Text 8780, 181 rader
Skriven 2006-09-21 23:07:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9277.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <70q6h2dln6i144kfn1le04tvlg6c66cn9n@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C105E6BD0053FA6EF0284530@news.verizon.net><MPG.1f4b2f2e98

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:51:47 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
>news:0001HW.C137FDAA024C5B74F0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:36:39 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
>> (in article <86SdnUjGE9w6lY_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, Ms. Clinton's crucial measure is if she can rise beyond the
>>> idology of her party to control terroism, which would be easier for her 
>>> than
>>> any republican.  There's a whol media establishment that will give her a
>>> pass that would never let up on a republican. <<
>>
>> This was a joke, right?  Because every study ever done on the subject by
>> non-partisan interested groups has shown that the Clintons have garnered 
>> more
>> negative press per capita (per 'offense' if you prefer) than ANYONE else 
>> in
>> politics, ever.  While I just read something at Media Matters yesterday 
>> about
>> how Bush repeatedly gets a pass from the press, specifically on his low 
>> poll
>> ratings (he's as low as Nixon ever got, but all the press wants to say is 
>> how
>> he's doing fine, and in fact got a bump from his 9/11 speech).
>>
>> So I'll just assume you forgot the smiley emoticon there, because that HAS 
>> to
>> be a joke.
>
>The (Bill) Clinton Administration had one really bad "offense" (Clinton 
>lying under oath when sued for sexual harassment).  So a division of the 
>admittedly large MSM attention it generated by 1 will give a misleadingly 
>high number.
>
>On the other hand, the MSM has nourished a continual drumbeat of scandal 
>reporting against the Bush admin from before Bush took office to now (brief 
>letup after 9/11 lasting about 3 months).  The New York Times drove hysteria 
>over the Valerie Plame outing to get something like a special prosecutor on 
>the case, only to find that investigating the leak evoked a backlash against 
>a reporter's ability to keep their sources secret.  The Times felt it was ot 
>on the scent of Bush Admin worngdoing, which looks now to be closer to a 
>feud between the Colin Powell State Dept and the White House.
>
>Now consider Ms Clinton's time in the senate.  Has the MSM been hostile? 
>Not that I've seen.  Some Republican sniping, but that's to be expected and 
>isn't "media"

You seem to have been reading a different Times than I was. The Times
was full of nonstop scandal accusations against Clinton, who was
accused by the Republicans of everything from tying up an airport to
get a haircut to trashing the White House to rape -- I wish I could
say I was joking, but that's the literal truth. Comparable (except
insofar as they were a lot less likely to be baseless) accusations
against Bush received little if any coverage -- his illegal stock sale
(cf. Whitewater), for example, or his cheating during the Presidential
debate.

>>>>  The democrat purrists are mor
>>> concerned about civil rights for terrotists and cuttin and running in 
>>> Iraq
>>> than confronting terrotists and the Republicans are revelling in 
>>> pork-barrel
>>> budgets, with corruption as an issue for both parties. <<
>>
>> I won't even dignify the first part of that with a response -- it's so
>> dismissive and incorrect that I wouldn't know where to begin (and it's 
>> akin
>> to me saying "The Republican purists are more concerned about torturing
>> people who turn out to know nothing and in some cases are even completely
>> innocent than human rights")
>
>A comonly made charge from the Left, esp RE guantanamo bay, AKA the "gualag 
>of our time" according to Amnesty International, who should be non-partisan 
>but with that overblown comment proves it isn't.
>
>This topic is about the coming election and influences on it.  When trying 
>to get into the mind of the electorate as a whole, nuance and diversity are 
>lost and a simplified view of a group's POV is the rule of the day.  If you 
>think that Democrats are viewed differently than what I'm putting forward, 
>please offer your pwn reasoning.
>
>Take an inventory of recent leftist rhetoric from the point of view of a 
>casual news-consumer.  What I come up with is: The democrats want out of 
>Iraq yeaterday.  The democrats are complaining about US treatment of 
>detainees at guantanamo, opposing coercive interrogation techniques that 
>don't sound a whole lot like "torture" and oppose Bush admin wiretaps of 
>convos between known terrorists and parties inside the US.  The alternative 
>to Bush's dogged and tired "stay the course" is an unappealing mishmash of 
>"consultation and coordination with US allies" but no distinct plan to 
>consult and coordinate *around*.  Individuals may have ideas but as a group 
>the democrats appear vague and antagonistic
>
>What I take from that is much concern for the rights of the bad guys and no 
>concern for actually winning the war that has been thrust on the US.  I 
>recognize the possibility that my own opinion is biasing but it's what I 
>see, as should you.

I guess I'd have to ask how making someone stand chained naked for 40
hours in a cold cell while being doused by ice water or waterboarding
don't constitute torture.

As to Iraq, there's no clear Democratic solution because there's no
good solution. Bush has bequeathed the Administration a mess from
which there's no nice exit, no good solution. As in Vietnam, the best
we can hope to do is minimize the damage in the face of the
understandable reluctance of our allies to take on directly the
burdens of a mess we made for ourselves, despite their opposition in
the face of Bush's bullying. (They have been helping us out, but the
help has been subtler, e.g., by helping in Afghanistan and taking on
the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.)

>> -- but regarding corruption for both parties,
>> have you seen the Center for Responsibilitiy and Ethics in Washington's
>> annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress?  It's here:
>>
>> http://www.beyonddelay.org/
>>
>> You'll note that only three of the twenty are Democrats.  A whopping
>> seventeen are Republicans.  Of course there is corruption on both sides of
>> the fence, but overwhelmingly so on the Republican side.
>
>I acknowledge that the "corruption" issue hits Republicans harder.  But not 
>exclusively.
>
>That's why I say that if the Dems cleaned up their act on foreign policy, 
>they'd be poised to recapture both houses of congress.  They haven't and 
>show no sign of change.  I tend to think it's too late for that kind of 
>about-face anyway.  Not before the 2006 election.
>
>This is where the 2006 of democrats differ from the 1994 Republicans.  With 
>the Contract with America as their centerpiece, the 1994 Republicans offered 
>a clear, distinct alternative and specific policy alternatives.  The 2006 
>Democrats remind us they're the alternative but their primary identity is 
>"not-Bush", which doesn't give anything positive to vote *for*.

For some reason, they haven't done a very good job of getting a
platform out. It's there -- Pelosi for one has spoken about it -- but
they do need a Democratic version of the Contract, particularly since
if as seems likely they gain control of the house the GOP will attempt
to blame them for the failings of the next two years -- a strategy
which hasn't been working for them lately because most voters can see
that the Dems currently have no power.

The Gringrich strategy -- less the bellicosity, extremism, posturing,
corruption, callousness, and so forth -- could serve them well: pass a
laundry list of major democratic initiatives -- energy impendence,
protection for the American worker, border security, health care,
fiscal responsibility, defense against terror, honesty in government,
what have you -- and then let the Republicans reject them as they
surely would. That would show the public clearly where the Dems stand
and defuse the no doubt Karl Rovian nonsense about the Dems not
standing for anything (What do you do when your party has fucked
things up royally? Claim that the other side can't do better.)

The main problem I see with that strategy is that the issue that
Americans care about most -- the war -- is the most intractable in
that it depends more on execution -- the province of the White House
-- than on law. You can't legislate competence and subtlety.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)