Text 8964, 768 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 12:25:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9461.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <n7udnZ_kMedAx4jYnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<1155690632.218605.182870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><v4CdnZAimscq5n_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com><m5k3h2ln2kncl361i2e

My newsreader sometimes refuses to quote properly.  This is one of those
times.


"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o739h2tadqarqhu08sjn6s4abbb0h8fdek@4ax.com...

>You are leaning very close to insiting on the severity of every issue
>raised
>about a republican and dismissing or diminishing every issue reaised about
>a
>democrat.

> Always a risk, and I don't mean to imply that all Democratic
> allegations have been warranted and Republican not, but I think it's
> pretty clear that there has been a large disjunction between the
> behavior of the two national parties in this regard -- hell, at times
> an extreme disjunction -- Where are the Democratic equivalents of the
> accusations of rape and murder?

Allegations of criminality are easy: Bush stole both elections and acocrding
to you, the 2000 primary as well.  Bush is accused of murder (that's the
whole Iraq = viet nam, Bush = LBJ angle) every time an american soldier dies
in Iraq.  Bush is tarred personally with torture allegations and for
building the "gulag of our time", guantanamo bay.

There's a long list of false-criminal charges so routinely laid at his door
it's easy to forget about them.

> Of the impeachment affair?

You missed where democrats were promising to impeach Bush if they got
control of the house and senate?


> Of the
> illegal and unpunished Lewinsky taping by a former Nixon operative?

Clinton's perjury went unpunished in a criminal sense.  he did lose his law
license for a few years.

I don't think the Democrats use too many former Nixon operatives.

The New York times has repoted much that damaged national security in time
of war and gotten away with it.


> Of
> the Swift Boating?

CBS attempted to swift-boat Bush.

The Swift-boat veterans were one organization among a sea of them in
2004--most of the others were anti-bush.


> Of the Gore telephone nonsense? Put them in two
> columns, and one will be a lot longer than the other.

Your right. The democrats do this stuff way more than republicans.


>>>The MSM did not participate in the attacks on Clinton.  They did not
>>>research or question why the Clintons kept FBI files on their (the
>>>Clintons') opponents for so long or why they culdn't accout for the
>>>files'
>>>hereabouts until they suddenly materialized on a random table somewhere.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>
>Memory.  IIRC the story put out y the Clinton White House was that they
>found the missing files (after several weeks of uproar) on a table
>(presumably also in the white house).  I use the word "random" because I
>don't believe a word of such a lame explanation.

> I wasn't referring to the missing FBI files, about which I have no
> opinion, but to the assertion that the press didn't research or
> question their absence. In fact, I can't imagine that they didn't. But
> there's only so much they can get if no one is willing to talk -- or
> if there's no real story to talk /about./

You are assuming.


>>>The exception was the Lewenski affair where the MSM did involve itself
>>>directly.  Ratings greed overcame politics at that point.
>>
>> The press (I dislike the term "media," which was a cynical Agnewism
>> calculated to replace a revered term -- "press" -- with a vaguely
>> sinister one) issued a constant stream of reports on the Clinton
>> allegations, from rape to stolen ashtrays. When I compare
>> point-for-point the coverage of the Clinton allegations vs. comparable
>> Bush allegations, it becomes clear that as Amy pointed out the former
>> received much more attention. Compare, for example, two roughly
>> comparable allegations, Bush's illegal insider stock sale and
>> Whitewater.
>
>You're comparing individual issues.  I am comparing overall treatment.
>With
>a noted exception or two, Clinton got a pass.

> I just don't see that. They trashed him for two years. It was only
> after Gringrich came online that they gave him a pass, Gringrich being
> much scarier and a much juicier subject.

You already said that.

I already said that Clinton made his own troubles.  The MSM reported
republican accusations and nothing more.


> After Gringrich, Clinton
> could do no wrong. Which is in keeping with my original assertion --
> that the bias exhibited by the press is not partisan in nature, except
> insofar as they are sometimes scared of Republicans or overcompensate
> in an attempt to be even-handed. To paraphrase what an editor at the
> Times said a few weeks back, they receive constant criticism from both
> sides; it seems inconceivable to partisans that some people might
> simply be interested in reporting the facts.

There was nothing "scary" about Gengrich to a non-partisan.  He was a
bomb-thrower, yes.  You'd have to be a leftist to be scared of him.

Oh that's right.  Newspeple are mostly leftist, aren't they?

Nobody "overcompensated" against Clinton.  Ever.


>But if you want to talk specifics, what investigation DID the MSM do into
>whitewater?  IIRC they pretty much took Ms. Clinton's word at face value.

>I draw a distinction between reporting what someone else says and digging
>for onr's own information.  I don't remember the MSM being very interested
>in digging into whitewater.  It was simply something that dogged the
>clintons and wouldn't go away.

> The press investigated Whitewater to death.

Did they investigate or report the same old stuff?  I don't recall 60
Minutes or The Times breaking anything new on the subject.  I'm sure there
was reporting on the digging done by Republicans.  They're the ones what
kept whitewater alive.

That's the way the MSM  works.

When the issue concerns a democrat, the MSM is a stenographer.  They report
what is said and usually are diligent about reprting which sources involved
are conservative.  The story is allowed to continue or not accoridng to how
well it plays.

When the issue concerns a republican, the MSM becomes the investigative
reporter hot on the heels of the next watergate.  liberal sources are quoted
as authoritative, often without identifying their political alignment.  They
stay on the story and nourish it to keep it going.

You can bribe the MSM into breaking with its politics, but the only currency
accepted is ratings gold.


>>>OTOH, the MSM has spearheded and supported the drumbeat of allegations
>>>agianst the GW Bush Admin.  The Times demanded an investigation into who
>>>leaked Valerie Plame's name.
>>
>> The disclosure of a deep cover CIA agent is a very serious act --
>> don't let Bush Administration propaganda fool you into thinking
>> otherwise, the CIA was furious -- and in some cases seriously illegal.
>
>Not illegal in this case, as Patrick Fitgerald announced quite a while ago.

> Yes, but that was not apparent at the time, and the likelihood of
> illegality made it a proper subject for investigation and coverage.
> Hell, it would have been even  had it not been illegal.

I disagree.  By the time Amy and I debated the issue here, many facts were
known.  We already knew that Plame's last covert assignment had been longer
ago than could be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection
Act .  Nobody on the left cared.  They thought they had at the very least
Karl Rove's head on a stick (and were looking for Cheney) when all they had
was Rove saying "I heard that."  You did too, as I recall.

There was no reasoning with the left on this.

There was no illegality or liklihood of illegality.  Anyone who actually
researched the law would know that.  Either the Times was CBS-grade sloppy
or, like CBS, they didn't care.  They thought they had the goods n the Bush
admin and went for it.


>It was merely a case of Richard Armitage being a gossip and Bob Novak
>connecting the dots.

I don't believe that. At least two other people in the Adminstration
disclosed her name -- Libby and Rove.

At worst, Libby confirmed what Novak heard from Armitage.  And in Rove's
case, *Rove* heard it *from* Novak.

Meanwhile the Left is scremaing "treason" and photoshopping Rove in
handcuffs.


>I'm sure the CIA was furious.  At least those who allowed a Bush Admin foe
>(Joe Wilson) to go to Niger.

> That, I think, is an unworthy partisan slur.

I don't think so.  I think the CIA agent who sent Joe Wilson to Nigeria knew
exactly what he was doing.  He was putting partisanship ahead of his job.


> They are furious because of what the Bushies did to Mrs. Wilson and
> her contacts.

She had long since been rotated stateside.  I seriously doubt any
allegations of damage.


>> A respected former ambassador claimed that the Administration had
>> harmed national security and possibly broken the law to gain revenge
>> against someone who had gone public with information that harmed the
>> Administration's case to go to war in Iraq -- information that was
>> absolutely correct. A newspaper that didn't report on that would be
>> guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
>
>You HAVE been following the news, right?
>
>Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name to Bob Novak and Armitage is no Bush
>Admin loyalist.  To repeat the tired, old--and refted by evidence--revenge
>charge is pretty pointless and not worth further discussion.

> Novak's spin on it. The fact that at least two others disclosed the
> info to just about every reporter in Washington suggests otherwise.

That's Armitage.  The rest is empty conspiracy theory.


>> That being said, how could the /news pages/ demand an investigation?
>> The editorialists possibly did, but editorials are not supposed to be
>> unbiased -- they're opinion pieces.
>
>Did I *say* the Times news page demanded anything?  I don't recall being
>specific.
>
>That said, the Times' news page made a good deal out of what has turned out
>to be nothing, devoting many headlines to every turn of the case.  You want
>a case of investigative reporting with nothing to show for it, look no
>further.  Rove, Cheney and Bush are in the clear because they always were.
>The times though they had the goods.

> You seem to hold them to different standards in the Whitewater case.
> That investigation yielded less than the Plame leak did -- absolutely
> nothing -- yet it was reported and investigated exhaustively, much
> more extensively than the Plame case.

Hardly.  I know exactly what to expect from the Times.  Little investigation
into a democrat, and much investigation into a republican.  The fact that
the Times found nothing interesting in Whitewater and literally made a
federal case out of Plame is perfectly in keeping with my expectations.


> It is the job of reporters to investigate and report. They would not
> be doing their job if they did not do so. And a story that involves
> the disclosure of a deep-cover CIA agent by at least three high
> government officials, the incarceration of two prominent reporters, a
> criminal investigation, the deposition of a president, the indictment
> and resignation of the Vice President's chief of staff, the President
> being caught in a lie and his administration being caught in many, at
> least three in the Bush Administration disclosing classified
> information to the press, a respected former ambassador making (still)
> credible claims of retaliation -- such a story is to say the least big
> news and can hardly be ignored.

And yet for all that work, the Times ignored the fact that there was nothing
there.

The agent wasn't deep-cover and hadn't been for a long time.

The agent's identity was disclosed after the first government official
leaked it and the information was confirmed only in followup on the original
story.

The VP's chief of staff was not indicted for outing plame but for impeding
an investigation that wasn't needed to begin with.  Patrick Fitzgerald knew
Armitage was the original leak within days of starting his investigation.
he went fishing an only caught the official who freaked out and didn't want
to be honest.

You make it sound so gravely serious but it falls apart on close
examination.


>>>They revealed the names of countries ading the
>>>US by allowing  us to hold important detainees.
>>
>> So?
>
>It's a direct attempt to undermine the Bush Admin's conduct of the war on
>terror.  It's information nobody needs to know, except that it makes the
>Bush admin appear bad.

> It's just the news -- information that's of use to the voting public.

It's the sort of thing that makes the war on terror harder and thus gets
people killed.


>>>CBS presented false memoes
>>>pretaining to Bush's national guard service in the midst of a
>>>presidential
>>>election.
>>
>> CBS made an error. When it was shown to be an error, they retracted it
>> and their anchor resigned in disgrace. So?
>
>They tried to influence the outcome of a presidential election by reporting
>a gross falshood as fact.

> What you've done here and above is to invent nefarious motives and
> accusations when you have no evidence whatsoever that the people
> involved had such motives. This is precisely the sort of Republican
> behavior of which I've been complaining.

They brought this out.

In an election year.

Gave it prime time play on 60 Minutes.

They didn't take the time to properly authenticate the documents, didn't pay
attention when many of their experts shied away from endoursing the memos.

They went ahead amid warning signs aplenty.

That's enough for me.


> I know some of these people, some of the people in the press, at the
> Times, at CBS. They are honest and they are dedicated to their craft
> and they know damn well that if for some crazy reason they make things
> up they will eventually get caught and their careers will be ruined.
> Which is to say that they are not in the least like the lying
> sleazeballs in the White House.

That's just what I expect from a Democrat.  Can't say five sentences without
tossing out a personal attack on the Bush Admin.

I can sling stereotypes too if that's the way you want to play.  It gets us
nowhere.

I'm sure most newspeople are genuine and earnest.  That doesn't change my
opinion of Rathergate one iota.  It was a poorly-done hatchet job that
Rather and his people swallowed because they wanted it to be true.

It's like that doctored photo of the aftermath of an israeli attack (in
Beirut) that Reuters happily passed on as genuine despite the lousy
photoshop work that went into it


> I am so tired of this crap, of the excuses made for people who have
> been shown to have lied again and again and again, and the attacks on
> those who ferret out the truth. It's grotesque.

Rather should have stuck to the news than try to finesse politics.  If his
actions put a black mark on the profession, or worse illuminate an
institutional failing of the profession, the fault lies with Rather in the
first case and the institution in the second.  Responsibility for actions
comes home to roost as it always does sooner or later.


>>>Beause they aren't life or body threatening.  The people in the cold room
>>>aren't freezing fingers or toes off.  Nor are the waterboarded people
>>>actually suffocating.  They are being made very, very uncomfortable.
>>
>> The definition of "torture" is not "life threatening." Indeed, it is
>> not in the interest of the torturer to kill his victim if he wants
>> information.
>
>"Life-threateneing" was only part of my reply.

> No, you also called torture "very, very uncomfortable." And I think
> that whitewash speaks volumes.

How it is a whitewash?

You believe it is torture, I don't.


>>>This contrasts with being whipped, beaten, red-hot pokers, pulling out
>>>people's fingernails...
>>
>> And that is torture too.
>
>Damage, often permant damage is being inflicted on people.  There is a
>difference.

A DEADLY INTERROGATION
Can the C.I.A. legally kill a prisoner?
by JANE MAYER

> 'Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi
> prisoner in [CIA operative] Swanner's custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died
> during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag,
> and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his
> ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have
> examined the case, he asphyxiated. In a subsequent internal
> investigation, United States government authorities classified
> Jamadi's death as a "homicide," meaning that it resulted from
> unnatural causes. Swanner has not been charged with a crime and
> continues to work for the agency.'

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact

> I suppose you'll now say that the fellow who died was merely very,
> very indisposed, and that death by hot poker is deader than death by
> asphyxiation, and that the New Yorker should not have investigated
> because they're aiding and abetting our enemies.

The Time is aiding and abetting our enemies.

No, I'd ask you for proof that this man's methods were sanctioned.  We
already know Abu ghraib was out of control.  Note how scnction is implied
but not stated.

For the record, the interragator should have been charged with crimes and
tried for them.


>>>If we caught Osma bin laden tomorrow, I'd sign the order to waterboard
>>>him
>>>if I had the authority and the experts concluded it was the proper
>>>technique.
>>>
>>>There would be a temptation to waterboard him just because he's Osama and
>>>that would still be wrong.
>>
>> If we caught Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, I would give him a fair trial,
>> confident in my belief that in doing so we would do far more good for
>> our country, and achieve a far greater victory, than we would by
>> obtaining questionable confessions through the utilization of morally
>> repugnant techniques associated with tyrants, thugs, and dictators.
>
>...and by asking with nothing more aggressive than "pretty please with
>sugar
>on top" you'll get nothing actionable, and the open-court trial will ensure
>that the intelligence methods used to capture him will be useless in the
>future, with the alternative being releasing bin laden for lack of evidence
>should your administration want to keep methods that work secret.
>
>This is a war, not a criminal matter.  Harsher rules apply.  Trying bin
>laden is not a tenth as important as taking his organization apart.  You
>place too much important on the tiral and too little on what's needed to
>win.

> Even war has rules. The Bush Administration has merely chosen to
> ignore them. I'll let an eminent Republican and military man say the
> rest:

> Dear Senator McCain,

> I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in
> Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do
> not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the
> McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

> I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one my
> [sic] distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
> Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and tint his
> powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of
> our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to
> those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

> I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It
> was written after all the horrors of World War II and General George
> C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and
> to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those
> in our custody.

> Sincerely,

> Colin Powell

The world always "doubted" the Bush Admin.  There is no "beginning" to 
doubt.  Bush is guilty (of whatever) until proven innocent.  That's the way 
it's always been.

Redefining Article 3 or leaving it as-is (undoubtably the most expansive 
reading possible) will not change the presumption of guilt.  It's just 
another talking point, more or less.

And irrelevant.  Congress has defined coercive methods that the Bush Admin 
can use.  Since anything above "pretty please" is torture to you, the Bush 
admin  has some methods of torture (by your definition of torture) open to 
it at this time.


>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>>I am unimpressed by 100 (200?) engineers France volunteered for Lebanon.
>>
>> So was everybody. They upped it to 2000.
>
>2000 engineers or combat troops?  If it's engineers, I'm still unimpressed.
>
>Has anybody else signed on?

> Yes.

Is the total number anywhere close to the 15,000 promised?


>>>The Democrats have ever stuck to the simplication of Iraq = Viet Nam
>>>because
>>>they wanted Bush = LBJ.
>>
>> That sounds like a tendentious fantasy to me. To the extent that some
>> Dems have made that comparison it's because it's the obvious one to
>> make. In the beginning, it seemed to me overblown. Now it does not.
>
>I admit some parallels now and still consider it overblown and convienent.
>
>But then I knew this would be a tough slog from day 1 and wouldn't have
>expected the job to be done by now anyway.

> Then perhaps you should have been president rather than Dubya, who
> announced that victory had been achieved and supported Rumsfeld's
> decision to commit an inadequate number of troops.

The former is a distortion, admittedly one Bush encouraged with that stupid 
"Mission Accomplished" banner.

The latter is a judgement call, which itself may or may not be accurate.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>When any senator can put a "hold" on legislation he doesn't like, that's
>>>an
>>>over simplification.
>>
>> In what significant way has the Bush Administration's agenda been
>> blocked by the Dems? They've won victories only when the Adminstration
>> proposed something so outlandish that Republicans crossed the aisle,
>> e.g., the dead out of the cradle Social Security proposal, or they
>> threatened a filibuster. But that's not much. The pres has gotten most
>> of what he wanted, more than most presidents have. And the results
>> speak for themselves.
>
>Bush hasn't asked for much.  The fact is that most of his domestic agenda
>has been shot down.

> That's not true. He got just about everything he asked for -- No
> School Left Unpunished, tax cuts for the rich, more tax cuts for the
> rich, the Bar Seniors From Buying Cheap Drugs in Canada Act. Didn't
> get the Social Security plan, but that was so unworkable even his own
> party wouldn't go for it.

Not all that much, really.

I take from your needleslly derogatory tone you don't want a serious 
discussion so I'll not bother any further with it.


>Up until recently he was untouchable in foreign
>affairs, but all he's asked for is money to continue the War on terror.
>
>My point isn't that the democrats have a lot of power, but to say that they
>aren't completely impotent as you suggest they are.  Just as the pre-1994
>minority Republicans weren't completely impotent.

> I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the argument that the
> country's failures are the Dems responsibility, with the possible
> exception of Iraq, for which many of them did vote (trusted Bush, and
> now look where it's got them).

I never suggested that the Democrats are responsible.  The Democrats have 
limited power and they have used it to obstruct, not to advance a distinctly 
different policy.    When you sayd that anyone can see the democrats have no 
power, this is an error.  they have some 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.)
>>>
>>>And when the other side is preoccupied with hatred nstead of policy, it
>>>plays in Peoria.
>>
>> More Roveian rubbish. There is much more bellicosity from the
>> Republican side, and has been for years. Or can you show me Democratic
>> legislators accusing President Bush of rape?
>
>That's because "appetite" is Cinton's fatal flaw and isn't Bush's.

> Awe, c'mon. Bush was a druggie. Where are the Democratic allegations
> that as governor he sold crack to schoolchildren? That would be about
> the equivalent of the Clinton rape rubbish.

Bush appears to have put his worst personal foibles behind him.  I am sorry 
that Clinton cannot say the same.  That opens Clinton up to charges that 
Bush's lifestyle does not open him to.


>And the Republican claim that the other side can't do better IS effective.

> Yes. It merely isn't true. Kind of a familiar pattern here.

The actual pattern is the democrats shooting themselves in the foot by 
having no agenda past anti-bush.  They played into that Republican assertion 
and made it true by their own actions.  A defintiely familar pattern.


>It is effective because the democrats have limited themselves to carping
>and
>complaining, obstructing and undermining.  Now a genuine opportunity to
>reverse their fortunes comes along and they can't exploit it, because
>exploiting it would require substance that they haven't been putting out
>there.

> Bull fucking shit:

Truth hurts.


> 'In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday,
> Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said
> Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs
>overseas.

> 'She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to
> organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as
> the CWA.

> 'To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are
> "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep.
> George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
> in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of
> workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi
> said.

It's nice to know they can still cater to their non-60's interest groups.

This isn't a platform, it's an attempt to keep the union base mobilized.


> 'Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi,
> describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used
> Wal-Mart to make her point:

> ' "I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or
> her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in
> two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite
> -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of
> a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must
> change that in our country," she said.

What democrat demostic plicy would be compelte without a shot at the 
corporate demon-du jour, Walmart?

That's hackneyed stuff at this point.  Not particularly original or 
creative.  Just standard class-warfare stuff.


> 'Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain
> America's leadership role in the global economy.

[. . . ]

> 'Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care
> for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no
> privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.'

It's nice to be for all these neat things.  It's another thing to have a 
concrete idea of how to do it and say so.


> The claim that the Democrats have no agenda or positive proposals is
> just another example of the Republican's "lie enough and half the
> country will come to believe you" philosophy.

It's a vague mishmash of the same tired, old positions, rocks cast at the 
usual scapegoats and easy-to-say, hard-to-do pie in the sky.  If this is 
what you call an "agenda", then I guess the only modification I need make is 
to say they don't have a serious agenda.  What you've shown me is an ad 
campaign.


>Most of the elements of the 1994 Contract with America were out there well
>before the election.  So with the democrat  bile and ire against Bush and
>republicans.

> Clinton was accused of /Rape and murder/ and you accuse the Dems of
> bile and ire against Bush and the Republicans? Too much.

Yes I accuse.  And with complete conviction and plenty of reason.  There's 
nothing I can do if it's "too much" for you.  It is the truth as I see it. 
I will speak it and defend it when challenged.

You cling to the rape charge against Clinton like it's some kind of talisman 
that gives Democrats the right to treat GW Bush with contempt.  Bill 
clinton's treatment by Republicans has no bearing on how GW Bush should be 
treated.  Anything less is prejudice or vindictiveness.  Just as it was when 
the Republicans were trying to do payback on clinton.

Bile and ire is the focus of the Democrat party.  It is all that defines 
them anymore.  Thus they are dependent on outside factors to win or lose. 
Having no coherent high-contrast message of their own, they are in the 
process of pissing away a chance at relevance.  They're caught in a time 
warp that hasn't moved forward since Reagan took office.  That agenda you 
showed me has zero resonance outside a unionized audience.  There might be 
sellable elements to it but it's caught up in democrats-as-usual blandness.

The Democrat Party is dying.  It's consumed by partisan hatred, bent on 
purification of itself and its world.  It either needs to get its ass in 
gear and make some serious changes or hurry up and die.  I very much want 
leftist candidates I can vote for.  The likes of Dean, Pelosi and Reid will 
never be that.

With this post, I leave this topic.  It's getting too heated.  I reserve the 
right to clean up a few loose ends, but that will be that.Your other long 
post will not be answered, sorry.  Other politics-based conversations in 
other threads will get either one last reply or more likely none.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

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