2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

It should be an excellent book for everyone to read.

Fishin,

I'll repeat myself. I didn't bring up the Texas redistricting problem for the purpose of arguing who did what to whom as much as who is using it now, as other states other thises and thats are being used by a minority of highly organized fanatically religious people to gain control of the federal government. And the purpose they are seeking to gain control is because they have a specific covert agenda.

I agree little k, I have the same vision. I just hope if it happens, I'll have a place to run to......but run or not, the US government affects the entire world, so even then, we'll have no place to hide from the effects of it.

It may not be as extreme as George Orwell's 1984, but that story is a metaphor for what we're experiencing now in this country.

I've seen that movie too, Hobitbob. It's a very frightening movie.

Yep, time to read 1984 again.

There's a slight problem with that kind of argument. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong on the "masterplan" thing, though I tend to vaguely suspect a WH/administration hand in it, rather than specifically the Christian Coalition's - and probably more focused on some short-term gains than on a fully blown take-over of government. You could be right, broadly speaking.

But as it stands, the argument that there is a devious "big plan" going on, around the country, to "take over power", rests on the hypothesis that a number of recent happenstances are indeed all manifestations of said big plan. That they cannot be just something else. Gore Vs Bush, Texas Redistricting, Recall Election, Colorado - must be a masterplan. But if it turns out that in Texas, for example, there were also strong local (and not necessarily unjustified) incentives for the redistricting, doesnt that mean it could just be something else, after all? And if the same can be said for a number of other counts on the list, what does that do for the argument that what we are really seeing here, is a central takeover masterplan?

I mean, a hypothesis rests on pieces of evidence. Its never irrelevant to scrutinize each of those pieces of evidence, for if they fall through, you can keep saying, "well, I'm not interested in those details, I'm just interested in the bigger picture" - but the bigger picture is compiled of such details - change 'em, and the bigger picture changes too.

Like ... if I'm saying, "My husband is cheating on me! He must be! because A) I saw him walking hand in hand with a woman, B) there was lipstick on his collar and, C) Someone called and immediately hung up the phone" ... but then it is explained that, the woman was his blind cousin, the lipstick was from his crossdressing stint at the local cabaret, and the local priest was just arrested for making harassing anonymous phonecalls, then ... well, he could still be cheating on me, of course ... but my case that that's the case just has fallen through.

<grins>

It is a Brave New Fascist Day!

Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

I should say that this fanatical, organized minority is trying to take control of the federal government, but also state governments. Our civil rights are endangered.

And to bring it back to the topic. I think we should all get behind which ever candidate will be able to defeat Bush, whoever that person turns out to be. Let's not fight among ourselves so much that we are helpless to protect ourselves from this danger. I wonder if Ralph Nader still believes, for instance, that Gore and Bush are the same. I agreed with him at the time in the sense of the environment and other very important issues. But, as long as the Democratic candidate is not willing to sell our souls down the river in a major way, we should get behind him or her. I think civil rights of the citizens of this country, but also of the entire world, in this case, trumps many other very important issues.

I realize I'm suggesting that progressives do what I am afraid the moderate or at least non fanatical Republicans have done. But in this case, I think our survival as a free nation and the stability of the world is at stake. I hope the conservatives with a respect and concern for the rights of others will find a way to free themselves of this group that has taken over the Republican party.

I personally hope the Democratic candidate can be Howard Dean, but if it doesn't turn out that way, I'll get behind Wes Clark (unless some horrendous characteristic emerges) and work for his election.

I'm gonna wait to see who will have the best chance of winning against GWBush, then cast my vote for that person. I don't give a dang who that person is! Freeing this world from GWBush would be the very best choice.

The only decent, moral choice!

What if it's someone who doesn't want to continue to actively fight terrorist aggressors?

nimh,

I agree with you to a point. Of course these instances could be just what they appear to be. In Texas, it's just about redistricting. But did you read the 2002 Republican platform? Did you read what the vice chairman of the Texas GOP said? Of course it could only be a coincidence. Each situation rests on it's own history, cause and effect. The dots must be connected, I agree. But I'm not basing my concern simply on the fact that these things are happening simultaneously. I'm basing it on what I know about these group and their methods of working, all of which is easily obtainable on the internet, in published papers and books (as well as some personal knowledge.)

If I believed my husband was cheating on me for the reasons you so humorously outline above. And I look into it and I find all the explanations you mention, then I would be relieved to believe that everything was fine with me and my husband. But if it turned out, on closer scrutiny that the "blind cousin" was also at the cross dressing performance, and had been seen entering my husbands dressing room after his performance, and they had stayed there for longer than was necessary for my husband to change, and if he had been seen afterwards in a local restaurant, smooching with his cousin (who was wearing bright red lipstick), and the local priest is making harassing phone calls because he's upset with my husband for screwing around with his girl friend, who turns out to be my husband's blind cousin, then my conclusion would not be one of relief (unless I didn't like my husband anyway) but rather I would see the possibility that the separate, all true explanations were in fact linked and the more basic truth hidden behind the fact of their separate truths.

I agree, of course, that it could be something else. You say you vaguely suspect that it's a WH/Administrative hand rather than the Christian Coalition's. But I have already demonstrated, perhaps not well enough yet, but have presented some evidence that the WH/Administration are furthering the agenda of not just the Christian Coalition, but rather an organized plan that has been operating since the late eighties, of which the Christian Coalition is a part. I'll continue to present more evidence. It's not hard to find. And I would appreciate any other evidence others can present as well. Let's not call it a conspiracy, let's call it a cooperative effort on the part of a minority of people, including many related right wing organizations to attempt to take over control of the government.

edited one time for spelling errors

Find me any candidate who would not fight terrorist aggressors, and I'll prove Santa exists.

Brand X,

Do you know any Democratic candidate who is unwilling to continue the fight against terrorist aggressors?

It's not whether the aggressors should be fought against, but rather the method.

Hate to bring up his name again, but BC isn't running this time, just to prove such a candidate is possible.

We're talking about the 2004 presidential election.

That is a neocon, Tom DeLay nonstarter bullshit line and really does not deserve the light of day. Come to think of it, neofascist Tom DeLay doesn't deserve the light of day!!!!!!!

No, it's reality.

Tell us, Brand X which Dem candidate you are thinking of?

You seen any of those around?

I mean, "terrorist aggressors" - you're in the States, so that would be Al-Qaeda, right? Seen any Democratic candidate who doesnt want to fight Al-Qaeda?

I seen a lot of 'em complain that the battle against the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sidetracked into a costly war on Saddam, who was a quantite negligeable concerning 9/11 - but I never seen any of them argue that we shouldnt fight Al-Qaeda, anymore, either - or anyone else who can actually be shown to be aggressing the US.

You're right, " neofascist Tom DeLay doesn't deserve the light of day", is total reality.