Text 24144, 134 rader
Skriven 2006-10-30 11:49:45 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 24139 av RICHARD HELM (1:123/140)
Ärende: Election
================
RICHARD HELM -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:
 RH> On 29 Oct 10, GARY BRASWELL wrote to MIMI GALLANDT:
 RH> on the subject: Election

 GB>> MIMI GALLANDT -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 MG>>> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:

 JB>>>>> So as the elections move closer, one has to ask oneself, why do
 JB>>>>> the terroris want the republicans to lose the election and
 JB>>>>> democrats to win ?  As soon as folks rationalize that question,
 JB>>>>> they will pull the right levers in the poll places.

 VH>>>> The terrorists rightly regard a Democratic victory in this election
 VH>>>> as a major victory for them.

 MG>>> Of course they do and they're correct, it would be.

 GB>> And now there are 4.

 RH> Your comments simply don't make sense.  Terrorists win when the citizenry
 RH> losses confidence in the government.  The Democratic Party by its words
and
 RH> deeds HAVE given support to the goals of terrorists.

The terrorists have been trying to influence our national elections when they
come.

To get both parties claiming the other is a means for terrorist victory is a
victory for the terrorists.


 RH> One process that the Democratic Party hopes to win the majority in the
 RH> coming election is by discouraging Republican voters confidence in their
 RH> elected representatives and NOT vote on or before Nov 7.  *IF* that
happens
 RH> then by text book definition the Democratic Party HAS aided the
terrorists.

That is one process and not a new one. I don't happen to agree with it. But why
it is done makes the difference. I doubt the Democratic party is doing it
because the terrorists have said lack of Republican voter turnout will help us
win.

Terrorists have stated their preference of what party is elected and the
parties are using the very terrorists words in elections.

And of course, if the terrorists hit us, even not on our soil, just before the
election, it drives votes to the incumbent and Republicans.
But I don't think Republicans are sitting around hoping for a pre-election hit
either.


 RH> The Democratic Party hasn't offered a single plan to accomplish the
 RH> objective of supporting democracy in Iraq or any other country in the

The Democrats are just like the Republicans were before the advent of Newt and
the Contract With America. Contrarians who are out and want in and either
cannot or will not formulate policy, but just point out what is wrong and talk
about change.

I love the idea of supporting and spreading democracy. I wish it was our policy
since we first started this country. But we have a long record of supporting
tyrannical dictators who in then old days just declared they were
anti-communist and would get help from us. In more modern times, all they had
to be was the enemy of our enemy with no thought of what happens afterward. Now
if they claim they are anti-terrorist, they will get a pass.

To be honest, I worry what will pass for Democracy in the Arab world. They
could easily establish an Islamic Republic who elect their representatives, but
still practice orthodox or even radical tenets of their faith and be against us
and maybe even fight us.

Certainly their governments could be made up of terrorists or factions of
terrorists. We see examples of that now.

Without a reformation or renaissance in their religion and culture, I don't see
much hope for what we think of as a democracy holding.

My own .2 worth is we are seeing a slower version of what is left if the wake
of colonialism. The the undeveloped world, after colonialists left and
traditional monarchs took back over, the radical elements eventually threw them
out of power and established all sorts of brutal regimes that only now are we
seeing true democracies rise from.

I think much of the Arab world is in the transition phase from monarchies to
regimes.

Conservatives who warned about nation building are right. You cannot give
democracy to peoples who have never really known it.

I guess I am still a fool then, because I don't want to believe it.

 RH> entire world.  In fact that party's last candidate for the Office of
 RH> President of the United States has openly stated on two occasion that the
 RH> peoples of the countries where we had soldiers on line didn't even
 RH> understand democracy.  He said it about the Vietnamese and he's said it
 RH> about the Iraqis.

I don't think the people have to understand democracy to want it. They
understand freedom and that is all that is needed to get things going. Then
they have to have the will to fight and die for it.

 RH> Clearly the ONLY way that the Democratic Party can win in the coming
 RH> election is that people don't vote.  *IF* that happens the terrorists HAVE
 RH> won.

Well, its the off season vote, right? Where in times past, mostly only the
loyal base votes.

There is a lot of discontent out there. I guess if the Democrats can get the
Republican base not to vote it would be a landslide.

I don't think that will happen.

Discontent and uneasiness does not have to be defined in people for them to
vote a different way.

Cynically we all know that what a politician says is not always what he does
and just because you have a plan, it may not be the right one or even one the
people want more of at the moment.

I think the Dems can win if lots of people come out and vote.

I know a lot of Dems who are all fired up now. I know a lot of Republicans who
are not happy with the way things are going.

I also know its all anecdotal.

But I do know one thing. Whenever we do engage in the democratic process,
unfettered by terrorist propaganda that one party or another gives them
victory, we win. If we left them divide us, we have lost.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)