Text 8776, 178 rader
Skriven 2006-09-21 21:49:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9273.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: <f6n6h2hs4qm1jo6gmrfp15gb3fh6ha1pke@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<1155498642.569827.315080@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C10

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:36:39 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:m5k3h2ln2kncl361i2e2eiv3ajodfd6cu5@4ax.com...
>
>> Why would they hold a grudge because someone chose to run in a
>> primary? Particularly since if they hadn't allowed Bush to steal the
>> primary and McCain had won the general election, the GOP would quite
>> likely be riding high today rather than licking its wounds.
>
>Bush had a massive war chest and no opposition had McCain not stepped 
>forward.  Financially, he had an incredible shot at the general election. 
>McCain forced him to spend it on the primary.
>
>They didn't like that.

A lot of people felt the opposite way -- that McCain was much the
better man, that he was the front runner, and that Bush won because he
was backed by the machine and played dirty.

>It's fashionable to allege Bush "stole" elections and perpetrated 9/11. 
>Saying it doesn't make it so.

Those two statements seem to me substantially different: the latter is
IMO outlandish, while there's some truth to the first if one counts
below-the-belt smear tactics (e.g., using a phony push poll to
convince voters in North Carolina that McCain had an illegitimate
black child), winning primaries through spending, and electoral hanky
panky as theft.

>>>Guliani, harder to say.  9/11 gave him a whole new image and he still has
>>>some well-hoarded political capital from it. The Dems are sure to dredge 
>>>up
>>>his old image.  If Guliani gets the R-nod the question is whether being
>>>tarred with his past sins sticks or makes the D's look pedantic.
>>
>> Giuliani would, I think, be a formidable candidate and quite possibly
>> a great or near-great president. Kinda doubt he'll make it past the
>> religious right, though, what with his liberal positions on abortion
>> and gay rights and his association with New York City. And how will he
>> do in the debates?
>
>That is the question.  He's not the sort of candidate the inner circle would 
>like.  Depends on who else throws in their hat.

>>>> For the Democrats, barring Edwards making one heck of a comeback, I
>>>> think the nominee is going to end up being somebody we haven't heard
>>>> much about before, someone who's going to kind of blind-side the media
>>>> and the beltway the way Clinton kind of came out of nowhere.  I think
>>>> we've seen the same-old-gang one time too many, and none of them have
>>>> demonstrated any real strength in dealing with things in DC, so someone
>>>> from the outside will, I think, be very attractive.
>>>
>>>The nomination was Hillary Clinton's to lose.  With the successful 
>>>targeting
>>>and destruction of Joe Leiberman democrat senate nomination, Clinton's
>>>careful presentation of a centrist veneeer may prove to be an unexpected
>>>liability with her base.  Then again, with the foiling of a large-scale
>>>terror plot shortly after Leiberman's loss, she may prove be in the "sweet
>>>spot" after all.
>>
>> I don't think it will be Clinton. Like Dubya, Sen .Clinton is a
>> creation of the media: she's not a good campaigner and while I respect
>> her ability, I don't think she has what it takes to be a great
>> president and I don't think that lightning often strikes in the same
>> place twice: marriage to a popular president doesn't make one a
>> popular president, any more than being the son of a reasonably capable
>> president makes one a reasonably capable president.
>
>They aren't the same critter, that's for sure.  And Bill's faux pas have a 
>strong collateral damage effect on those near him, as Al Gore found out.
>
>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.

I'm not sure that that's true. Clinton, after all, was stymied in his
attempts to control terrorism -- Trent Lott even went so far as to
claim incorrectly that he had time the attack on Bin Laden's camps
(think that's what it was) to distract attention from Monicagate. And
the press seems a bit more likely to go after Democratic presidents
and presidential candidates than Republican ones, who intimidate them.
They trashed Carter (not that he didn't to some degree deserve it),
gave Reagan a free pass, trashed Clinton at first, then gave him a
free pass after Gringrich came on the scene and proved a much juicier
target. Trashed Gore and let Bush off the hook until Bush fell in the
polls, at which point they started trashing Bush.

>> I tend to agree that Sen. Clinton's centrism is a liability. The
>> national mood now, particularly among Democrats, is one of reform
>> rather than fence-sitting. With the right played out, the country is
>> ripe for a liberal swing: what the Dems need now is someone who is
>> progressive but not Deanish -- a populist or old-style liberal rather
>> than a New Leftie.
>
>The democratic mood is to ideologically purify the party and themselves of 
>all centrists and other unbelievers.  While Mrs Clinton has a massively 
>liberal voting record, her public support for the Iraq invasion hits the 
>"purify!" hotbutton squarely, just as Leiberman's did.  We saw an early 
>indication of this when Cindy Sheehan took it upon herself to scold Ms. 
>Clinton about it last year.

The left, yes, but Lieberman lost by a whisker, and in a very liberal
state. I don't think one can extrapolate from campus to the party as a
whole. If the Dean wing does gain the upper hand, the Dems are
history, as they were with McGovern.

>As for the public mood...that's harder to judge.  I don't think they're 
>particularly happy with either party.  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 take strong exception to this. I know of few if any Democrats, even
those on the far left, who aren't concerned about confronting
terrorists. They simply believe, as do I, that the United States
should not break its own and international law and ignore its highest
principles and traditions by employing torture, denying habeas corpus,
and running kangaroo courts.

As to cutting and running in Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
and nothing to do with Al Qaeda and it is hard to see how our botched
occupation of that country has been anything but a disaster from the
perspective of the actual fight against terrorism, or how our current
course will change that.

Corruption is much more of a problem for the Republicans right now
than it is for the Dems.

>If the democrats dumped the lar-left anti-war stand and stepped solidly 
>behind the war on terror and on winning in Iraq, they'd have a peach of a 
>shot at the House and Senate this fall.  But it's too late for that now. 
>They're comitted.

The Dems have never been anything but solidly behind the war on
terror, and most people know that -- the polls (just saw an article
this morning) show the public seeing the Republicans as having only a
small lead in the war against terrorism.. There's no evidence that we
can "win" in Iraq: we /did/ win, and then made a mess of things by not
handing things over to the UN when they asked for it or to the Iraqis
and getting the hell out. To "win" at this stage we'd have to send a
lot more troops, and people aren't going to volunteer or accept a
draft to get in the middle of another country's civil war. Hell, it's
questionable whether we'd win even if we lined the country with
wall-to-wall troops at this point: look at what happened to the
Israeli occupation of Lebanon. At best, it would take a long,
festering conflict, as in the Phillippines. This White House managed
to ignore history as thoroughly as we did in Vietnam, with the same
disastrous results.

As I understand it, the Democratic prospects in the senate and the
house are limited by electoral circumstance rather than public
opinion, e.g., during the Gringrich sweep about 100 house seats were
contested but in this election it's only about 40 thanks to
redistricting that's given more incumbents safe seats.

-- 
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)