadaam was responsible or part of 9/11. It really doesn't matter and was never the SOLE reason for the war.

You point out the Museum looters and blame the US b/c they wer protecting the oil fields. Um, . . .I don't see the issue. I don't advocate burning books and artifacts but it is Iraqo OIL that will lift these people into this century economically NOT fancy art - so when the thought was that a spiteful Sadaam or his Baath party supporters would destroy the oil fields when all hope was lost - the US reacted appropriately.

I mean what is the point here? Was there an Executive Oreder that said we don't care about the museum's?

If you'll remember there was also an issue with how to POLICE the citizens. WE were reluctant to do anything against them since we weren't at war with them. How can you blame the US for the actions of irresponsible Iraqi's?

And Global warming needing more study? So do we know EVERYTHING about global warming? I've been in below freezing weather the last few weeks so I don't think there is an immenent danger that we ought to tie the hands of industrty SO tightly. A middle ground while we search further is reasonable and if it is not in line with your views - it does not show that Bush is some evil, low brow war monger.

And about Free speech - yeah, well I guess creating these zones is not a great idea - but guys like Clinton - they did it differently.

Anyone who had a disagreement foudn themselves audited. This includes former women who came forward about alleged sexual assaults as well as talk show hosts like Bill O Reilly.

There's a lot of dirt on both sides of the political fence.

Again - I think Lieberman is the most stand up guy amongst them and who can be in touch with more Americans - but I don't know if I'd agree with all of his fiscal policies - but Bush is not the evil gremlin his detractors make him out to be.

The many points against Bush seem to forget things guys like Clinton has done.

One thing everyone is missing is how meaningless the Iowa Caucus is. The last time the winner of the Iowa Caucus went on to actually become president was 1976 (not counting years when the incumbent was unopposed for his party's nomination). Most of the time, the winner even fails to get his party's nomination.

This is just an excuse for Iowa to get more attention than its population warrants.

<< TWL - this is really the issue - did he LIE to the public to get into war?

I don't think so - and you have no proof he lied. >>

Absolute hard proof?

No, I don't -- and so long as all the various investigations into intelligence doctoring (and Tom Kean's 9/11 investigation, for that matter) are held up by administration stonewalling, all we have are well-founded suspicions.

But consider that Paul Wolfowitz has flat-out said that (a) the WMD issue was "the one we could all agree on" to use to whip up the country, and (b) invading Iraq was in fact a violation of international law. Okay, that's not a flat-out admission of guilt ... but that's due to the fact that these guys feel no shame, not because wrong wasn't done. It's certainly bordering on an impeachable act -- far more so than lying under oath about a blowjob.

The rest of your points may get responded to later -- right now I've got some work to do. Suffice it to say for the moment that your attitude towards many of my points seems to be "so what?" -- in which case you clearly have the president you deserve.

"What's the difference?" -- Bush, when asked about his claim that Saddam absolutely has WMD's ready to aim at us as opposed to the inklings of the consideration of restarting WMD programs.

"I think the families who have dead or wounded children might see a difference." -- Diane Sawyer's response in my dream universe

TWL

Tim said:

So you're fine with ...

-- Lying to the public about the reasons for getting us into a war

There was no lying to the public. I might...MIGHT be able to grant they made some statements and let the public interpret them incorrectly, but remember, even Clinton and Clark said that all the intelligence they had said Iraq had WMDs. And as that was never the sole primary reason, it's a non-starter.

-- Letting Iraqi citizens get killed and museums looted while we head right on to protecting the oil ministries

Seems to me the war STOPPED the killing of Iraqi citizens. Regardless, your use of the word "letting" is obscene. Bush never LET anyone get killed. Furthermore, lest we forget, the entire museum-theft thing never truly happened. The New York Times revised its estimate of thousands of artifacts stolen to less than 50. And some of THOSE were taken for safekeeping by curators and have been returned. I remember hearing the number "34" thrown around, but I can't remember since it's been six months or so since anyone even THOUGHT about this story, since it was more or less a hoax to begin with. But even beyond THAT, what the heck is wrong with protecting the oil fields? My God, can you imagine the flak Bush would have gotten if the wells were destroyed? The environmental groups would go ballistic, the world economy would have suffered, and it would take DECADES for Iraq to recover.

-- Insisting that global warming isn't happening, or that it "needs more study"

Not like THIS is a new issue. Some scientists have been saying global warming is a myth for a long, long time. And since you are so passionate about incontrovertible evidence, I expect you agree 100% that it should be studied more. Find those Weapons of Mass Global Warming!

-- Giving preference to those prison reform groups that mandate Christianity

-- Creating alleged "free speech" zones for protest which actually insulate the president from having to see disagreement.

I confess ignorance on these two issues, but I'm sure your non-biased take on and understanding of the issues is enlightening.

You know, I think we've all learned something during the last few years...Democrats have learned how easy it is to get caught up in the craziness of thinking a political opponent is the epitome of evil and Rpublicans have learned just how unappealing that looks.

It amazes me that Democrats have repeated so many of the excesses of the right wingers in their quest to send Bush home. The sheer ugliness of the spectacle has turned off a lot of folks who might otherwise have been sympathetic. It has, admitedly, stirred the blood of the radical left but they are not sufficiant for victory.

If the Moveon.org gang don't learn to tone it down they will be an albatross around the neck of whoever the eventual candidate is.

BTW, howcum nobody is predicting teh winner of the caucas? No guts, no glory...I'm going out on a limb and predicting a surprise come from behind victory for Gephart. Not that he will be the nominee or anything.

And by gephart I actually meant Kerry, with Edwards close behind. yeah, THAT'S the ticket..

Wow, did Dean fold up like a cheap tent or what?

Randal writes...

There was no lying to the public [about the reasons for war -- TWL]

Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.

Now, if you mean the 9/11 links ... it's all been tricks with mirrors and lies of omission. I agree in that I don't know of any demonstrably false statements, but lying by implication is still up there on the list of Things I'd Like My Leaders To Not Do.

And as that was never the sole primary reason, it's a non-starter.

Wrong. It was THE primary reason given to the public for months. After we didn't find weapons, it turned into "well, we liberated the Iraqi people." Then it turned into "now we can get troops out of harm's way in Saudi Arabia" (which, let's remember, was one of bin Laden's stated goals in the first place). Now it's just "Saddam was a bad bad man and it's good that we got rid of him."

Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.

Look -- the PNAC documents with the plan for toppling Saddam have been out there since '98. It's no secret that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. wanted Saddam gone gone gone, and it certainly looks like they were more than willing to bend intelligence to make that happen.

Call that justified if you like, and I'll respectfully disagree. But don't insult my intelligence by claiming no lies have been told.

Seems to me the war STOPPED the killing of Iraqi citizens.

The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.

Regardless, your use of the word "letting" is obscene. Bush never LET anyone get killed.

The families of those killed after Bush dared insurgents to "bring 'em on" might humbly beg to differ on that.

I vaguely recall the musem-theft numbers being downgraded somewhat -- not to the extent you claim here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to bad memory on my part. My apologies -- it was one of the first examples that popped out of my head, and shouldn't have been.

On global warming, however...

Not like THIS is a new issue. Some scientists have been saying global warming is a myth for a long, long time.

Yep. About as many as those who say evolution's bunk. (Have you heard of the "Steve List"?)

In both cases, the debate is over the specifics of the process (and in global warming's case, over exactly how big a temperature change is at issue here). Nobody with any credibility is denying the basic trends.

And since you are so passionate about incontrovertible evidence, I expect you agree 100% that it should be studied more.

Absolutely.

However, the difference is, despite the Bush administration's insistence on making it an either/or question, it's possible to do both: you can devote further study while taking action in the face of the evidence we have. If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.

The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."

I can provide a reference to that quote if you like, though it may be a day or two. That's the sort of mentality running the country.

On two other issues...

I confess ignorance on these two issues, but I'm sure your non-biased take on and understanding of the issues is enlightening.

Oh, I make no bones about being biased. The feelings I have about the last three years are deeply rooted and very passionate: they ain't going away easily and they ain't easily stifled.

I'd like to think, however, that I can admit error and correct my arguments in the face of an error. I'd also like to think my fifteen years of Usenet experience is evidence of that.

In other words: sure, I'm biased. That doesn't make me wrong. :-)

Seriously ... there's nothing about this administration's actions or attitude that bothers you? You think the country's been perfectly justified in all of its actions both domestic and foreign?

If so, I'm stuck scratching my head. I absolutely don't get it.

TWL

It amazes me that Democrats have repeated so many of the excesses of the right wingers in their quest to send Bush home. The sheer ugliness of the spectacle has turned off a lot of folks who might otherwise have been sympathetic.

Change that to "a lot of Democrats" and I'll wholeheartedly agree.

Personally, I oppose this administration because it's not been particularly competent. Their use of intelligence circumvented the vetting process that separates the reliable from the unreliable sources (which led to the WMD imbroglio), their unpreparedness for running Iraq once the war was over (the looting, their losing the Iraqui army [who would have been ideal in implementing policy], their inability to control terrorist infiltration (terrorists operate quite well in a chaotic situation' they're drawn to them. Invasions will create chaos. Duh), and so forth makes it quite clear that this administration has no business running the country.

And we're not even getting into the abuses of civil liberties and the economy....

Whoa! Nice to see that there's somewhere where Tim Lynch still lurks. Well, I guess this is a lot shorter than writing reviews.

Anyway, I'm going to avoid most of the political issue, since I can only rehash what Tim's been saying, but I wanted to let you all know about another global warming twist...

It seems NASA will be scaling back all programs not related to the new Moon-Then-Mars mission. Now, I'm not saying that manned missions in space again is a bad thing; anything but. I'm completely in favor. But when they scale back everything else, that includes all the global warming research:

"Setting up operations on the moon is affordable, as long as it is taken as a primary goal for the American space program and not larded onto all of the other things that NASA does," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), chairman of the House subcommittee on space and aeronautics. As an example, he cited NASA's efforts to assess global warming, saying: "Over the years, we have spent tens of billions of dollars of NASA money proving global warming is occurring, which I think is suspect and debatable."

Whee.

(Source: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003002.html)

In retrospect, I should have known Dean was in trouble when Gore endorsed him. The man is the freaking Angel of Political Death. Even the very Gods are against him--he gives a speech on global warming and the temperature drops to the point where street urchins are making ice cream on the sidewalks.

I didn't even vote for the guy and I'm sort of wishing he would catch something like a break.

My own response to "Where's the outrage?"

The American public *should* be outraged. Livid! But it's not as if it's simply hearing these news bits and shrugging them off. No, it's the fault of the media here. When george pushed hard to derail *any* investigation into those attacks, the press found something *else* to report that day. The same holds true for Paul O'Neil, and the subsequent "whistle blowers" who have stepped out and backed him up -- instead, the media is all about Michael and Brittney, Brittney and Michael.

"Liberal Media" my arse.

Clinton got his knob polished, and that's impeachable. But when Dubya lies, people DIE, and that's okay, because violence is far more tasteful and acceptable than sex.

This is just an excuse for Iowa to get more attention than its population warrants.

Now there's a silly and baseless comment.

After the BS in California this past year, I don't think anybody can say that any single state's population gets more attention than it deserves.

I lived in Iowa during the 2000 election, and I recall how close the race was (as it was in a number of states).

The fact remains that the caucus allows people to get together and rally behind those they wish to see in office.

Of course, if Iowa means so little, you can pitch it from the Electoral College, along with 20 other "meaningless" states (New Hampshire immediately springs to mind).

Results from the Iowa caucus are apparently in.

Gephardt is already said to be dropping out of the race after his 4th-place finish (hmm, I didn't even know that he won the Iowa caucus in '88).

Again, it does say something about the process though.

I mean, here was Dean, going into this as the front runner, the only guy making headlines. And he finished third.

Amusing.

I told my liberal father-in-law this summer that Edwards scared me, as a conservative, more than any of the others. Why? He is Bill Clinton 2.0!

Oh, and I love that "No one can beat Bush" attitude! I hope a lot of Dems think that and stay home on election day.

Well, looks like we're at a four person race; Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark. With his Iowa standing, the smartest thing for Gephardt to do is bail now (assuming the candidates do recall the more important thing is to beat Bush). New Hampshire and the following big week (I believe 7 primaries) should knock out another one or two of the four.

My thinking on November? It really does get down, for a re-election, to the question "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (with a side order of "And do you think the incumbant's opponent will improve things or not?" As a ridiculous sample of the latter, if it were Bush-Sharpton, I'd be checking out my company's foreign offices despite my intention to vote against Bush).

So. My advice to the Democrats is to remember James Carville/Bill Clinton's campaign against Bush Sr.. Namely "It's the economy stupid". Pick 1-3 things to focus on, and just drive those puppies home. Said focus needs to be couched in how it affects individuals...and how you plan to fix them (a big weakness of candidates like Bob Dole, and to a degree Al Gore, was the feeling that they felt they were the candidate because, well, it was their turn. The voters need to think *they* *want* you to be President, not that you want to be President.)

The other bit is to remember the general polarization of the electorate i.e. the red states vs. blue states. Your commercials and campaign statements have to get people on the fence, or only somewhat committed to Bush, to *think*. Ask questions, to which the answers are shocking (jobs lost, last time we had civil liberty attacks ala Ashcroft, etc.) so that people have to consider things rather than just blowing them off as propaganda.

For example, while the winning MoveOn ad isn't too bad, most of the finalists were terrible in that they preached to the choir. You've got the core anti-Bush vote already, with people motivated to go to the polls. You've got to work on the ones who aren't yet or as convinced what a horrible job this administration has done.

Assorted comments:

1) PAD, I thought the "where's the outrage" catchphrase was trademarked by Dole? It didn't work when Clinton was committing perjury in office, I don't know why it would work now.

2) The last time a Senator won the Presidency was 1960. Someone asked, possibly rhetorically, but there ya go.

3) I'm all in favor of a true leftist Democratic renaissance, because it would mean Republican victories for 20 years.

Y'know, come to think of it, there's a very strong possible campaign aspect that the Dems could use.

Namely, is Bush a Republican a Republican can be proud of? Treatment of people actually in the armed services? Stomping on basic civil liberties? Blowing up the deficeit (sp?)? There are already some cracks in Bush's armor from the right, where it's starting to be recognized that this admin isn't driven by traditional conservative views but by who's buying them off and the odd neocon/religious fanatics (Wolfowitz (sp?) and Ashcroft).

It seems NASA will be scaling back all programs not related to the new Moon-Then-Mars mission.

And the three states which are the centers for robotic and manned research are California (with a ton of electoral votes), Texas, and Florida.

Probably a coincidence.

PAD

Oh, and I love that "No one can beat Bush" attitude! I hope a lot of Dems think that and stay home on election day.

I never said "No one can beat Bush." I said I don't think anyone at the Iowa Caucus can. I'm not sure why, but I have this gut feeling that Clark might be able to. Although even that would be problematic.

Notice that the Clintons have carefully made sure not to ally themselves with anyone. I think it may be because they're politically savvy enough not to want to be tied to a loser...which would translate into their thinking none of these guys is a winner. That they've basically written off 2004 and are looking ahead to 2008.

PAD

And the three states which are the centers for robotic and manned research are California (with a ton of electoral votes), Texas, and Florida.

Don't remind me. This is what I don't like about President Bush--he says the words I've wanted a president to say for as long as I can remember, rekindles the dream that I thought dead for longer than I've been alive, and it's still a political power play. Everything's politics with him--no dream, no hope, no morality, no humanity, just expediency as far as the eye can see.

My President, whom I voted for and will vote for, has a shot at losing the Presidency.

That said, whomever wins the Democratic primaries has a narrow shot at getting the Presidency. In order for one to win, the President has to make a mistake.

No matter how good any one of them is, the President in his current state isn't presenting a poor enough position to be beaten so handily.

One problem is that most of the Democrats have large, glaring weaknesses.

Dean would be the most apropriate nominee and so far is the one most likely to get nominated thus far. Dean is as far to the left and even farther to the left as Bush is to the right. It is important that in a sense that the Democrat and Republican be far enough to apart to signify the differences between the parties. I shudder if Dean wins. His rhetoric is dangerous. He's like Governor GW Bush in 2000 only more pro-active... that makes the wierd things he says more aggressive and provocative.

Unless the President screwed royally former Governor Howard Dean would have no chance of winning. He has as much foreign policy experience as pre-President GW Bush. I doubt Texas Governor Bush could win a Presidential bid against incumbent Bill Clinton if HE could have ran for a third term. I doubt former Vermont Governor Dean can take the current incumbent.

Lieberman is the most centrist of the Democrats in the current bunch. That's why he won't get nominated in a Democratic Party that is slowly shifting left. I think in an election he'd have the best chance against the President, being the most proper and the least negative. That's also a dangerous position, because right or wrong win or lose the closer the Democratic candidate is in ideological position to his opponent the closer actual party-lines get blurred. Strong competition is important for the integrity of both parties.

Clark is a waffler. He can't make up his mind. He refuses to answer hypothetical questions. He fought an air war in Europe, not a land war, and we still had three guys captured. They were freed by Jesse Jackson of all people. Some military genius. He was also not very well respected by his contemporaries and peers at the time or the then-current President, Bill Clinton. That makes me wonder what they saw that was so bad.

Gephardt I can't respect. He misses out on voting and doing the job his constituents elected him to do. He avoids performing in the very profession that supposedly earns his bloody paycheck and he wants a promotion. SCREW HIM!

I feel sorry for Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, and Dean for having to take Sharpton, that woman, and Kucinich seriously as candidates for the Presidency.

CJA

Notice that the Clintons have carefully made sure not to ally themselves with anyone. I think it may be because they're politically savvy enough not to want to be tied to a loser...which would translate into their thinking none of these guys is a winner.

More likely hoping. If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary's run in '08.

As for Clark, he's got military experience, but keeps flip-flopping on his positions, and isn't an effective speaker.

Whereas Kerry has the military experience, political experience, and has a commanding public presence. He can pick Edwards as his running mate, thus creating a solid North/South coalition. And he'll tear Bush apart in debates... he has a command of policy matters as well as personal charisma (which Gore didn't). So I'm not sure why you're so down on Kerry, at least.

I'm down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article.... I think in order to get attention or seem more relevent or something.

You can't sell me on the notion of his politcal charisma if the most notable thing he said to Rolling Stone is the F-word.

Also, on Clark the waffler:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401190949.asp

Politicians have a tendency to change positions, I accept that. However, doing it this early in his supposed political career (not to mention starting a career by aiming for the top spot) is a scary thing. It scares me. That and to start any career by running for the top position stinks of arrogance to me. At least everyone else is a former Governor or a current legislator, and that includes the incumbent.

CJA

And the impression I've gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don't know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women.

Even President Clinton hates his guts from what I read. And check this out: [Clark] reportedly circumvented both Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton on numerous occasions in speaking directly to the media and the president. In fact, the situation got so bad that Gen. Clark was relieved of his NATO position several months before his term ended, and in a major snub, neither Mr. Cohen nor Gen. Shelton attended his retirement ceremony.

The source: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004060

Read read read.

"I'm down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article"

I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league a**hole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.

Yeah, him.

Privately I doubt the Democrats will do it either, any of them. And as said earlier, I think the Clintons will be quietly happy about that, as it secures Hilary's clear shot in 2008. But this isn't necessarily as clear as that.

Dean I honestly think hasn't a prayer of knocking out Dubbya in November, and quite simply because the message of "I'm anti-Bush", although highly principled, means nothing to an electorate which is being taught to be scared, is being conned into a system of electronic voting which is being slowly rigged, and is receiving mixed economic messages about their future. To connect with Democrats and disgrunted Republicans you'd have to have someone who could wreck Bush in a debate (to be fair anyone can do that), beat him convincingly on the national security issue, and have a positive plan for America that is positive for the candidate, not necessarily negative against Bush. Elections don't win like that. Lastly they'll have to stick at the centre. Gore won in the centre, remember, and following Bush's tactic of running into an extreme isn't a winner.

So is Clark the man to do this? Possibly, but he hasn't motivated as many people and hasn't got the money Dean has. With a few more upsets (Iowa means nothing at this stage) this could yet swing his way, as the real campaign issues start to make themselves felt and the neocons start playing really nasty. He *can* best Bush on national security, intelligence, leadership, background, and appealing to North and South alike, Dean cannot (imho).

Will he get that far? I doubt it but anything can happen, and although I'm desperate for a Hilary run in 2008, I'm terrified of what another four years of the neocon extremists will mean to America and the world.

Incidentally, I don't know if anyone's been reading Boondocks lately, but they've been running a very funny series of strips comparing the Democrats to the Justice League, beginning with comparing Gephardt to Aquaman ("because nobody knows what he does and nobody cares.")

You put forth a very good question in the OP. "Where's the outrage?"

Personally, I think it's the leftist' fault. It's the 'never cry wolf' syndrome at work. They (and the right for their issues) have screamed so long and so loud at the stupidest things that when a good question does arise, the general public thinks "ho-hum, another trumped up charge."

As for who can beat Bush? None of these guys without a GW implosion. I think Clark would be a hoot to run, simply because making the guy self-destruct would be so easy. His "character" is non-existant.

Gary Trudow wouldn't want Clark to win because he's already used the Waffle as a presidential icon in Doonesbury.

Beginning to wonder if they'll try to draft Hillary, despite her probable plans for 2008.

2008 is going to be the most frightening election ever held.

I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league ahole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.**

It's admirable to want attention that badly? In my book someone who wants attention so badly that he'd say any ol' thing is usually listed under "pathetic" not "admirable".

He did win Iowa, and I assume that's not because he called them all F-heads or F-wits.

Personally, calling that guy a "major-league asshole", not in an interview, but in an assumed private moment seemed... honest.

CJA

I find that trait admirable. It sets him apart from the hypocrite who called a reporter a "major league ahole" -- the same hypocrite who was so "offended" about Kerry's comments in the magazine.

It's admirable to want attention that badly? In my book someone who wants attention so badly that he'd say any ol' thing is usually listed under "pathetic" not "admirable".

[some snipped]

Personally, calling that guy a "major-league asshole", not in an interview, but in an assumed private moment seemed... honest.

I think you may have missed his point, at least in part.

I don't think I have much of an opinion either way on Kerry's swearing in Rolling Stone -- but the point above was that for Bush to decry Kerry taking such a seemingly low road while referring to reporters as assholes was more than a little hypocritical.

That's not to mention that Bush is always talking about his faith and how the love of Jesus is what guides him in all of his choices. Seems to me someone who actually paid attention to Jesus' teachings generally doesn't go around calling people "major-league assholes." On the other hand, it's been a while since I've read the Bible -- perhaps I'm forgetting the Book of Smackdowns. (Verse Yo:Mama, to be specific.)

And from what I remember of it, I don't think Kerry's statement was proof that he'd "say any ol' thing." It's not like he started swearing for no reason -- he said that he didn't expect Bush to f**k the war up this badly. Perhaps an ill-chosen word, but not out of line with the sentiment.

As for Kerry in general, though -- wish I could get excited about him. I'm not, at least not yet. I prefer Dean, and hope he makes a contest of it in NH.

TWL

Tim writes...

Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.

No. We can argue semantics. II don't know the exact quote, but they said that "British intelligence claims that..." and that wasn't a lie. And when they found out that the British intelligence may have been wrong, they said it was a mistake to put that in the speech. Besides, as I've said before, even the Clinton administration believed that Iraq was sniffing for uranium. That's not a lie.

Now, if you mean the 9/11 links ... it's all been tricks with mirrors and lies of omission. I agree in that I don't know of any demonstrably false statements, but lying by implication is still up there on the list of Things I'd Like My Leaders To Not Do.

Good God...if it looks like a duck...Ok, I did say that there was probably guilt by omission. But there was no lying on the par of, say, Clinton.

Wrong. It was THE primary reason given to the public for months.

No, it was a reason, not the primary reason. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but a lot of people opposed to the war can't even seem to agree what the hidden agenda was. Was it:

A) finishing daddy's war?

B) all about the oil?

C) take over the middle east?

And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor. Yes, WMDs were a reason. Yes, intelligence that turned out to be untrue was a reason, and YES, LIBERATING THE PEOPLE WAS A REASON. Why this is impossible for people to beleive is beyond me...do they hate George Bush so much that if he helped an old lady cross the street they would accuse him of vote-fishing and stealing her purse? That's where I'm scratching my head.

After we didn't find weapons, it turned into "well, we liberated the Iraqi people." Then it turned into "now we can get troops out of harm's way in Saudi Arabia" (which, let's remember, was one of bin Laden's stated goals in the first place). Now it's just "Saddam was a bad bad man and it's good that we got rid of him."

Check the dates. It's always been about the people.

Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.

And there it is. Go ahead, let's talk about all the oil we've stolen. Yes. We're so greedy. We'll rebuild the oil wells and build a pipeline like Mr. Burns did and funnel all the precious, precious oil away. We won't turn it over to those silly, worthless Iraqi people. Prove it.

Look -- the PNAC documents with the plan for toppling Saddam have been out there since '98. It's no secret that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. wanted Saddam gone gone gone, and it certainly looks like they were more than willing to bend intelligence to make that happen.

Bend intelligence? They worked with that they got. That's not bending intelligence. You want to complain about the quality of intelligence, knock yourself out, because they got some damn quirky intelligence and I'm not happy about that. But I'd rather they put me on orange alert and make protect me than stay at yellow and say "my bad" when another building blows up because they didn't act on intelligence. Seriously, think about it, they either go overboard and get yelled at, or they do too little, something happens, and they get yelled at.

Call that justified if you like, and I'll respectfully disagree. But don't insult my intelligence by claiming no lies have been told.

Not insulting your intelligence. Just telling you no lies have been told.

The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.

Thousands? THOUSANDS? Well, I'll dispute that those deaths were caused by George Bush, but, ok, compare that to the TENS of THOUSANDS killed by Saddam.

The families of those killed after Bush dared insurgents to "bring 'em on" might humbly beg to differ on that

Oh please. Draw me a line...a direct correlation. I'm sure the insurgents were sitting in their spider holes thinking, "Ok, if Bush doesn't taunt us, we'll give in peacefully. But if he says Bring Em On, we'll go and kill Iraqis! Spread the word." What a joke.

And the thousands of Iraqis thanking Bush and army because their children aren't being raped and killed would, and have, been loudly differing with your point of view.

I vaguely recall the musem-theft numbers being downgraded somewhat -- not to the extent you claim here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to bad memory on my part. My apologies -- it was one of the first examples that popped out of my head, and shouldn't have been.

According to Spinsanity, which I just checked, initial reports put it at 170,000 artifacts stolen, and says that the number was drastically lower, with 33 significant objects missing. That's where I got that 30-soemthing number from. I don't knoe how many are truly missing, but another article says 11,000. Which is still significant, granted.

However, the difference is, despite the Bush administration's insistence on making it an either/or question, it's possible to do both: you can devote further study while taking action in the face of the evidence we have. If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.

And why do you think they're not? I guess I'm just asking for a link so I can see this for myself.

The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."

I can provide a reference to that quote if you like, though it may be a day or two. That's the sort of mentality running the country.

I don't disbelieve you, beacuse as we both know, people say the wildest things, but yeah, I'd like to see a link. But still, "people with ties to Bush..." Lest we forget, Enron had a heck of a lot of ties to Clinton, and much of their malfeasance occured under his watch (ever look into the German branch that Clinton forced through?) but nobody ever points those ties out, because "ties" is meaningless.

Seriously ... there's nothing about this administration's actions or attitude that bothers you? You think the country's been perfectly justified in all of its actions both domestic and foreign?

If so, I'm stuck scratching my head. I absolutely don't get it.

Yeah, I dislike the immigration policy. I dislike the medicare policy. I dislike the spending.

But the one thing I'm not upset about is the justified war with Iraq. And I have to admit I'm flummoxed by people who hate the man so much that they're willing to ignore the good that has come out of getting rid of a murdering rapist.

Tim (Hi again, Tim!) writes:

As for Kerry in general, though -- wish I could get excited about him. I'm not, at least not yet. I prefer Dean, and hope he makes a contest of it in NH.

Me too! But for different reasons.

YYEEEAEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!

It's the 'never cry wolf' syndrome at work. They (and the right for their issues) have screamed so long and so loud at the stupidest things that when a good question does arise, the general public thinks "ho-hum, another trumped up charge."

Exactly. The combination of ideologues on both sides have lowered the level of debate.

Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.

No. We can argue semantics. II don't know the exact quote, but they said that "British intelligence claims that..." and that wasn't a lie. And when they found out that the British intelligence may have been wrong, they said it was a mistake to put that in the speech. Besides, as I've said before, even the Clinton administration believed that Iraq was sniffing for uranium. That's not a lie.

Then this was incompetence. You simply don't use intelligence of such questionable origins (and it WAS quite questionable and known so at the time) in a major policy speech. Doesn't matter if previous presidents did that kind of thing; aren;t you supposed to be better than that?

And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor. Yes, WMDs were a reason. Yes, intelligence that turned out to be untrue was a reason, and YES, LIBERATING THE PEOPLE WAS A REASON. Why this is impossible for people to beleive is beyond me...do they hate George Bush so much that if he helped an old lady cross the street they would accuse him of vote-fishing and stealing her purse?

I see you're starting to understand the thought-processes of the "BUSH-HITLER" Left.

I find it interesting that almost everyone who's posted here espousing a right-leaning point of view also seems to be an illiterate cretin.

Who says you can't judge people by the company they keep.

Randal and I go back and forth some more. Sorry for what I expect will be some considerable length here.

Me:

Oh, come on. The "uranium" bit in the SOTU was a bald-faced lie; that's become very, very clear in the six months since Joe Wilson came forward. They knew it was 99% likely to be bullshit, and they put it back in the speech anyway. That is a lie.

Randal:

No. We can argue semantics.

Isn't that exactly what you condemn Clinton for? Based on the exact text of the question Clinton was asked under oath (and the infamous "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" line), Clinton did not lie.

But hey, you want semantics, let's go for it. The exact quote Bush used is:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"Has learned." Not "claims." Given that the charge is at this point demonstrably false, so is Bush's statement.

And last I checked, lying before Congress is explicitly mentioned as an impeachable act.

You've said you consider the war justified. That is your right. How you can claim with a straight face that everything we did to get there has been totally aboveboard and legit, however, makes me wonder which of us has dropped into an alternate universe.

Here's what I see (limited to 4 items, as we both have other time commitments):

1) Bush's shrug and "what's the difference?" when asked about active WMD's versus WMD programs shows a clear willingness to shift the goalposts.

2) Wolfowitz's admission that we violated international law gives the rest of the world pretty strong justification to consider us a nation to distrust rather than ally with.

3) Days after 9/11, Rumsfeld wrote a memo saying (among other things), "[Want] best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden.] Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related an not." That shows a predisposition to use 9/11 against Iraq regardless of whether it was justified to do so.

4) Early in 2002, Bush dismissed concerns about Iraq with a wave and a statement of "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out". That shows a clear willingness to shape the means towards an already-established end.

You say that "well, a murderous rapist is gone." I will agree with that, and I applaud the fact that Saddam is out of power.

I do not believe the U.S. did it in the right way or for the right reasons -- and for that reason, I will not give Bush credit for getting us into war.

Clinton says Iraq was "sniffing after uranium", you say. True enough. Nowhere, to my knowledge, has Clinton made the claim that Iraq had active WMD's ready to go, nor that he was only days away from striking at the U.S. and/or turning the Middle East into a killing field.

Containment was working.

Containment would have continued to

work for some time. It is now clear, after the fact, that there was absolutely no imminent threat -- and that, Randal, was the main selling point of the war. Had Bush simply said to Congress, "We should remove Saddam because his people are suffering," he would not have had the blank-check resolution he got, nor the public support.

Your claims boil down to "the end justifies any and all means." I do not agree.

But there was no lying on the par of, say, Clinton.

Correct. One person was lying about a consensual sex act that wasn't really the American people's business. The other was lying about policy. Funny how the former is always used to justify the latter.

I'm not going to get into "hidden agendas" with you, because they're not hidden. Read the PNAC statement and our official security strategy unveiled in 2002: they make our agenda quite clear.

And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor.

We are, however, able to spell it. :-) (Yes, a cheap shot...)

I'm not saying liberating the people wasn't A reason. I'm saying it wasn't the reason we were told it had to happen right this instant. I have said that before. You are sidestepping it.

Me:

Yeah, well, there are a lot of other bad bad leaders out there. Funny how we don't go after them unless they also happen to have resources we'd like.

Randal:

And there it is. Go ahead, let's talk about all the oil we've stolen.

I don't see a need to. Or would you like to explain how one of the few public documents to come out of Cheney's 2001 energy task force include detailed maps of Iraqi's oil fields and lists of people interested in Iraqi oil contracts?

To paraphrase your own argument ... I'm not saying oil was THE reason. But to deny it was A reason is to intentionally shut your eyes.

Yes. We're so greedy. We'll rebuild the oil wells and build a pipeline like Mr. Burns did and funnel all the precious, precious oil away. We won't turn it over to those silly, worthless Iraqi people.

Um ... you're kind of going off on a frothing rant here.

Bend intelligence? They worked with that they got.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. Plenty of low to mid-level CIA folks are saying that their intelligence had plenty of disclaimers about how speculative everything was, and that said disclaimers were routinely ignored. Perhaps it's not bending outright, but it's absolutely cherry-picking and consciously choosing only those facts which fit one's chosen ends.

But I'd rather they put me on orange alert and make protect me than stay at yellow and say "my bad" when another building blows up because they didn't act on intelligence.

Ah. And another attempt to link Iraq to 9/11 rears its head.

Randal, Iraq ain't no threat to us. We didn't go to orange alert because of them. Those goalposts won't move.

Not insulting your intelligence. Just telling you no lies have been told.

Sorry, both aren't possible simultaneously.

Me:

The families of the thousands of Iraqis killed since March might just possibly beg to differ on that.

Randal:

Thousands? THOUSANDS?

Yep. For just one reference, here's the Christian Science Monitor:

"Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country."

That was in May. Deaths have obviously continued since then. I think "thousands" is more than accurate -- if anything, it may be understating the case.

Well, I'll dispute that those deaths were caused by George Bush, but, ok, compare that to the TENS of THOUSANDS killed by Saddam.

Over 25 years as opposed to 10 months. Our rate of return is a hell of a lot higher.

On to global warming. Me:

If even half of the evidence facing us is true, we should have cut fossil fuel emissions way the hell back a decade or two ago -- at this point it's a question of limiting the damage, not preventing it.

Randal:

And why do you think they're not?

1) We've withdrawn from the Kyoto Accords.

2) We've done nothing to change fuel efficiency in this country.

3) The Bush administration has reclassified CO2 as "not a pollutant" so as to claim that pollution levels are dropping.

That's the short list. Fire away.

Me:

The longer we wait, however, the less prevention we're going to get. Lest we forget, some industry folks with close ties to the Bush administration have been quoted outright as saying that all of this data about millions of years is bunk, because "we know the Earth is only six thousand years old."

Randal:

I don't disbelieve you, beacuse as we both know, people say the wildest things, but yeah, I'd like to see a link.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15814

You may not trust it, since it's from a site that isn't exactly predisposed favorably towards Bush, but here's the relevant quote:

"During the Kyoto climate change negotiations, Leggett candidly asked Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller how opponents of the pact could believe there is no problem with "a world of a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet?" The executive asserted first that scientists get it wrong when they say fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. The Earth, he said, is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. "

I will concede that Schiller has no direct ties to the Bush administration -- I misremembered that part. (I don't think it's a particularly big leap to say that the administration is friendly with Ford executives, but there are no direct ties.)

And I have to admit I'm flummoxed by people who hate the man so much that they're willing to ignore the good that has come out of getting rid of a murdering rapist.

I don't think we're ignoring the good; I'm not. We question the reasons, and we question whether the good is outweighed by the ill. Personally, I'm not seeing it.

TWL

BTW:

I do wish we could put aside partisanship and cynicism when it comes to the space program.

We went to the Moon while embroiled in Vietnam and while near race riots were occurring at home. Comparatively speaking, we're in better shape to consider going to the moon again and perhaps to Mars.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a President who lied about his private sex life while having a nation that was secure, well-off, and friendly with the rest of the world, than a President who lied about WMDs while leaving us with a shattered economy, a gaping deficit, and most of our allies pissed off at us.

Why some folks cannot grasp this simple fact is beyond me.

And I have to admit I'm flummoxed by people who hate the man so much that they're willing to ignore the good that has come out of getting rid of a murdering rapist.

See, I find this position rather sad, in a way.

You defend the war in Iraq by noting the good that came of it, rather than the way in which it was justified and fought.

People defend the dropping of nukes on Japan because it ended WWII quicker and supposedly saved lives. Such great justification.

I wonder how many around the world are getting cancer today as a result of it.

Doesn't sound so justifiable in the end, does it?

I wonder why the hell we have such an interest in Saddam when there are greater threats in the world.

Again, N. Korea comes to mind, but no Republican is keen on bombing their asses to kingdom come.

I do wish we could put aside partisanship and cynicism when it comes to the space program.

I certainly would if I knew it was something more than a political ploy.

And they absolutely can't deal with Occum's Razor. Yes, WMDs were a reason. Yes, intelligence that turned out to be untrue was a reason, and YES, LIBERATING THE PEOPLE WAS A REASON. Why this is impossible for people to beleive is beyond me...do they hate George Bush so much that if he helped an old lady cross the street they would accuse him of vote-fishing and stealing her purse? That's where I'm scratching my head.

Well, I suspect Bush's simple desire to help people is insincere -- then again, I suspect just about everything that man says and does as insincere. Only by running against a man who does not emote can a man incapable of convincingly conveying emotion be elected president.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with the motives for going to war with Iraq; every bad thing that's been said about Saddam Hussein is probably true. My problem is the timing. Why are we so het up to go help hundreds of thousands of people whom we've let suffer for decades, ignoring the hundreds of millions of other suffering people not from Iraq, while we aren't really in a position to do so? We, as a country, aren't flush. We just paid the rent and have to wait two weeks before we can spend any money again; invading Iraq is the shopping trip that should wait until next Friday.

So, when unemployment is high and there are many, many Americans in need, how can we afford 80 billion dollars today for a war that honestly could and should have waited? I partly agree that the UN has proven themselves worthless by refusing to enforce their own resolutions, but for the US to go after Iraq without international support is just stupid right now.

Screw the morality or ethics of it; judging the morality of a political maneuver is like judging the height of an iceberg -- you can easily measure what's on the surface, and you can see below the surface enough to make a guess, but you have no idea just how far down it really goes. No, I question the fiscal responsibility of this. When I've got bills to pay at home, I don't go spend all of my money on something I don't really need. If I do, I get hit with an overdraft fee and my power and phone get shut off. Is the White House going without hot water until the war is over? I sincerely doubt it.

"People defend the dropping of nukes on Japan because it ended WWII quicker and supposedly saved lives. Such great justification."

And many of the people who say so are the Japanese themselves. At least among my friends over there. A couple of whom are old enough to have lived through part of those times. And a few more whose parents did a good job of filling them in on the unpleasantness of the times. A conventional invasion would have resulted in far more deaths on both sides.

As for a blockade, again, many civilians would have died of various deprivations before the fanatical commanders would have considered surrendering. If at all.

If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary's run in '08.

Hillary won't be the first woman president. The Conservative establishment never liked Bill, but they hate Hillary. The first woman president will be a Republican.

Interesting that no one mentioned the true reason Dubya is likely to win, God help us all. Money. He has $100 million already, and will likely have have twice that beford it's over.

The only Democrat with a chance is Kerry, since he's married to Teresa Heinz and has access to the fortune she inherited when Sen. Heinz was killed in a plane crash (years before she married Kerry).

Everything else is irrelevant.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"Has learned." Not "claims." Given that the charge is at this point demonstrably false, so is Bush's statement.

It's not false, it just concerned the Congo: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072803.shtml

Unless you think the Guardian is pro-Bush.

**I find it interesting that almost everyone who's posted here espousing a right-leaning point of view also seems to be an illiterate cretin.

Who says you can't judge people by the company they keep.**

A comforting belief, no doubt. Hush now lad, grownups are speaking.

It's not false, it just concerned the Congo:

Unless you think the Guardian is pro-Bush.

Interesting read -- but step back for a moment. If the intelligence were entirely legit and the problem was that everyone had leapt to the wrong conclusion about which African nation we meant, don't you think everyone in the administration (and the CIA) would be absolutely trumpeting that fact to say "see, we were right after all?"

Instead, we've got Tenet falling on his sword and coming forward to say "gee, yeah, I suppose we should have fought harder to get that phrase out."

Nobody is saying "we stand by that claim and here's why." Everyone backpedaled.

Based on that, it seems reasonable to suggest that the statement (or at least its implication) is now acknowledged as false. Perhaps the Congo news is true, but it doesn't seem to be what they meant.

As Roger Tang's pointed out above, seems we're talking about incompetence of one facet or another. Take your pick which one, I s'pose.

TWL

\\I find it interesting that almost everyone who's posted here espousing a right-leaning point of view also seems to be an illiterate cretin.

Who says you can't judge people by the company they keep.\\ - some arrogant asshole.

Well, considering that most of the people expousing the Democratic Party Line on this thread appear to be arrogant semi-literate psuedo intellectual I could probably say the same about them.

But I won't. Why?

Because while I may be an asshole, I'm not as big an asshole as you, or most of the so called 'liberals'(who seem more stridant and reactionary than any so called 'Reactionary') posting here.

In a somewhat PAD related note, has anyone else noticed how many commentaries this morning compared Howard Dean's post caucas meltdown to Bruce Banner right at that moment before he actually turns into the Hulk?

I don't see a need to. Or would you like to explain how one of the few public documents to come out of Cheney's 2001 energy task force include detailed maps of Iraqi's oil fields and lists of people interested in Iraqi oil contracts?

i explain it that Cheney was doing a survey of oil supplies. There were similar documents for Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.

"What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

Interesting read -- but step back for a moment. If the intelligence were entirely legit and the problem was that everyone had leapt to the wrong conclusion about which African nation we meant, don't you think everyone in the administration (and the CIA) would be absolutely trumpeting that fact to say "see, we were right after all?"

Unless they think there's no profit in bringing the subject up again. I could use the same arguement about Clinton's failure to condemn Bush's use of intelligence.

I don't see a need to. Or would you like to explain how one of the few public documents to come out of Cheney's 2001 energy task force include detailed maps of Iraqi's oil fields and lists of people interested in Iraqi oil contracts?

i explain it that Cheney was doing a survey of oil supplies. There were similar documents for Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.

Yes, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are friendly nations (well, except for that whole "9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis" thing, but let's ignore that -- everyone else seems to). Those are oil reserves we can reasonably expect to have some ability to talk about with the parties involved.

Iraq was completely off the table at the time, and there's no reason to act otherwise unless the task force had the expectation it would be back on the table in the near future.

Why they might have had such an expectation I leave as an exercise to the reader.

TWL

Interesting read -- but step back for a moment. If the intelligence were entirely legit and the problem was that everyone had leapt to the wrong conclusion about which African nation we meant, don't you think everyone in the administration (and the CIA) would be absolutely trumpeting that fact to say "see, we were right after all?"

Unless they think there's no profit in bringing the subject up again.

No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration's truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that's involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?

Gee, guess you're right. It's so much easier to take advantage of the country's lack of attention span and simply manufacture some event elsewhere.

That mystifies me. If someone falsely accuses me of lying and I can find evidence showing I was telling the truth, I'll shout it from the hilltops until I'm satisfied everyone realizes the accusations were wrong. Guess that's why I'm not in charge.

TWL

Dean couldn't even get a majority of the anti-war votes. As for that NYT poll, it was 34% republican respondents and 47% democrat:

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_18_dish_archive.html#107457637391029113

Yes, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are friendly nations (well, except for that whole "9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis" thing, but let's ignore that -- everyone else seems to). Those are oil reserves we can reasonably expect to have some ability to talk about with the parties involved.

Iraq was completely off the table at the time, and there's no reason to act otherwise unless the task force had the expectation it would be back on the table in the near future.

It was about Middle East reserves, period. Just what was there and who was developing it. That's why Vietnam was listed as a suitor (unless you think we're in a conspiracy with them).

No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration's truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that's involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?

No one's talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn't count. Lack of action isn't evidence. Action such as a left-wing newspaper pubkishing a story vindicatiing Tony Blair is.

This just seems a tedious complaint to me. I don't like the Patriot Act (for the same reasons that so-called conservatives shouldn't like it) but it's not like anyone is being rounded up and tossed in jail for what they say>. I can deal with a little name calling.

Free-Speech Zone: The administration quarantines dissent.

I'm not sure if PAD is reading this far down but I really think that Sen. Edwards could beat Pres. Bush. Aside from his Clinton-like optimism, he could very well win NC and possibly TN, which would demand that Bush win a midwestern "blue" state.

If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, the next best thing would be Kerry/Edwards -- that would really put Bush on the defensive.

Dean is just a bad idea. His Hulk Smash temperment aside, I'm not convinced he can really connect with Southern voters or with minorities (the Democratic nominee would probably get most minority votes but you need someone who can really turn out the minority vote, as Gore and Clinton did). Southern Democrats tend to do well with minorities -- mostly because they grew up in states that had minorities in them (unlike say Vermont).

No profit in putting to rest one of the single biggest accusations made about this administration's truthfulness? No profit in putting to rest a scandal that's involved the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes?

No one's talking about it, which by your standards means it doesn't count.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "by my standards", though I'm fairly certain I wouldn't like it.

If by "it doesn't count" you mean "it doesn't affect public opinion", however, I must regrettably concede the point.

Considering that the public appears to have responded with a complete and utter shrug to Valerie Plame's outing, EPA reports edited to avoid referring to any sort of definite global warming, Wolfowitz's various admissions of U.S. guilt, the whitewashing of the 9/11 investigation, etc. etc. ...

... Well, all I can say is "you win. Heaven help us all."

TWL

Of course, if Iowa means so little, you can pitch it from the Electoral College, along with 20 other "meaningless" states (New Hampshire immediately springs to mind).

Iowa is a small state. They've continued to push their caucus earlier and earlier in the year in order to pump up their influence in the primary process beyond what they would have in the electoral college. In fact, they have a state law that mandates that their caucus occurs before any other state's primaries.

I have nothing against Iowa. If you read that into my statements, well, then I suggest you take a few courses on reading comprehension. I only pointed out the simple fact that the winner of the Iowa caucus rarely wins his party's nomination in the end. Ask previous winners like Tom Harkin, Dick Gephart, Bob Dole (1988), etc.

Yes, for a few months every four years, all eyes in politics turn towards Iowa for this meaningless excercise in unscientific democracy. Then reality sets in and the rest of the country votes. But, given the track record, I think we'll see more and more candidates just skipping Iowa the way that Clark and Leiberman did. It's ulitmate influence on the primary process is next to zero.

The most powerful ticket the Democrats can produce (at this point) would be Clark/Dean. Karl Rove would be shaking in his socks at that prospect. Clark would be unassailable on multiple fronts (patriotism, war on terror, foreign policy, character) and would appeal to the military vote that helped Bush last time (Bush's popularity among enlisted men has dropped considerably, Clark could utterly destroy him on that side)

Oh my...Clark is infinitely assailable on these fronts.

Patriotism: just last week Clark was saying Bush was unpatriotic. Need anyone be reminded the slams Repubs got when anyone dared suggest someone was unpatriotic? Now we've got Clark doing what Dems constantly said they were too good for.

So you're suggesting that the Republicans should be allowed to dish it out but not take it? Or are you agreeing that the Republicans are acting reprehensibly and that Clark shouldn't sink to their level?

Repubs denounced people as unpatriotic to quash dissent ("If you're not with us, you're against America!" type of BS). When someone calls Bush unpatriotic because he seems to be turning his back on the principles the nation was founded on, well, although it may still not be a 100% kosher, it is a far more valid accusation that being called a potential traitor simply for disagreeing with our leaders.

War on Terror: He's flip-flopped so many times on this issue, had the quotes shown to him, and still insists he's been consistent. Before the war started, he said there were WMDs and we had to get in there. After the war he praised Bush and Blair for standing strong. Now he's backed off it all.

The War on Terror is not the War on Iraq. To my knowledge and memory, Clark has been consistent on that score. ("Bush is blowing the War on Terror, by not going after the actual terrorists - Bin Laden and Al Qeida.")

I can't speak for Clark, but when Powell made his case, I was mostly convinced that Saddam was a true threat (as was a fair amount of my Left-leaning friends). The fact that the administration was gaming the evidence even then . . . . [shakes head is disbelief]

Character: Just off the top of my head, remember all the flak regarding him being contacted by a Washington think-tank...a Canadian think-tank...make that an Isreal think-tank...whatever it was, and all the "confusion" on what happened. And the whole "Dean called me up" "No I didn't" thing. His own words damn him repeatedly. "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my phone calls." Then "He never REALLY called me."

I don't recall any of this, least of all him confessing being a slighted Republican. An sources you can offer to back this up?

And what's the deal of Dean calling him up? Was he offering Clark the number two spot? And the think tanks? What kind of think tanks and what were they offering?

Armed Forces Love Him: Oh Dear God no. Remember, he was REMOVED from his positions, blamed for fiascos, and trust me, hated by the average soldier.

You're right...Clark/Dean is a dream ticket. Bush will have a FIELD day. You think Bush says weird things...Clark and Dean have flubbed in public enough times to make me happy to see Bush debate them.

Was he removed for incompetence (unlikely for a 4-star general) or politics (said something the brass knew was true but was nevertheless unpalatable)? What fiascos his he supposedly responsible for? And why would he be hated by the average soldier? Please elucidate because either I've missed a lot of news (unlikely) or your opinions are ill-founded. I never said the armed forces loved him, but I suspect he'd be a big draw for a good deal of them (especially those soldiers and soldiers' families now caught in Iraq and disillusioned by Bush or those who were offended at Bush wearing an unearned flight suit or those angry at Bush for cutting veteran benefits).

If they'd have a field day, why haven't any attacks been made against Clark as they have versus virtually every other Democratic frontrunner? And although I have no doubt that Clark and Dean may have occasionally misspoke, I'm sure they have not yet begun to approach the president's level of brain-stopping gaffes (two books of Bushisms and growing).

If a Democrat is elected this year, that scuttles Hillary's run in '08.

Hillary won't be the first woman president. The Conservative establishment never liked Bill, but they hate Hillary. The first woman president will be a Republican.

That doesn't follow. Republicans don't determine who the President will be, the American people at large do. (Although the RNC would unleash the most negative campaign of all history if Hillary ever ran.)

And don't be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I've known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.

Sasha,

the info on Clark's odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.

The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.

The whole "someone called me about 911" tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS

**GEN. CLARK:

I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT:

By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK:

Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.**

This guy could end up being the most fun we've had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter's wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.

Clark was dismissed partially.... well, largely because he violated protocol and chain of command and such.

That, and he pissed off the wrong people.

You can do one thing, or the other.... and it's no big deal. He did both. And the wrong people weren't bad people, so I'm not on his side.

CJA

Hate to break it to ya noooone can beat George W. Bush sorry. These Dems are pure losers. The worst picks they could possibly get. Glad to see Dean didnt get shit. It doesn't pay to be a big mouth. I just sit back and laugh my ass off everytime Dean opens his mouth...

Kerry has run the state of MA into the ground. Businesses and people are leaving the Bay State in droves but no one seems to mention that little fact. MA has the hightest taxes in the nation and this is the guy who is now the front runner??? I sudder at the mere thought of him beating Bush.

KERRY WILL NOT WIN N.H. I will be very, very surprised if he does and neither will the Al Gore wannabe Howard Dean. N.H. knows what Kerry really is a 'gold digger' of the worst kind. If he gets N.H. it'll be because everyone else sucked.

Um, Kerry is a Senator representing Massachusetts. He has no say in state government there. Y'know, things like taxes, overall business regulations and requirements (well, other than federal pork), etc. that you're accusing him of being somehow responsible for.

Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn't particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.

Changing the topic a bit, I believe that if elected President, Kerry would become the first President ever to have been visually depicted in Doonesbury as other than an icon or tv voice (or however you want to categorize Ron Headrest). Back in the very early days of the strip, Trudeau drew Kerry in a few strips as the returned anti-war vet visiting Yale, er, Walden, and explicitly refered to him by name.

Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn't particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.

That might explain partially why he's running for President. He senses that his days as legislator are numbered.

Michigan Senator Spence Abraham held a similar practice. He'd skip and cancel meetings, fail to return phone calls, and generally alienated his key supporters and constituency. That's ironic because before he was elected to that position (helped by Michigan Governor John Engler) his role in the Republican Party was teaching candidates to not do what he did later and not act as he did later. He failed to follow his own advice.

Naturally he lost in 2000. He's now President Bush's Energy Secretary; Spence's career has not taken a large dip.

Of course, while not big loss for Spence, he left the seat to Debbie Stabenow. Not only is she a Senator who makes decisions I don't like, but I'm annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State! The other Senator is Carl Levin and by hook or by crook there's no Earthly way to dislodge that incumbent/fossil until he retires.

It gets worse. Stabenow and Levin are blocking four justices for technical court positions (the so-called "Michigan 4") because the judges are not as far left-leaning in their beliefs as the Senators. That's not fair nor is it just.

It'll be so long..... thanks Spence for condemning us to them.

Kerry may be looking for his promotion largely because the qualifications and expectations are so largely different.

So _who_ thinks I'm an illiterate cretin?

CJA

I'd happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he's the one running against Bush.

Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.

CJA

if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you're extremely young or have Dick Clark-level immortality because I'm not going down for about six or more decades, buster.

CJA

I'd happily pull the lever for Satan if it turns out he's the one running against Bush.

Automatically, how to make _me_ take _your_ opinion less seriously.

1) Do let's keep in mind that I'm an atheist. As such, I probably have a somewhat different interpretation of the phrase than you do.

2) What on Earth makes you think I'm after your approval?

if you want to fight me to my last breath I hope you're extremely young or have Dick Clark-level immortality because I'm not going down for about six or more decades, buster.

1) I don't recall your name coming up as one of the higher-ups currently holding power. Those are the people I was referring to.

2) Any particular reason you're responding to comments that are way, way, WAY upthread?

TWL

Republicans don't determine who the President will be, the American people at large do.

Actually, the electoral college determines who the president will be. Whom the people voted for is considered only a recommendation in most states.

Of course, nowadays, presidential races are decided by the Supreme Court, :)

And don't be so sure that all Republicans would shun a Hillary run. I've known a few honest to goodness, salt-of-the-earth Republicans who would have elected Bill to a third term if they could, and, under the belief that behind any sucessful man is a woman telling him what to do, would vote for Hillary in half a heartbeat.

Let's face it, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics today. Many people love her. Many hate the very air she breathes. If she were to run in '08 (and I'm not convinced yet that she will), it will be one of the most nastiest, dirtiest campaigns ever on both sides.

Right now, I'd say that the people who hate her are far more passionate about it than the people who love her, and are therefore more likely to vote in large numbers. I don't think she has a chance of becoming president unless she does something to really capture the hearts of people like myself who are more or less ambivalent to her.

I'm annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State

You make it sound like you're more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side's opinions. Or that this is something new.

Of course, this is politics in general - Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.

I'm not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way), but I must regrettably second the idea that it's not going to be Hillary.

Not that I'd mind if she did win, mind you. I like her and would happily vote for her, but I think Den's right: the reflexively-slam-Hillary group is a lot more vocal (and, I suspect, larger) than the reflexively-support-Hillary group.

I think she's going to wind up seen historically as a substantial trailblazer who made the first female President's campaign plausible and successful ... but she won't be the one to get it.

(Of course, if Shrub wins in '04 and Hillary does run and win in '08, we have the potential for major dynastic wars. I'm not exactly eager to see the Chelsea Clinton/Jenna Bush matchup in 2020...)

TWL

As a side note --

I'm really pleased that there can even BE a serious conversation about a potential Hillary candidacy. I think it shows significant progress from the days of Pat Schroeder.

Ten years ago I don't know that I'd have bet on a female President in my lifetime. Now I think there's a fairly decent shot at it. That's pretty cool.

TWL

I'm annoyed that as we have two Democrats in both our Senate seats, Republican constituents are usually ignored when it comes to Senate representation in my State

Well, the solution to that is obvious: Get involved in your state GOP and help support candidates who reflect your views.

Or just whine on the internet about how unfair it is that you're not adequately represented.

I'm not sure I agree that the first female President is going to be a Republican (though I can come up with a lot of good arguments why it might well work out that way),

A lot of people say the same about the first black president, too. It has to do with the fact that blacks and women, particularly those involved in politics, are generally viewed as being further to the left than the average white male voter. Therefore, any woman or black candidate would have to be moderate to conservative politically in order to have enought crossover appeal among white males.

This assumption is insulting to just about everybody. It assumes that black or female candidates will run as the "black" or "female" candidate first and on their positions second. It also assumes that the hated white male needs more incentive to vote for a female or a black candidate.

The fact is, presidential elections are not won by securing one's base, those voters who walk into the booth and pull the straight party level like zombies can't be persuaded differently. Presidential elections are won by whoever can capture the 20 percent of moderate swing voters, or what Anne Coulter so wonderfully calls, "idiot voters."

I guess that's better than being called a traiter.

Anyway, the first female or black to win the presidency will likely be a moderate politically because the assumptions listed are considered gospel by the political class. Party affiliation will be less of a factor, but I have no doubt that a woman running for president as a democrat will have a harder time of it because the GOP will hang Hillary around her neck like an albatross.

Naturally he lost in 2000. He's now President Bush's Energy Secretary; Spence's career has not taken a large dip.

I think going from being a member of the US Senate, which has not infrequently been described as the greatest job in the world, to being on the outer fringes of the Cabinet, can be fairly described as being a large dip. The dirty little secret about the Cabinet is that once you get past State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury, being a cabinet secretary is just not all that great a job...

Yeah -- and it's not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either...

TWL

Am I the only one who would love to watch the Redneck Implosion that would result from Billary running against Condi Rice?

Yeah -- and it's not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either...

But at least you don't have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.

Yeah -- and it's not like State is looking like such a great posting these days, either...

But at least you don't have to repeat your name three times when you call the President about something to jog his memory.

My, you're an optimistic one. :-) I wouldn't be at all sure of that m'self...

"Colin WHO?"

TWL

You can hate Bush all you want. You can gripe about Bush all you want. Hell when he gets re-elected, you can come back here and still gripe. Pissing and moaning about it does no one any good. W. WILL win. Who wants to place their bets now?? If the Dems stick with Kerry, Bush will win by a landslide.

Ironically, per stories in the Boston Globe, Kerry isn't particularly liked by Massachusetts mayors/legislator types since his office is usually unresponsive when such do try to contact him about local matters.

Local matters??? Hardly. The sate is over taxed, and, who do you think does that???? W. Bush? Hardly. Busnesses are leaving & people are leaving. MA is a welfare state. Kerry & Teddy have made billions here while running it into the ground. Don't con or snow me. THEY RUN THE DAM STATE.

You're comments about Kerry not running the show in MASS is so wrong. I LIVE IN THIS STATE. It is a shithole RUN BY Teddy & Kerry. Has nothing to do with being local.

I know all dam too well what goes on in MY State. MA is the highest tax rate in country and no one has called Kerry on this issue at all.

(my 2 cents)

If Kerry wins N.H. I'll eat my hat...

Oh and just for the record, haven't you noticed that Kerry dreaded going to N.H. and he even dreads MA, cause he knows all dam well he can't pull it off. People from MA aren't blind and if people from N.H. are then I'll be very, very, surprised if Kerry comes out on top that means the Dems are gonna lose the elections. I'm really hope they do. Im tired of the whining already. I know all too well what Kerry is really about...RAISING TAXES.

Well, I lived in Massachusetts most recently from 1992-1996, and as I plan to eventually return I make a point of reading the Globe online. While Kennedy certainly has influence beyond the Senate, Kerry's influence is pretty limited to Senatorial matters. Put Kerry up against Weld, Finneran, Romney, Bulger, Menino, etc. (past and present governors, mayors, and legislature bigwigs) and Kerry's got minimal say in the local state matters, and as far as I can tell hasn't exhibited any particular interest in having any.

And Massachusetts isn't even near to having the highest tax rates in the US. I currently live in California and have to deal with a 9.3% income tax that cuts in around $38K and a sales tax of around 8.5%, both subtantially higher than I'd pay in Mass.

I'm down on Kerry because he resorted to using some f-cking language in his Rolling Stone article.... I think in order to get attention or seem more relevent or something.

No, it just seemed like an unguarded, honest expression of disgust.

**Politicians have a tendency to change positions, I accept that. However, doing it this early in his supposed political career (not to mention starting a career by aiming for the top spot) is a scary thing. It scares me. That and to start any career by running for the top position stinks of arrogance to me. At least everyone else is a former Governor or a current legislator, and that includes the incumbent.\\

Isn't that what Eisenhower did (I'll admit I may be wrong but I don't recall Ike serving political office first). And the current incumbent's political experience includes six years as governor in a state where the lt.-goveneror has virtually more power than the governor himself and a President for a father. At least Clark has a fair amount of real world experience under his belt.

And weren't you one of those guys all gung ho for a Schwarzenegger governorship despite his utter lack of experience?

And the impression I've gotten is that many of the people who have worked with him hate his guts, so I don't know that he will have big appeal among the enlisted men and women.

Unless I hear some more specifics here, I think the idea that so many people hate him should be taken with a grain of salt.

Even President Clinton hates his guts from what I read.

They've apparently reconciled. Clinton recently referred to him as "the shining star" of the Democratic Party.

the info on Clark's odd statements come from a number of sources. The one about how he would have been a Republican if only karl Rove had returned his call came from Howard Fineman at Newsweek.

I did a little digging on this and read the article. I think this response I've also found best explains the situation:

On Sept. 22, 2003, Matthew Continetti, an editorial assistant with the Weekly Standard accused Wesley Clark of lying. Specifically, Continetti posted an article at 1:45 PM on the Weekly Standard website entitled "Clark Never Called Karl." In the first sentence, Continetti states "WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales?" Continetti cites to a Howard Fineman article that disclosed that Clark told someone "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." The Fineman article was entitled "Campaign 2004: Clark's Charge" and was posted on the MSNBC website apparently destined for the Sept. 29 issue of Newsweek. Continetti then writes that "White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either." From this, Continetti concludes "[t]his isn't the general's first whopper." That is, Continetti accuses Clark of lying about a call to Karl Rove.

However, the Fineman article reveals that Clark stated he was joking about the call. Specifically, the Fineman article stated that "Clark late last week insisted the remark was a 'humorous tweak.' The two others said it was anything but. 'He went into detail about his grievances,' Holtzman said. 'Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked.' Therefore, in the Fineman article Clark stated that he was joking and the two others stated that he was serious.

Therefore, the evidence of an absence of phone calls and the Rove denial support Clark's assertion that the statement was joke.

It is an unfair and also a known, crass trick to use the same evidence that exonerates Clark to accuse him of lying. Specifically, the same evidence about the absence of phone logs and the Rove denial either supports Clark's assertion the he was joking or supports Continetti's more attenuated and complex accusation that a third party "thought" Clark was making an intentionally false, serious assertion (i.e., Clark was lying). Therefore, it is fundamentally unfair for Continetti to use evidence to support his attenuated accusation of lying because this denies Clark the same evidence to defend himself. Such a result would only make sense if Clark were presumed beforehand to be guilty as a liar. Indeed, this is nothing but a classic setup, wait for someone to joke about something then call them a liar, then wait until the expected evidence comes in that they were indeed joking so you can still call them a liar.

Beyond the crass trick of calling a joke a lie and then using the evidence of the joke to yell lie, exists the much more serious issue of intentionally lying. Specifically, Continetti intentionally misrepresents his charge by leaving out the fact that Clark said he was joking. Because Continetti was directly responding to the Fineman article, he either knew or should have known that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally left out the fact that Clark said he was joking. The statement that Clark was joking was material to Continetti's charge that Clark was lying, because joking is a defense to the charge of lying as discussed above. Further, a reasonable person would have very likely drawn a materially different conclusion from the article if he had known

both that Continetti accused Clark of a lie but that Clark said he was joking. Therefore, Continetti intentionally and materially misrepresented his article in order to call Clark a liar. That is, Continetti lied himself in order to accuse a wounded and decorated veteran of a foreign war of lying.

The dust up over whether it was Dean or Clark who lied about whether or not Clark was offered a VP spot on a Dean ticket was all over the news. try entering DEAN CLARK and VICE PRESIDENT into Google and choose your poison.

So there's a difference of opinion of who offered who a VP spot. I really don't see this as a very big deal. And if you do, I'd like you to please examine W's State of the Union speech last year and tell me which potential lie is more newsworthy.

The whole "someone called me about 911" tinfoil helmet deal was from MEET THE PRESS

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But-I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

And where is the problem here? It is possible that someone attempted to recruit Clark to push the nonexistent 9/11-Saddam connection. And considering the mounting evidence that the administration was trying to find reasons to invade Iraq from the beginning of the Bush presidency, I'd say it's very possible.

This guy could end up being the most fun we've had with politics since Ross Perot was yapping about his daughter's wedding being threatened by Ninjas For Bush or whatever.

You must be kidding. Bush has made demonstrably outlandish and exaggerated statements (virtually every single warning that Saddam was developing WMD) and, with his statement about building a moon and Mars base, has shown he's also living in outer space. :)

Sasha, I never said ANY of this was "a big deal". You wanted to know the sources of these stories, I provided them.

I hope Clark goes far, I really do. He hasn't had his Howard "YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH" Dean moment yet and it will be fun when he does (his incredibly snarky comments about John Kerry's military rank on Larry King came close though).

Unfortunately (for Republican partisians) the Dean Meltdown proves that Democrats are not as eager for party suicide as they had seemed to be just a few weeks earlier. It'll be a Kerry/Harkin ticket.

Bill,

Thanks for the links. I was just offering my opinion on them.

The New Hampshire debate was pretty interesting. Kerry was probably the best speaker. Clark, although well-spoken, came across very much as not-a-politician, which may or may not be a good thing. I still don't see or have heard anything from Clark that comes close (IMHO) to identifying him being as loopy as you believe he is.

"Not really caring what happens there, because I'm convinced none of these guys can beat Bush."

Yeah. I totally agree, Peter.

Mindy

**You make it sound like you're more entitled to having your opinions heard than the other side's opinions. Or that this is something new.

Of course, this is politics in general - Republicans will ignore (and certainly are ignoring) Democrats, and vise versa.**

I think it's a mistake to elect two of any Party to both of your Senate seats.

CJA

Doesn't that mean that your ideal Senate is always split 50-50? (That assumes only two parties, I suppose.)

I certainly think having a Senate that's got a big majority one way or the other is a bad idea, as it basically lets them rubber-stamp everything without listening to the minority party ... but 50-50? I'm not so sure.

TWL

Fuck this election shit. You can vote if you want!

Fuck this election shit. You can vote if you want!

fbgfdhgfhxg