From:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-13 10:50 pm
To:
hamblett1957 unread
(207 of 217)
3245.207 in reply to 3245.206
I actually do not believe that the facts were fit to the motive, although I do believe that both motive (independent of facts) and data supported a move - data being true or not. This is based on the general consensus (of intel agencies) at the time that there probably was something there and the post mortem investigations and even the Putin interview a year or year and a half later when he indicated that he thought WMD were there as well but disagreed with action.
All in all, I think WMDs were a part of the motivation, although not necessarily even the most importrant motive, although they were the easiest to point to. Probably few were as surprised as the admin not to find them.From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 12:23 am
To:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
(208 of 217)
3245.208 in reply to 3245.207
You know what? I don't care a bit what the Bushites' motivation may have been, or particularly what their intentions were. This has been an Administration whose major effects have all been unintended consequences. And as for motivations, they have amply proved that their philosophy has been that the ends justify the means. They deserve to be judged exclusively on what they have produced. If you think those results are all right, then by all means defend them. They do--by all means.
If you want my opinion of what actually happened, I think they looked at all kinds of potential military adventure scenarios with some kind of multivariate computerized models to evaluate the costs and benefits. Besides Iraq, they looked at Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a few others. The electoral effect--ability to leverage elections through patriotic appeal, etc.--was highly weighted, so was control over oil production--the levels of production and where it would end up, and the degree to which the invasion would help drive the military reorganization they wanted to put through. They totally screwed up the predicted values of the number of US casualties (I'm sure it was a probability distribution, but they got the basic parameters of it all wrong), the time it would take to pacify the country, and a few other items (such as the importance of enlisting Turkish support, the impact on the military recruitment and reserve systems). They probably were pretty close on the political impact on neighboring countries, and on its weighting.
Bottom line, the model said this was the best country to invade, and that it was better to do it than not. The rest was just putting the decision in the proper frame, developing talking points, intimidating any opposition, directing the development of the war plan and signing off upon it.
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
From:
extonpa1
Jun-14 2:00 am
To:
chinshihtang
(211 of 217)
3245.211 in reply to 3245.208
Oh yes, and Iraqi civilian casualties got a weighting of zero in the model.
That says it all!
Iraqis don't vote in US presidential elections.
From:
Joe Sixpack (miltong2002)
Jun-14 7:49 am
To:
chinshihtang
(213 of 217)
3245.213 in reply to 3245.208
Well, as you can see by your own words and mine as well: most people have already decided for themselves what happened. The emergence of slowly-leaked memos and other opinions is really not going to change this.
Thread 2:
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-10 6:53 am
To:
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS)
(17 of 217)
3245.17 in reply to 3245.1
I think that Morley and the liberals are hacked because President Bush has freed more people from dictatorships than their boy Clinton ever dreamed of doing, and in doing so he has gotten rid of their hero Saddam, and ran their favorite "freedom fighters" the Taliban and Osama's boys out of Afghanistan. And sometimes it is pitiful (not really) to see them groveling around in the mud trying to find something that tells them that, having lost so profoundly in the last election and many more times since, they still have some worth left even if it is a "he said, she said" memo that will prove them right, a memo that anyone could have written up on the way to the airport or as is the favorite among lib losers today, written and conceived in the toilet where some of their better "ideas" are born, so to speak.
As to why the public has not been stirred up by the "memo that won't die" maybe it's because after all the harm the liberal press has done to our soldiers and to our war efforts in Iraq by their lying, the public just doesn't trust them anymore or even care what they have to say. It's that simple, chumps!For the culturally deprived, there is a fable called "The boy who cried wolf." You might want to check it out Morley and share it with the rest of the losers.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 10:03 pm
To:
Lzrhk
(205 of 217)
3245.205 in reply to 3245.17
I know well the fable of "the boy who cried wolf": I brought it up in the last days of the 2004 campaign to point out the unintended irony of a campaign ad done by the Republicans with a bunch of wolves in them (implying that only the Republicans could protect us from the wolves out there in the rest of the world). OK, they won; I didn't. But Bush is still "the boy who cried wolf", particularly with regard to the Iraq war. There certainly won't be another occasion of the sort for us to believe or disbelieve him; there won't be any US forces available for another military adventure during the rest of his Administration. At least there is that consolation.
I was out of the USA in the months leading up to the invasion (actually, in the U.K.): it was clear in the news reporting, even what I could see from abroad, that the Bushites were looking for reasons to go in, and that the outcome was already settled as a matter of Administration policy.
What I didn't understand too well at the time, still don't, is what was the big hurry? Don't tell me it was the seasonal weather in Iraq: we still managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms in the middle of the invasion, and a couple of months to bring the Turks on board (with us going through eastern Turkey) would've made all the difference in the world in the post-invasion occupation--as we have learned to our sorrow.
Still, both questions are matters for the historians at this point, and the Downing Street Memo doesn't prove anything. It just shows what the perceptions at the time were, as noted by someone who was actually quite perceptive. I give Blair enough credit that I don't believe he was any more taken in by the evidence than the Bushites were. It was clear to any and all that Saddam was a caged beast, dangerous, homicidal, but under control from a strategic security standpoint. Blair simply decided that, on an issue of this magnitude, he had to be on the side of the US government.
From:
Lzrhk
Jun-14 12:40 am
To:
chinshihtang
(210 of 217)
3245.210 in reply to 3245.205
You find it consoling that Bush may not be able to engage in other "military adventures?" Like the ones that freed millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like the ones that deposed Saddam, the Taliban and al Queda from their dictatorial and murderous roles over millions? I bet you do find the prospects of other tyrants escaping justice consoling.
Your post 3245.210 Inbox
chinshihtang@gmail.com
More options
Jun 14 (19 hours ago)
The following message was sent to you by CHINSHIHTANG while viewingyour Member Profile:They seemed to have closed that forum, I\'ll just reply to you directly.I supported both the involvement in Afghanistan and the way the Taliban was overthrown. There was a big difference; the US had a valid reason to attack (even to declare war, though they didn\'t gothat route). We also got lucky with our choice to handpick Hamid Karzai.I support the overthrow of dictators but generally reject the idea that we should do it forcibly, unilaterally, without adequate provocation. And we don\'t. I don\'t believe the whitewash about theIraq invasion being about democracy. What we\'ve achieved in Iraq, to date, is chaos for large parts of the country, and the creation of a pauper state in the Shiite South of the country. If that wasour goal, we could\'ve done that in \'91; wiser heads (like Colin Powell) prevented that then but couldn\'t prevent the Bushites (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and of course Dumb Dubya) from doing it in '03.=============================================================
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Howard Dean and Republicans: conversations
Note: Thread 2 should probably come before thread 1 because of the convergence onto the subject of Lieberman, which was brought up in thread 2.
Style Forum (Reply-Only Folder) - Dean's Appearance Has Media in a Sweat
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 6:41 pm
To:
ALL
(20 of 64)
3249.20 in reply to 3249.19
Although I agree with Pelosi that Dean's comments "weren't helpful", I do admire his candor in telling it pretty much like it is. And I'm a Republican. I may be white and Christian but I do not approve of the obvious religion-based agenda and demeanor of the current GOP in Congress and the WH. That is not what government is supposed to be doing. EVERYONE should be represented.
I also don't like tiptoeing around an issue, phony rhetoric, or being disingenuous, so I guess I am kind of a Dean fan.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 9:32 pm
To:
tune_it
(25 of 64)
3249.25 in reply to 3249.20
I like tune_it's posting, and I think it brings up a really interesting point. Those who are Republican and not both white and Christian really do have to consider what they think they are doing--the reasons why these people should desert their party are almost self-evident.
The point that Dean should focus upon in his public statements is why those who ARE white and Christian (like Dean himself, for that matter) should be Democrats. This, in a nutshell, is the Democrat/values problem that he wishes to address. And, it is soluble: there are good solid reasons for white Christians to be Democrats, reasons that relate to their being white and being Christian.
I will admit that my feelings about Dean are quite complex. They have nothing to do with my disappointment with the 2004 failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which had the odds against it from the start. I hope that Dean's role in the 2008 election will be to follow Bill Frist around and give him hell, particularly about health issues. All Americans who care about our country's future, regardless of party, have to keep as top priority ensuring that the next President will be anti-Bushite.
Edited 6/13/
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 10:43 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(26 of 64)
3249.26 in reply to 3249.25
The GOP has no monopoly on Christians. That and "religious right" are political code words for pro-lifers. Abortion and evangelical zeal is what really separates religious people politically.
Don't expect Republicans to vote Democrat real soon.
For reasons entirely aside from social issues I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean or anyone else. That is what Dean needs to address. I wish I could pick and chose issues virtually owned by different parties, but right now the mix that suits me best is on the GOP side. That doesn't mean I like or would automatically defend this person or that or deserve application of anyone's GOP stereotype.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:15 pm
To:
tune_it
(27 of 64)
3249.27 in reply to 3249.26
OK, I won't try to convert you--after all, you did say you were white and Christian (joking!). I agree that "the GOP has no monopoly on Christians", and I think it would be very dangerous if the party tried to portray the reality as being otherwise.
I will point out, then perhaps resolve, a seeming contradiction in your posting. You say, "I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat", but then you also say you would not "automatically defend this person or that". I take this to mean that you will vote Republican in all cases, regardless of the individual and his/her stands, because the overall mix of issue positions--and not the positions on social issues--of the Republican national party suits you more. So, you would be a strategic Republican loyalist voter. Fine.
Although I think in general the independents and the third-party supporters of Libertarians and Greens are more fertile territory for Democrats to seek to recruit (at least for coalitions at election time), there are some Republicans that I do "expect to vote Democrat real soon". Those are the Republicans who are horrified by the policies of this Bush Administration and properly despair of their chances of reclaiming the party from the Bushites. The party--both parties--are all about political, and therefore electoral, power, and whatever else they've done, the Bushites have shown they can grab power with the best of them. The 2008 Republican nomination process will be the litmus test for these conscientious Republicans. If what should be a wide-open process proves to be fixed for another Bushite, I do expect them to desert. In droves. It's either that, continuing to live in delusion, or abandonment of their principles. I hope they won't do the latter out of sheer stubbornness.
Edited 6/13/2005 11:49 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
tune_it
Jun-14 7:52 am
To:
chinshihtang
(35 of 64)
3249.35 in reply to 3249.29
<>
Dean's hyperbole aside, demonizing Republicans is not going to win any converts. The issue is socialism. Republicans are against it. Disagreeing doesn't make someone evil.
As far as Leiberman is concerned, being moderate does not make a bad Democrat. Appreciating his position is exactly what it will take to win elections. A move toward the center would be more representative, no? Actually Dean is probing that territory. The math is pretty simple.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:31 pm
To:
tune_it unread
(60 of 64)
3249.60 in reply to 3249.35
I'm not demonizing Republicans; I'm condemning Bushism, which is only a part of the party that has hijacked control through its ruthlessness (and ability to deliver electoral victories). It may not be evil per se, but its means are immoral, its objectives contrary to the welfare of this country and the world, and its results--the true test--harmful. Bad government helps produce evil outcomes.
Sorry, but socialism is not the issue. Democrats are not for socialism, either. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production; I've never heard a Democratic leader advocate that. Both parties advocate mixed economies, and with the exception of the rapacious health insurance industry (and size of the military, perhaps), about the same mix. If you're against the current public/private mix, you should vote Libertarian, as they are the only party advocating any change there.
Redistribution of income or wealth is not socialism. You should be glad for that, because this Bushite regime is redistributing big time, from the working classes and even the upper middle class to the top 1-2%. This is undercutting the great strength of the American economy.
You seemed to misread me on Lieberman; I want him in the Democratic party, I just don't want to have to listen to his speeches.
I tend to agree that it looks better if one can sell oneself as a moderate for national elections (not so true in Congressional elections). This conservative/moderate/liberal stuff is way out of date; it is a difference of optics only and relates very little to meaningful differences of policy and particularly of long-term vision for the nation and world (of which there is precious little in either party). I think Hillary is doing a great job of positioning herself as a moderate, so with her high name recognition she is quite correctly the betting favorite, of all candidates of either party, as we stand right now.
Thread 2:
From:
smeesq
Jun-13 1:42 pm
To:
iside613
(16 of 64)
3249.16 in reply to 3249.11
Anybody who, like Mr. Berg, is offended because a Democrat talks about health care being the right of every citizen is probably a DINO (a Democrat in name only) and would be happier as an Independent or even a Republican. Now would be a good time for him and other Democrats who think that its possible to "triangulate" or "compromise" or " appease" the right wing fundamentalist extremists running the GOP, to find a new political affiliation.
I,too, talked to a lot of Democrats after the last presidential election. None of them responded to the election outcome as did Mr. Berg's group of friends. What I heard was total disgust that John Kerry has run the most bizarrely inept campaign in modern electoral history, had not even spent many millions of dollars that were raised on his behalf, took vacations to windsurf at the most inopportune moments, refused to disclose his military records while insisting on running as some kind of war hero, and generally appeared to be as wishy washy as the GOP painted him. All the while he continued to support an illegal war that HE voted for, and refused to acknowledge that it was based on the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It was hard for ME to vote for the man, and I am a died in the wool liberal.
I liked Froomkin's joke this week about Democrats: "Do you know why the GOP doesn't want to fund stem cell research? They're afraid the Democrats will get ahold of the technology and grow a backbone."
Howard Dean is the backbone, we failed to recognize that in 2004, and the party let the Clintons and the corporate funded DLC destroy Dean's candidacy and put "their guy" Kerry in, to hold Hillary's place until 2008. Thats not going to happen again. Dean may not be the next Presidential candidate, but he is the leader of the new Demcratic Party in this country and the DLC is about to find out what that means.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:45 pm
To:
smeesq
(29 of 64)
3249.29 in reply to 3249.16
Personally, I don't much like this talk about DINO's--it seems to be something culled from extremist right-wing Republican blogs, then reversed. I think that people come to the Democratic party for a variety of reasons, and we should not exclude anyone who sincerely wants to work for our success. Particularly when we have a political enemy that is so unscrupulous and deleterious to the future of the human race. We're bigger than that. Let the Republicans persecute the "heretics" and "turncoats" in their own camp. If that means putting up with self-righteous bores like Joe Lieberman, OK, I'll accept that, as long as they accept basic principles like defeating Bushism, defending democracy, and advocating reform where needed.
I don't think you can count on Gov. Dean to pursue exclusionary policies toward the DLC, either. He's trying to expand the tent, and he basically had the support of all parts of the DNC when he was selected. I think the most you can expect is that he will resist the attempt by one faction or the other within the party to presume dominance. I wish him every success.
From:
smeesq
Jun-14 12:09 am
To:
chinshihtang
(31 of 64)
3249.31 in reply to 3249.29
<>
Anyone is welcome to the Democratic Party that wants to be there, but they are NOT welcome (AFAIC)if they vote against major policy goals and legislative efforts of their party. They can't claim to be progressive and supporters of middle class working Americans and then vote for the new Bankruptcy Act as Biden did. Lieberman is more of a neo-con and a bigger supporter of the invasion of Iraq than many Republicans. I don't want my efforts or contributions to go into electing the likes of Zell Miller or Lieberman or a number of others.
A LTTE in the NY Times today made the point that a lot of Democrats think they can win elections by attracting moderate Republicans. Actually, they'd gain more voters by trying to attract the Greens and the Libertarians and the disillusioned who've gibven up on political change because they view both parties as being completely unprincipled and owned by corporate interests. We tried being "Republican-lite" in the last election. Lets try being REAL Democrats and see if that works any better in 2006.
<>
I don't think so. If I recall there was very little enthusiasm for Dean from the DLC, it was the strentgth (in numbers and passion) of Dean's supporters that got him that job.
Edited 6/14/2005 12:12 am ET by smeesq
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:12 pm
To:
smeesq
(58 of 64)
3249.58 in reply to 3249.31
I disagree with you on the Bankruptcy Act. The legislation was not all it could be because some amendments that would've brought more fairness to it were defeated, but I believe that reform of bankruptcy law was needed; there is a lot of abuse. So, maybe the bill earned a "no" vote, but the call is closer than you think.
If your point is that people who get sick often file bankruptcy, my response is that you're complaining about the wrong issue--people need health insurance and a long-term/disability care system that treats them fairly to reduce their risk. As it stands the people who pay for these sick bankrupts (and the divorced ones, and the deadbeat ones) are the customers who pay their bills. I know whereof I speak.
I agree with you entirely on Libertarians/Greens/Independents (said the same thing yesterday in a forum here). I think moderate Republicans should be "worked upon", as with the 7 in the Senate, to empower them to vote their consciences and not parrot the Bushite line in the interest of blind party loyalty.
I disagree about Kerry--he was not of the moderate wing of the party, but the liberal one. He tried to have it both ways and (classically, with the Iraq position) his positions were too "nuanced" (which was interpreted by the Republicans to read: wishy-washy). I actually think he did a good job on the campaign given his negatives from VVAW, Massachusetts liberal reputation, and Bush wrapping himself in the flag.
I think the best course for Dems in 2004 would've been a true hawkish moderate like Wesley Clark (albeit one with a clear antiwar position on Iraq), but he couldn't run the media/primary gauntlet. Kerry did. 2008 will be an interesting case which will be hard to read until after 2006, but I can guarantee you that, whether it's Dean or someone else at DNC, its Chairman will be concerned only with having a winner, not his/her relative position within the Democratic range (fairly broad) of some ideological political spectrum that is mostly smoke and mirrors (see my current response to tune_it). It's about getting someone elected who has a better approach for this country's future and the world's. Kerry's ideas about the things that mattered were fine; he just lacked 1% of what he needed in Ohio and it came down to his perception among a few percent of voters. It was a close thing.
Style Forum (Reply-Only Folder) - Dean's Appearance Has Media in a Sweat
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 6:41 pm
To:
ALL
(20 of 64)
3249.20 in reply to 3249.19
Although I agree with Pelosi that Dean's comments "weren't helpful", I do admire his candor in telling it pretty much like it is. And I'm a Republican. I may be white and Christian but I do not approve of the obvious religion-based agenda and demeanor of the current GOP in Congress and the WH. That is not what government is supposed to be doing. EVERYONE should be represented.
I also don't like tiptoeing around an issue, phony rhetoric, or being disingenuous, so I guess I am kind of a Dean fan.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 9:32 pm
To:
tune_it
(25 of 64)
3249.25 in reply to 3249.20
I like tune_it's posting, and I think it brings up a really interesting point. Those who are Republican and not both white and Christian really do have to consider what they think they are doing--the reasons why these people should desert their party are almost self-evident.
The point that Dean should focus upon in his public statements is why those who ARE white and Christian (like Dean himself, for that matter) should be Democrats. This, in a nutshell, is the Democrat/values problem that he wishes to address. And, it is soluble: there are good solid reasons for white Christians to be Democrats, reasons that relate to their being white and being Christian.
I will admit that my feelings about Dean are quite complex. They have nothing to do with my disappointment with the 2004 failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which had the odds against it from the start. I hope that Dean's role in the 2008 election will be to follow Bill Frist around and give him hell, particularly about health issues. All Americans who care about our country's future, regardless of party, have to keep as top priority ensuring that the next President will be anti-Bushite.
Edited 6/13/
From:
tune_it
Jun-13 10:43 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(26 of 64)
3249.26 in reply to 3249.25
The GOP has no monopoly on Christians. That and "religious right" are political code words for pro-lifers. Abortion and evangelical zeal is what really separates religious people politically.
Don't expect Republicans to vote Democrat real soon.
For reasons entirely aside from social issues I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean or anyone else. That is what Dean needs to address. I wish I could pick and chose issues virtually owned by different parties, but right now the mix that suits me best is on the GOP side. That doesn't mean I like or would automatically defend this person or that or deserve application of anyone's GOP stereotype.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:15 pm
To:
tune_it
(27 of 64)
3249.27 in reply to 3249.26
OK, I won't try to convert you--after all, you did say you were white and Christian (joking!). I agree that "the GOP has no monopoly on Christians", and I think it would be very dangerous if the party tried to portray the reality as being otherwise.
I will point out, then perhaps resolve, a seeming contradiction in your posting. You say, "I have absolutely no plan to vote for a Democrat", but then you also say you would not "automatically defend this person or that". I take this to mean that you will vote Republican in all cases, regardless of the individual and his/her stands, because the overall mix of issue positions--and not the positions on social issues--of the Republican national party suits you more. So, you would be a strategic Republican loyalist voter. Fine.
Although I think in general the independents and the third-party supporters of Libertarians and Greens are more fertile territory for Democrats to seek to recruit (at least for coalitions at election time), there are some Republicans that I do "expect to vote Democrat real soon". Those are the Republicans who are horrified by the policies of this Bush Administration and properly despair of their chances of reclaiming the party from the Bushites. The party--both parties--are all about political, and therefore electoral, power, and whatever else they've done, the Bushites have shown they can grab power with the best of them. The 2008 Republican nomination process will be the litmus test for these conscientious Republicans. If what should be a wide-open process proves to be fixed for another Bushite, I do expect them to desert. In droves. It's either that, continuing to live in delusion, or abandonment of their principles. I hope they won't do the latter out of sheer stubbornness.
Edited 6/13/2005 11:49 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
tune_it
Jun-14 7:52 am
To:
chinshihtang
(35 of 64)
3249.35 in reply to 3249.29
<
Dean's hyperbole aside, demonizing Republicans is not going to win any converts. The issue is socialism. Republicans are against it. Disagreeing doesn't make someone evil.
As far as Leiberman is concerned, being moderate does not make a bad Democrat. Appreciating his position is exactly what it will take to win elections. A move toward the center would be more representative, no? Actually Dean is probing that territory. The math is pretty simple.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:31 pm
To:
tune_it unread
(60 of 64)
3249.60 in reply to 3249.35
I'm not demonizing Republicans; I'm condemning Bushism, which is only a part of the party that has hijacked control through its ruthlessness (and ability to deliver electoral victories). It may not be evil per se, but its means are immoral, its objectives contrary to the welfare of this country and the world, and its results--the true test--harmful. Bad government helps produce evil outcomes.
Sorry, but socialism is not the issue. Democrats are not for socialism, either. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production; I've never heard a Democratic leader advocate that. Both parties advocate mixed economies, and with the exception of the rapacious health insurance industry (and size of the military, perhaps), about the same mix. If you're against the current public/private mix, you should vote Libertarian, as they are the only party advocating any change there.
Redistribution of income or wealth is not socialism. You should be glad for that, because this Bushite regime is redistributing big time, from the working classes and even the upper middle class to the top 1-2%. This is undercutting the great strength of the American economy.
You seemed to misread me on Lieberman; I want him in the Democratic party, I just don't want to have to listen to his speeches.
I tend to agree that it looks better if one can sell oneself as a moderate for national elections (not so true in Congressional elections). This conservative/moderate/liberal stuff is way out of date; it is a difference of optics only and relates very little to meaningful differences of policy and particularly of long-term vision for the nation and world (of which there is precious little in either party). I think Hillary is doing a great job of positioning herself as a moderate, so with her high name recognition she is quite correctly the betting favorite, of all candidates of either party, as we stand right now.
Thread 2:
From:
smeesq
Jun-13 1:42 pm
To:
iside613
(16 of 64)
3249.16 in reply to 3249.11
Anybody who, like Mr. Berg, is offended because a Democrat talks about health care being the right of every citizen is probably a DINO (a Democrat in name only) and would be happier as an Independent or even a Republican. Now would be a good time for him and other Democrats who think that its possible to "triangulate" or "compromise" or " appease" the right wing fundamentalist extremists running the GOP, to find a new political affiliation.
I,too, talked to a lot of Democrats after the last presidential election. None of them responded to the election outcome as did Mr. Berg's group of friends. What I heard was total disgust that John Kerry has run the most bizarrely inept campaign in modern electoral history, had not even spent many millions of dollars that were raised on his behalf, took vacations to windsurf at the most inopportune moments, refused to disclose his military records while insisting on running as some kind of war hero, and generally appeared to be as wishy washy as the GOP painted him. All the while he continued to support an illegal war that HE voted for, and refused to acknowledge that it was based on the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It was hard for ME to vote for the man, and I am a died in the wool liberal.
I liked Froomkin's joke this week about Democrats: "Do you know why the GOP doesn't want to fund stem cell research? They're afraid the Democrats will get ahold of the technology and grow a backbone."
Howard Dean is the backbone, we failed to recognize that in 2004, and the party let the Clintons and the corporate funded DLC destroy Dean's candidacy and put "their guy" Kerry in, to hold Hillary's place until 2008. Thats not going to happen again. Dean may not be the next Presidential candidate, but he is the leader of the new Demcratic Party in this country and the DLC is about to find out what that means.
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-13 11:45 pm
To:
smeesq
(29 of 64)
3249.29 in reply to 3249.16
Personally, I don't much like this talk about DINO's--it seems to be something culled from extremist right-wing Republican blogs, then reversed. I think that people come to the Democratic party for a variety of reasons, and we should not exclude anyone who sincerely wants to work for our success. Particularly when we have a political enemy that is so unscrupulous and deleterious to the future of the human race. We're bigger than that. Let the Republicans persecute the "heretics" and "turncoats" in their own camp. If that means putting up with self-righteous bores like Joe Lieberman, OK, I'll accept that, as long as they accept basic principles like defeating Bushism, defending democracy, and advocating reform where needed.
I don't think you can count on Gov. Dean to pursue exclusionary policies toward the DLC, either. He's trying to expand the tent, and he basically had the support of all parts of the DNC when he was selected. I think the most you can expect is that he will resist the attempt by one faction or the other within the party to presume dominance. I wish him every success.
From:
smeesq
Jun-14 12:09 am
To:
chinshihtang
(31 of 64)
3249.31 in reply to 3249.29
<
Anyone is welcome to the Democratic Party that wants to be there, but they are NOT welcome (AFAIC)if they vote against major policy goals and legislative efforts of their party. They can't claim to be progressive and supporters of middle class working Americans and then vote for the new Bankruptcy Act as Biden did. Lieberman is more of a neo-con and a bigger supporter of the invasion of Iraq than many Republicans. I don't want my efforts or contributions to go into electing the likes of Zell Miller or Lieberman or a number of others.
A LTTE in the NY Times today made the point that a lot of Democrats think they can win elections by attracting moderate Republicans. Actually, they'd gain more voters by trying to attract the Greens and the Libertarians and the disillusioned who've gibven up on political change because they view both parties as being completely unprincipled and owned by corporate interests. We tried being "Republican-lite" in the last election. Lets try being REAL Democrats and see if that works any better in 2006.
<
I don't think so. If I recall there was very little enthusiasm for Dean from the DLC, it was the strentgth (in numbers and passion) of Dean's supporters that got him that job.
Edited 6/14/2005 12:12 am ET by smeesq
From:
chinshihtang
Jun-14 3:12 pm
To:
smeesq
(58 of 64)
3249.58 in reply to 3249.31
I disagree with you on the Bankruptcy Act. The legislation was not all it could be because some amendments that would've brought more fairness to it were defeated, but I believe that reform of bankruptcy law was needed; there is a lot of abuse. So, maybe the bill earned a "no" vote, but the call is closer than you think.
If your point is that people who get sick often file bankruptcy, my response is that you're complaining about the wrong issue--people need health insurance and a long-term/disability care system that treats them fairly to reduce their risk. As it stands the people who pay for these sick bankrupts (and the divorced ones, and the deadbeat ones) are the customers who pay their bills. I know whereof I speak.
I agree with you entirely on Libertarians/Greens/Independents (said the same thing yesterday in a forum here). I think moderate Republicans should be "worked upon", as with the 7 in the Senate, to empower them to vote their consciences and not parrot the Bushite line in the interest of blind party loyalty.
I disagree about Kerry--he was not of the moderate wing of the party, but the liberal one. He tried to have it both ways and (classically, with the Iraq position) his positions were too "nuanced" (which was interpreted by the Republicans to read: wishy-washy). I actually think he did a good job on the campaign given his negatives from VVAW, Massachusetts liberal reputation, and Bush wrapping himself in the flag.
I think the best course for Dems in 2004 would've been a true hawkish moderate like Wesley Clark (albeit one with a clear antiwar position on Iraq), but he couldn't run the media/primary gauntlet. Kerry did. 2008 will be an interesting case which will be hard to read until after 2006, but I can guarantee you that, whether it's Dean or someone else at DNC, its Chairman will be concerned only with having a winner, not his/her relative position within the Democratic range (fairly broad) of some ideological political spectrum that is mostly smoke and mirrors (see my current response to tune_it). It's about getting someone elected who has a better approach for this country's future and the world's. Kerry's ideas about the things that mattered were fine; he just lacked 1% of what he needed in Ohio and it came down to his perception among a few percent of voters. It was a close thing.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
EU and America: Which has the "stultifying conservatism"?
posted on the NY Times forum in response to David Brooks' "Fear and Rejection" column of June 2, 2005( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/opinion/02brooks.html:
chinshihtang - 7:29 PM ET June 2, 2005 (#32665 of 32691) Stultifying conservatism
Brooks seems to be correct in the sense that the result of liberalism is "stultifying conservatism". That's what we have here in the post-liberal USA.
His column has scarily little about what was actually in the EU constitution that was rejected. I have heard that it was a 200-page document, which is not a good sign. We can infer a variety of things from the rejection of the proposed constitution, but apparently little about the constitution itself.
I would agree that perhaps Turkey is "a bridge too far" for Europeans; perhaps their economies are stagnant (as is ours) despite whatever may have been done by the EU, and particularly by the individual French and Dutch governments. I find it extremely farfetched to draw any American conclusions from the results, except for the "blunt and obvious" one that building one nation out of many independent states is quite difficult, particularly gaining approval for such a blueprint. We had our own experience with that some 200+ years ago.
I wish the Europeans both luck and success with their very difficult enterprise.
chinshihtang - 7:29 PM ET June 2, 2005 (#32665 of 32691) Stultifying conservatism
Brooks seems to be correct in the sense that the result of liberalism is "stultifying conservatism". That's what we have here in the post-liberal USA.
His column has scarily little about what was actually in the EU constitution that was rejected. I have heard that it was a 200-page document, which is not a good sign. We can infer a variety of things from the rejection of the proposed constitution, but apparently little about the constitution itself.
I would agree that perhaps Turkey is "a bridge too far" for Europeans; perhaps their economies are stagnant (as is ours) despite whatever may have been done by the EU, and particularly by the individual French and Dutch governments. I find it extremely farfetched to draw any American conclusions from the results, except for the "blunt and obvious" one that building one nation out of many independent states is quite difficult, particularly gaining approval for such a blueprint. We had our own experience with that some 200+ years ago.
I wish the Europeans both luck and success with their very difficult enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
