In case you were wondering, no, I didn’t watch the State of the Union. I simply couldn’t possibly listen to, or look at, Bush for such a sustained period of time. A country with a spiralling economy and a series of anti-environment initiatives faced with the prospect of a multi-billion dollar war that could well serve to be the final wedge in the drive of world isolationism that’s been fostered since the current administration came into office.
State of the Union? Kinda sucks at the moment. Don’t really need W. to tell me that.
PAD
• 
“Sorry we couldn’t catch anyone behind the Sept. 11th attacks. To make you feel better, we’re gonna kill a buncha Iraqis!”
Ah, the White House- where the sanctity of life ends at birth…
Why insist on war, when a diplomatic resolution is still possible. Why does War has to be the first option instead of the last resourse….
It doesn’t seem like any diplomatic solutions have worked in the past 10 or so years. It’s all been a big joke and Saddam been the one laughing. How many more years should we play cat and mouse with this dictator?
We had the hydrogen car here in a national newspaper(UK).They test drove it round the south west UK and if I recall right(probably not…) it was comparable in most ways to a normal car(distance on one tank etc. etc.) except was incredibly quiet and could only go about 80/90 mph or something.Oh and pumped out water rather than CO2,lead and the 100’s of other nasties of fossil fuels.
Anyone know how a hydrogen tank compares to a petrol one exploding though?
Are these things not available now and just need the infrastructure(hydrogen pumps what have you)?
The one in the test broke down and had to be towed back tho’.
Simon.
PatD: If you don’t like the man, respect the office and the responsibilities of the job.
AC: Please: Show some respect for the office and try to have some faith.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how anything Peter—or anyone else said can be construed as not respecting the office, or its responsibilities. Many here don’t respect BUSH. I don’t see how that translates into not respecting an office or responsibilities.
Dennis V.: It’s probably just as well that you didn’t watch because no matter what Bush had to say you’ve already made up your mind.
Luigi Novi: I never would’ve gone up to any of the rabid Clinton-haters who were dead set on believing that lying under oath about a girl going south on him was worthy of impeachment that they should show some respect “for the office,” or for his “responsibilities.” Would any of them have been convinced to change their position? If I had tried, they would’ve said exactly what I’m saying now: What does not having respect for Bush have to do with not having respect for the office? (And Clinton didn’t even have a ex-Pres for a father, a governor of a state for a brother, a first cousin in charge of Fox News Channel’s election coverage who decided to publicly declare Bush the winner when all the other networks insisted it was still too close to call, and a Supreme Court filled with family collections like W. had.)
And what exactly is that Peter was supposed to change his mind about? That the economy is spiraling? It is. That Bush is anti-environment? Just look at his cabinet, and the rest of his appointees. That we’re faced with war? Exactly which of these things is in question? How exactly was the speech supposed to convince anyone otherwise?
Bob DeGraff: 7. Bush didn’t get Osama and it’s unlikely that he will. Either he’s dead and disintegrated by a 5000 pound bomb or he’s hiding in Pakistan where we’re unwilling to go after him.
Luigi Novi: Didn’t the tapes that surfaced after we retook Kabul indicate that he’s still alive?
Alan: Bono of U2 loved it. Since Bono is about 100 times the celebrity Peter is the speech was a huge success. At leat that’s the way we’re supposed to judge it, isn’t it?
Luigi Novi: Where in the world did you get that idea? Peter writes what he does because he feels like, and you either agree or disagree with him. None of that has anything to do with celebrity, nor do I see how that bears on the criteria for the speech’s success.
Artimoff: PAD, If you didn’t watch it, why commint that you didn’t watch it? It seems that he could have said that Iraq was alright with him and that he’s going to tax the rich 100% and you would still have nothing good to say about Bush. We who read your blogs (where did that word come from anyway) know you don’t like him, so why say it again?
Luigi Novi: Um, because it’s his site, and he can talk about whatever he feels like? Because there’s no law against recurring topics of discussion? Because the State of the Union Address gave reason for it to come up again?
DennisV: Like the Democratic party, it’s not in your best interest for Bush (or the Republicans) to succeed so you have to try your hardest to roadblock/badmouth him at every opportunity
Luigi Novi: Right, because the Republicans never did this with Clinton, right? And AM radio isn’t filled with anti-Democrat, anti-Clinton propaganda from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, right?
Johny: Comparing Saddam to Hitler? Too easy, too obvious. WHy don’t we try to compare Bush to Hitler, we could also find some similarities. I don’t mean this as an insult or something like that. But just suggesting, “Let’s think outside the BOX”.
Luigi Novi: Given that much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying both raw materials and credit to the Third Reich during WWII, and that several business operations managed by Prescott Bush – W.’s grandfather – were seized by the US government during War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act, perhaps it’s not that inappropriate.
Btw, Smallville rocked. I liked the Rashomon riff. I thought it was (SPOILER WARNING), the bartender. While I was close, I wasn’t dead on. (END SPOILER WARNING).
Bush reminds me of a fictional politician played by Martin Sheen…and no, I’m not talking about The West Wing. I’m talking about Sheen as Greg Stilson in the film version of The Dead Zone.
Hey as someone who is not an American (sorry from the United States, because you know there is alot more to America than just where you live) the wedge is already driven.
It happened when as a country you stopped the democratic process and still push it as a concept you believe in. Yes Bush got less votes, why are were the votes are made weighted? Does that not seem to spit in the face of those who do bother to vote.
Also Pax America is looking shakey, if you are not aware (and I’m not calling you dumb I think most of you know) the Euro is the currency that is local to the most people in the world (300 million or so to Americas 260 million) the strength of the dollar will in time lose it’s hold as one of trade. I do know what I am talking about because I work for an investment bank and nobody trades in Europe in dollars anymore.
With this in mind what will you hold over the rest of the world as your power, the oil, it doesn’t come form the United States anyway, why do you have control over it? Your leadership disregarding who is responsible you have knocked back a environmental policy that the rest of the world supports (just interested as a country are you aware of the rest of the world, the other people who make up the 6 billion who live here?)
I am not anti-american, but I am not an American, I do not live in poverty, I do not come from a country with a bust economy, I have travelled to 40 different countries and 38 different stated in your own country and lived in one of them. Look outside your own box, if you are religious remember ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE. If like me you are not don’t be a dìçkhëád.
We all read comics and stories written by intellegent people, that why we are here. Why don’t we try to emulate the characters in the stories, Guy Gardner got cancelled, Logan (X-men) is Canadian. Think about these things.
Mark,
To quote your countryman, Mark Steyn:
“But, since the war, our flabby Dominion’s position has weakened further. Not to be alarmist but I’d say the U.S. is coming to regard Canada the way Australia regards Indonesia. Yes, it’s geographically close, an important trading partner, a cheap vacation destination and a nominal ally, but it has to be pushed and chivvied into taking even the most perfunctory action against obvious enemies, and everyone knows that all kinds of dodgy characters have the run of the joint. Bali was a soft target for the terrorists because it exists in both worlds — a Western enclave in bandit country. Canada also exists in both worlds: We’re the country that supports both the Princess Pats and Hezbollah.”
Mr. Steyn has pretty much hit the target. Those few Americans, who actually think of Canada, think less and less of it. When I was in College I agreed with my Canadian friends that Canada would join the Union within 20 years. 10 years later I can’t see us taking you on even as a protectorate. One Puerto Rico is enough. It’s funny, all the welfare state beneficiaries in Canada and Europe who we protected for 40 years sit around unemployed and drinking lattes in government subsidized cafes all day waiting for their next handout and attacking America as the source of their troubles rather than looking in the mirror. Meanwhile, thousands of Poles take the day off of work to join the cheering crowds greeting President Bush as he visits one of the countries of the New Europe. I guess New Europe is too busy working and growing to get caught up in the petulance of Old Europe and Canada.
Sadl, you’re right. The Canadian government (and I live in Ottawa, so I’m more than a little familiar with it) is useless these days. I wish I could say it’s because of the coup attempt by the former Finance Minister, but they’ve been this way for years. At the root, they really don’t care for the military (which spits in the face of the brave men and women who distinguished themselves in so many campaigns in WW I, WW II and so on) and just wish it would go away. As such, they’ve been busily starving it of funds and mismanaging it to the point where it is hardly a sad joke any more. A slap to the those who have toughed it out and still remain in our Forces, trying their overworked best to do too many things at once.
As for Bush & Co, I wish we could hold the high moral ground, but our Feds are also hard at work at trampling on our rights and on citizens’ privacies. I’m glad I don’t have kids. I’d hate to see what kind of world they’d have grown up in.
If Bush had been legitimately elected, he might be worth listening to. However, one who holds office through denying people the right to vote and halting the counting of votes (votes for Gore were there as was later proven) deserves only contempt. And now he’s endangering the country via an oil war that most don’t want–
So…never mind the clearly established fact that Iraq is in material breach of UN Resolution 1441.
Never mind that there are clear indicators of chemical and biological weapons development and additional indicators of a nuclear program.
Never mind that removing Saddam from power has been a US foreign policy goal since 1998, when Sainted Bill Clinton was President.
Never mind that we’ve given Iraq 12 YEARS to comply with the terms that ended the first Gulf War.
Never mind the endless tortures visited upon the people of Iraq in that time.
Never mind the fact that Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Australia, the Czech republic, and others stand with us against Iraq — or that we’ve spent MONTHS working with and through the UN before acting against Iraq — we’re acting “unilaterally!” Heaven forfend!
Never mind the fact that Bush knows dámņ well that the first Gulf war wasn’t enough to get his father re-elected. And never mind the fact that idiotarians spent most of last summer bleating that Bush was going to attack Iraq to win the mid-term elections (turned out he didn’t need to).
No, it’s got to be “ALL ABOUT THE OOOOIL” and we need to give peace another 12 years and the eeevil Republicans are going to overthrow poor, poor Saddam.
What a steaming pile of nonsense.
And meanwhile more Iraqis will die of torture and starvation while Saddam builds palaces and temples to himself.
Just admit you have a pathological hatred of Bush that prevents you from having a useful opinion on just about any public matter and be done with it.
It’s not like you’re right.
The New Europe Speaks As One:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html
And Andrew Sullivan has a good analysis:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
And the French Empire is revolting(click on the picture to see a larger image):
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2135923
http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-01-29T215533Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF196542_RTRIDSP_2_INTERNATIONAL-IVORYCOAST-DC.jpg“;>”>http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-01-29t215533z_01_galaxy-dc-mdf196542_rtridsp_2_international-ivorycoast-dc.jpg"=””>http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-01-29T215533Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF196542_RTRIDSP_2_INTERNATIONAL-IVORYCOAST-DC.jpg”;>
<>
The old “we tried to steal the election fair and square and they wouldn’t let us” argument rears it’s ugly head again.
I’m not a full supporter of Bush, but I do support “his war”.
The time for diplomatic solutions is over. Saddam has broken seventeen UN resolutions. Seventeen.
What really makes you think he’s going to bother to listen to us now, diplomatically? He’s a ruthless dictator who doesn’t give a dámņ about the UN’s politics.
Perhaps the only thing he understands is Mao Zedong’s statement that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”.
You ask if anyone thought of Saddam during the years of Bill Clinton? I did. I thought that he might indeed pose a significat threat to the United States, and that we might want to deal with him.
Of course, if Clinton had decided to take out Saddam, he would flip a few cruise missles in his general direction and have done with it. When it came to the military, Clinton was a weak, dishonorable man who didn’t know his ášš from his elbow.
Really, PAD, I had alot more respect for you before discovering that you’re no different than the people on my college campus who screamed “NO MILITARY ACTION!” the day after 9/11.
“And the French Empire is revolting”
I’ve always known there was something revolting about the French 🙂 j/k
Seriously, some people take this blog to seriously.
On this one I think you are dead wrong Peter. We’re talking, potentially, about someone who has used weapons of mass destruction here. We’re talking about this guy developing Nuclear weapons and being in a position to either use them to blackmail a part of the world that we can not allow to be black mailed; or being in a position to sell that technology to terrorists.
President Bush is right on. He’s taking his responsibilities seriously, unlilke our last President. The rest of the world be dámņëd! Our President’s foremost duty is to protect us. Not beg the rest of the world to agree with us. Our interests come first.
What would you say if at some point in the future some mad man released nerve gas or exploded a nuclear weapon in an American city? Everyoen would be pointing the finger at President Bush, criticizing him that he didn’t do enough to protect us. Well, he’s not going to let that happen. He’s trying to protect us and I personally think he’s doing a hëll of a job. For once in the past 20 years or so, we finally have a President that has a spine and can stand up and say what he believes in, and act in a way that he thinks is write. We don’t need more Presidents that lead based on which way the wind blows. That’s not leadership. President Bush is showing us what true leadership is all about. Standing fast in the face of adversity.
*If Bush had been legitimately elected, he might be worth listening to. However, one who holds office through denying people the right to vote and halting the counting of votes (votes for Gore were there as was later proven) deserves only contempt. **
Please. Gore wanted to recount ONLY the districts he could carry (you know, the Democratic districts that screwed up their own voting). That’s not legal in Florida. Bush said “count ’em all or don’t count any” you know, like the law states. And, naturally, when the unofficial recount for the ENTIRE state was done… Bush won free and in the clear.
Why now re: Iraq? Critical mass. He’s got enough ordinance now to make this messy, why wait for him to get the glow-in-the-dark goodies? Sure, 911 was precipitous. It woke some of us up.
And, PAD, you’re right, you didn’t make comments on the SotU. My apologies.
Peter,
Would you have approved of a pre-emptive attack on Al Queda in Afghanistan without knowing that 9-11 was coming?
And were you in favor of the Democrats threatening Iraq back in 98 to get attention away from that dámņìņg DNA evidence?
Rob said: “Please. Gore wanted to recount ONLY the districts he could carry (you know, the Democratic districts that screwed up their own voting). That’s not legal in Florida. Bush said “count ’em all or don’t count any” you know, like the law states. And, naturally, when the unofficial recount for the ENTIRE state was done… Bush won free and in the clear.”
Actually, that’s not true. The ironic thing in all of this is that the “unofficial” recounts after the fact revealed that if they’d done the recount the Gore camp wanted, i.e. just the “Democratic” counties with the screwed-up voting, Bush would have won. If they’d done the whole state, as the Bush camp urged, Gore would have won.
That’s putting aside the infamous butterfly ballot — had that been more clear, there likely wouldn’t have needed to be a recount and Gore would be President today.
Whatever I think of the man, those are the facts.
Seriously guys,
Comparing Bush to Hitler?Calling him a common criminal? Compared to what Saddam does, Bush is a saint.
I get enough about how bad Bush is from my Dad and step-mom. And who the heck ever came up with the idea that the Republicans are just for rich people. My Mom is a single mother who couldn’t get work for two years in a row because she lost her leg and a car accident and had to raise three kids on her own. My dad is rich and is a democrat and me and mom are living with my grandmother and still barely making it and our true rebuplicans.
If you can say that you cant stand Bush then don’t mind me saying that I cant stand Gore and That Clinton is an imoral pig thats only good for a few laughs when Rush does a funny expression of em’.
I think its about time we went to war. Were dealing with a ravenous animal who executes his own people and spends money on his own fancies instead of his countries needs.
No hard feelings PAD, Im a HUGE fan of your work on Young Justice. You weren’t being critical, you have as much a right to share your opinion as I do.
Thanks for listening,
Rach.
P.S. Some day our divided opinions will lead to another civil war if we dont work out our differences.
Why do people keep saying I commented on the speech without having seen it, when I *didn’t* comment on the speech?
As for Iraq, simply consider the following: They’ve been off doing their thing for ten years, and on a day to day basis, did people *really* think about Saddam all that much? Really? Aside from when he was providing entertainment value in South Park? Did anyone *really* think on an average day, “Y’know…I wonder if we should be bombing Saddam, because he might be up to something?”
I’m thinking no.
—
You’re thinking wrong. From kausfiles:Frum-skipping bonus: One anecdote in David Frum’s The Right Man lays to rest any idea that President Bush was suddenly awakened by 9/11 to the need to oust Saddam Hussein. Frum recounts his very first meeting with the president, in mid-February of 2001, seven months before the terrorist attacks:
I certainly was not cool, but I manged to scratch some notes to keep my memory fresh. As I reread them now, I am startled at how much of what would happen over the next year is prefigured there: Bush’s optimisim about Russia and Vladimir Putin, his wariness of China, his focus on the danger presented by Iran, his determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq, ….
—
And if 9/11 hadn’t happened…an attack which did NOT involve the Iraqis…I’m thinking the answer would continue to be “no.” Which means that if Bush were sabre rattling without 9/11, I’m thinking the vast majority of people in this country would be thinking, “What the HÊLL is his problem?”
But 9/11 happened. And the American mindset that fears more attacks is being ruthlessly manipulated by the powers that be into support for a war that few would have countenanced before.
—
It was the Clinton administration that pushed regime change and started bombing. The best case for war comes from Kevin Pollack, a former Clinton administration official and author of The Threatening Storm:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0304.html#0129031156pm
As for that blood for oil nonsense, the oil companies aren’t pushing for war, but for the opposite: the end of sanctions. If anything, the French and Russian objections are driven by their contracts with the Hussein regime.
—
Rachael – you eloquently state “I think its about time we went to war. Were dealing with a ravenous animal who executes his own people and spends money on his own fancies instead of his countries needs.”
True enough. Now, have you gone to sign up in the infantry? It’s interesting how easily many people advocate war unless they’re the ones on the front lines. And, no, I haven’t either. But then, I fall outside the age range for joining.
Republicans will never accept that Gore was the rightful winner just as they had trouble accepting that Nixon was a crook. If you go to any bookstore, you will never see more right wing propaganda than there is out right now- everything from accusing the Left of “hating America” to the absurdity that Gore (you know, the one with more votes both in Florida and in the US) tried to “steal” the election to blaming Clinton for 9-11– this is a faction of the country desperate to hold onto power at any cost and will endager the country’s freedoms and well being to do so. The odds of an attack here once we hit Iraq are about 100%– I live in Washington DC and could lose my life and livlihood thanks to the Idiot’s Oil Crusade. Bush is nothing if not scum.
Bush reminds me of a fictional politician played by Martin Sheen…and no, I’m not talking about The West Wing. I’m talking about Sheen as Greg Stilson in the film version of The Dead Zone.
Actually, a case could be made for comparisons to seasons 2 through 4 of BABYLON 5.
P.S. Some day our divided opinions will lead to another civil war if we dont work out our differences.
Given the vitriol expressed in this blog (a day old and still receiving replies), an outside observer could not be blamed for being surprised that it hasn’t already happened. One must remember, though, that the most vitriolic responses, on both sides, hardly represent a majority of any sort. A civil war? I doubt it, though comparisons might be made to the 60’s during the VietNam era.
I have an acquaintance (note that I didn’t say friend) who not only anticipates another civil war, he’s itching for it.
And if you are going to call someone ‘immoral’, you would be taken a bit more seriously if you would learn how to spell it.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s about the oil.
I think it’s about keeping the U.S. population scared. Scared and off-balance, because that way they will overlook the economy spiralling down the chute, the steady rollback of environmental protections, and God knows what else. I think it’s about drawing attention from the fact that bin Laden is still at large. I think it’s about seeing Bush seeing his father’s approval rating drop once the Gulf War ended, and deciding the best way to keep the approval rating up is to push us into war so Americans will reject the notion of changing horses in midstream. I think it’s about political manipulation, mindgames, and power plays.
There’s lots of regimes out there, just as nasty as Saddam’s. And regimes who we’re looking to ally ourselves with against Saddam are no picnic either…including Saudi Arabia, which is interesting considering the hijackers carried Saudi passports.
The war serves a purpose. Just as it did in “1984.” Orwell nailed it. Big Brother is called the Homeland Security Office, and there’s an enemy to keep people in line and to make even the questioning of authority anathema to right thinking people.
Oil’s just a bonus.
PAD
Useful opinions are those supported by facts. Bush supporters who blind themselves to the fact that he stole the election (the state of Florida had to settle a case brought by civil rights groups on the issue) have opinions that are less than useless. It’s really not a bad thing to hate someone who has undermined and continues to harm the standards our country represents. It seems that liking the guy is the pathalogical thing..
I know that this is probably going to come off offensively, and it’s really not intended to be:
Isn’t much more productive to make sure that something like the ’00 presidential SNAFU never happens again, than it is to keep whining about? It’s 2 years past, and it’s not going to change – we’re just stuck with the guy for the time being. Disagree with his politics, attack his foreign policy – worry about the things can still be changed, and just deal with the stuff that can’t.
It was amply demonstrated in last year’s elections that the “We wuz robbed” argument from the Democrats carried no weight whatsoever. Those who continue to whine and bleat about it need to get over it, dust themselves off, and come up with decent arguments.
PAD’s sad little argument about Orwell and whatnot ignores in inconvenient fact of Iraq’s flagrant and ongoing violations of UN resolutions and the fact that many nations do indeed, despite the oft-repeated lie that we’re acting “unilaterally,” support taking action against Iraq.
It also is utterly ignorant of history. The 1991 war with Iraq did not carry the elder Bush to re-election. GW Bush is acutely aware of this fact.
The notion of the “crushing of dissent” and “keeping the people in line” is foolish. Has Mr. David’s web site been shut down? Has there not sprung up a veritable cottage industry of books and websites criticizing and attacking Bush?
But, again, let’s all remember that PAD’s pathological rabid fits at the very appearance of Bush on his television prevent him from having an opinion worth considering.
It’s just good to remind people once in awhile that we’re under an illegitimate administration, especially since there are so many who refuse to face the 2 essential facts: The votes for Gore in Fl were there and the Republicans did everything they could to keep those votes from counting (including tossing absentee ballots for Gore while ones for Bush with the same problems were counted: NY TIMES cover story, July 15th 2001)– a nation that’s under occupation should care that it is; if Bush isn’t scum, then scum has no meaning:)
Also: having a “president” who came in in this way shows he has little regard for the will of the people – or the people’s desire to change his policies- especially with a congress which can rubber stamp him all the way now–
“or the people’s desire to change his policies- especially with a congress which can rubber stamp him all the way now– “
First, that statement betrays a profound ignorance of how Congress works.
Second, if “the people” really wanted to change Bush’s policies, wouldn’t they have elected a different Congress?
“Second, if “the people” really wanted to change Bush’s policies, wouldn’t they have elected a different Congress?”
That statement betrays a profound ignorance of the subtleties of the situation. The Congress is very narrowly split and the results of the election could easily have gone the other way.
No, it doesn’t — last November the American people went out on Election Day and elected a Republican Congress. The notion that “the people” are being kept down by the Congress they elected is a silly one.
Jeff, just because you and your party are failed thieves do not try to project your intentions on the people who won the election and all subsequent recounts. Focus on all your successes since then. Have there been any? Well, all those dead people who voted in South Dakota got your Senator the 99 votes he needed to win. There’s an election you stole fair and square. Your lawyers made sure that every vote, regardless of it’s validity, was counted. Of course a lot of people reported being bullied and intimidated by your goons, I mean lawyers, at the polls but I guess that doesn’t matter. Congratulations on a successful theft. Amazingly the Republican who actually won the election decided not to challenge the results. He thought a legal challenge, no matter how justified, would result in too much ill will and resentment throughout the state and cause irreparable damage. Maybe if your guy in 2000 had the same class you’d be able to move on.
Voting a different congress. I’m in a state where a Republican know-nothing was elected into office. Here’s my theory:
Let’s generalize. The majority of Consercatives/Republicans are upper-middle-to-upper class citizens. Some have trickeled lower, just as there are Liberls/Democrats/whatever that go higher up the social ladder but are mainly middle-to-lower class citizens. Can we all agree on this? I think so.
NOW, the Conservatives/Republicans, or, for fun, Imperials, talk amongst themselves. “Listen,” they say. “Sure, Bush is a joke. We all know that. But he’s the best we have to keep us all rich and keep THEM out of the country club. What we must to is get all our allies together and make sure they vote Imperial!”
So they go out in droves. They know that, though the majority of those under them on the social ladder, who outnumber them, would vote Liberal/Democrat/whatever. These people outnumber them in HUGE numbers. But they know something: Many of these people won’t vote.
So, say the Imperials, let’s all get together and make sure EVERYONE OF US votes. Aunt Ethel can’t walk? Fine, we’ll carry her. Everyone of US must vote because not all of them will. And for those who do…well, there’s always what happened in Florida.
So the Imperials go out in record numbers. The Liberals/Dems/whatevers go out strong, but nearly as strong. Because you can’t always get the time off work (the Imperial bosses might make it hard). Or there are other problems.
And, in the end, we’re stuck with WWIII ready to happen.
BG,
So you’re saying it’s eeevil and awful if the GOP does a get-out-the-vote effort but when the Democrats do it it’s a victory for the proletariat over its capitalist oppressors?
Let me preface this by saying that the Shrub administration has turned out *much* worse than I would’ve expected, so I certainly don’t have any desire at this point for him to be President. But as for him “stealing” the election, nope, didn’t happen. I’m not (and wasn’t) thrilled with the way the Supreme Court made its decision in a clearly political manner, but what it still boils down to is that *neither* Bush nor Gore won the election. Statistically speaking, the result was within the margin of error for that number of votes. Frankly, a coin flip would’ve worked for me as a way to decide it. I’m sure that both the Republicans and Democrats made efforts to bend the rules in terms of counts, get out the (favorable to them) vote, etc., and I’m not convinced either side was worse than the other. Gore being in office would be just as iffy as Bush due to extreme closeness of the results.
Wow.
I have to say, some of the bìŧçhìëšŧ, cry-baby Democrats I’ve ever seen have posted in this thread.
Quit whining about how Bush stole the election, already. It’s two years gone. Wait a little longer, and you can elect your world-saving Democrat to oust the oh-so-evil Oppression-Master Bush.
In the mean time, suck it up, and deal with the fact that someone you don’t like is in office.
Well as far as Bush being legitimately elected, Florida is irrelevant. Gore got more votes nationwide. This is not in dispute. By anyone.
Bush is in office not because he was elected by the people, but because he was APPOINTED by the Electorial College.
The Electorial College being an INNACURATE, ARCHAIC, REDUNDANCY that has no place in a modern or intelligent electoral process. Much like Dubya himself.
As for him being a criminal his life as a businessman is filled with questionable actions too numerous to post here. His connections to Enron are scandelous at the very least.
BG said
Let’s generalize. The majority of Consercatives/Republicans are upper-middle-to-upper class citizens.
Not a generality based in fact. You’ll find the strongest conservative support in lower middle class households. This is where patriotism and love of country are strongest and it’s where the GOP’s base stands. There are some snooty rich Republicans left today but most of the Nixon/Rockerfeller Republicans went to the Democrats long ago. You don’t see Barbara Streisand raising $4 million for the Republicans. Your average republican donor gives about $25 to the party. If the Democrats are the party of the little people why do they get such large amounts of money from such a small donor base of rich liberals.
NOW, the Conservatives/Republicans, or, for fun, Imperials, talk amongst themselves. “Listen,” they say. “Sure, Bush is a joke. We all know that. But he’s the best we have to keep us all rich and keep THEM out of the country club. What we must to is get all our allies together and make sure they vote Imperial!”
Actually, we said he’s a good man. He got my vote at a Republican debate back in 2000. All the candidates were asked what philosopher most influenced them. He answered honestly, “Christ, he changed my heart.” It takes character, especially given the hostile nature of the evangelical secularist fringe in this country, to stand up and speak such things openly and freely. Other people like him for other reasons. To most of us, he’s the right man at the right time.
So they go out in droves. They know that, though the majority of those under them on the social ladder, who outnumber them, would vote Liberal/Democrat/whatever. These people outnumber them in HUGE numbers. But they know something: Many of these people won’t vote.
You do like your imaginary generalities. And what is this “these people” you refer to? Sounds racist to me. Typical.
So, say the Imperials, let’s all get together and make sure EVERYONE OF US votes. Aunt Ethel can’t walk? Fine, we’ll carry her. Everyone of US must vote because not all of them will. And for those who do…well, there’s always what happened in Florida.
Yes, every Republican should vote after the attempted larceny of the Democrats in 2000. Thieving bûggërš.
So the Imperials go out in record numbers. The Liberals/Dems/whatevers go out strong, but nearly as strong. Because you can’t always get the time off work (the Imperial bosses might make it hard). Or there are other problems.
Based on exit polls voters felt that national defense was the most important issue and that the Democrats weren’t up to the job.
And, in the end, we’re stuck with WWIII ready to happen.
That’s what happens when your leaders are too busy banging interns and dodging lawsuits to defend the country. Based on the culture displayed by our entertainment industry, the morals and cowardice displayed by our President, the Islamist barbarians could have thought nothing else but that we were a nation of glass jawed yokels who were too weak and cowardly to take a hit. In some cases that is all too sadly true.
The independent newspaper recount declared Gore the winner in Florida–gee, is it any wonder that Rush Limbaugh is a Republican saint considering their hatred of facts? Ronald Reagan too, for that matter- a man who couldn’t tell movies from real life–
Gore was the popular vote winner, the will of the people of Florida and the winner of the newspaper recount- the closest thing to an accurate count we’ll ever have. Your man stole the election. He’s running the country incredibly badly and we are going to be in worse shape yet by the time he’s done. Bank on it.
That the electoral college, not the popular vote, determines who becomes President should not be news to anyone who has ever stayed awake in middle school.
It should be noted that the votes of the Electoral College were counted, as per Constitutional procedure, by Vice President Al Gore.
The Electoral College is an un-funny joke and the Constitution should have been amended to correct this mistake many, many, many years ago.
It makes a mockery of what democracy is supposed to be (the will of the PEOPLE), and serves no real purpose anymore.
And if it were the other way around, and the Republicans lost through a CONSTITUTIONAL LOOPHOLE, they would be the ones saying this now.
How is a system that is used in every single election for president a loophole?
And you might want to buy a copy of the Constitution and read it; the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
I don’t doubt that Republicans would be having the same sorts of infantile hissy fits many Democrats have been having since December 2000. That doesn’t make it any less embarassing and pathetic for me, as a Democrat (one who fondly remembers when liberals were AGAINST totalitarian dictators), to watch.
If Gore had won through the same tactics that put Bush in office, we’d never hear the end of it– the Right is famous for intellectual dishonesty- if not for intellect..
It is a loophole- obviously- because it allowed George W. Fraud win a supposedly democratic election even though he didnt get enough votes to win democratically.
As for that Republic/Democracy comparison… whatever dude. you’re just playing stupid political word games now. If were not a democracy then why are we so hot to spread democratic ideals across the globe? I never hear of us trying to spread ‘repulicacy’ (?)
It just sounds to me that you’re just so biased against democrats that you’re just trying to find a way to dis the word ‘democrat’ and replace it with ‘republic’
Again, I say ‘whatever’.
Jeff Z said: The independent newspaper recount declared Gore the winner in Florida
The Miami Herald counted the 3 disputed county’s balots and Bush, not Gore was the winner by more votes than first thought. Was the Independent papers recount state wide or just the 3 disputed counties? What was the name ot the paper? I ask because as a rule (more than 51%)Indipendent newspapers are Left leaning.
The “we stole the election fair and square” crowd remind me more and more of the fundamentalist Iranians back in the late seventies. So obsessed with their fundamentalist beliefs that they are willing to destroy the society they want to control. They seem to operate on the George Costanza school of thought that it isn’t a lie if you believe it.
So, do people consider the system for picking the Prime Minister of Britain as bad as the Electoral College?
‘Cause really, it’s the same sort of thing in that the PM is elected by the winners of N separate elections throughout Britain; they just happen to be members of Parliament rather than EC electors.
There are pros and cons to the Electoral College approach. On the one hand, it’s certainly possible for someone to lose in the EC despite getting more overall votes (although I’ll note that all such situations so far have still have *very* close popular vote results, so it’s not like someone’s getting 55% of the popular vote and losing). And certain large states aren’t really campaigned in due to knowledge that they’ll go to one candidate or another, and since it’s winner take all, it’s not worth trying to get the Republican vote in Massachusetts up to 45% from 35% (numbers made up).
On the other hand, if it was based on a single national popular vote (and note that President/VP is the *only* office that’s elected nationally, so there are potential problems there), I can guarantee that no non-native Presidential candidate will ever set foot in North Dakota, Maine, Alabama, Wyoming, etc. again.
I don’t question Bush’s legitimacy. As TYG noted, this was a coin-flip election – and I predict that, as both entrenched parties attempt to dance on the head of the same centrist pin (at least during election years), they will continue to be so.
What I question is his policy and, in my more cynical moments, his competency. (But hey, that’s why he’s got all those warmed-over 80s pols to tell, er, advise him what to do, right?)
I also think he should get on with it – not because the war is just, but because it’s obvious at this point that nothing will dissuade him and any further delay is a transparent pretense at being reasonable and diplomatic. So we might as well just get it over with and start dealing with the awful consequences.
Anthony Abbey: ” We’re talking, potentially, about someone who has used weapons of mass destruction here. We’re talking about this guy developing Nuclear weapons and being in a position to either use them to blackmail a part of the world that we can not allow to be black mailed; or being in a position to sell that technology to terrorists.”
It’s interesting that you bring this up. Until I read further on in your post, I was dead certain that you were discussing Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea. This is a country that has the ability to deliver nuclear or biological or chemical weapons to the US, via ICBM. Yes, they HAVE the weapons. Under Bush’s bully doctrine of strike first because they might be dangerous at some unspecified time in the future, we should be going after North Korea right now. But, of course, we won’t.
Bush revealed his real reasons for targeting Iraq last year when he said, “He tried to kill my daddy.” Of course, his spinmeisters tried to work their way out of it, but the record stands.
It seems as if Bush and his Shadow Government (look it up) feel that, with poll numbers diving, the only way to get support for a war in Iraq is to go to war with Iraq. Rally round the troops is a well known phenomena in America and Bush is hoping it will rub off on him in his infantile and inane quest to strengthen his father’s legacy of ineptitude.