2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Humor is fine. And a bit of fun-poking is fine. And so is good natured satire. Just about anything that might be not inappropriate among civilized company of mixed age, gender, and sensiblity is fine. Goading, as core style and substance, is not, nor is responding-in-kind to goading. Is that clear enough for you?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Here's a fun read on polls, pollsters, pundits and Democrats:

Now that was fun reading, and I am completely aware that I enjoyed it because it agrees with what I am always going on about. (You'll note that I haven't commented about the "quality" of the writing or the relative intellect of the author... my opinion on these would be muddied by my bias, so I simply don't offer said opinion.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Now that was fun reading, and I am completely aware that I enjoyed it because it agrees with what I am always going on about. (You'll note that I haven't commented about the "quality" of the writing or the relative intellect of the author... my opinion on these would be muddied by my bias, so I simply don't offer said opinion.)

Sorry, Scrat! I found that irresistible, in my HUMBLE opinion.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Quote:
Now that was fun reading, and I am completely aware that I enjoyed it because it agrees with what I am always going on about. (You'll note that I haven't commented about the "quality" of the writing or the relative intellect of the author... my opinion on these would be muddied by my bias, so I simply don't offer said opinion.)

Sorry, Scrat! I found that irresistible, in my HUMBLE opinion.

Well, perhaps your little exercise helped you to recognize how some are able to acknowledge their own bias and perhaps you will be able to contrast my honesty about my bias with some of your own posts and the lack of any such self-awareness therein. Very Happy

0 Replies

It is always reassuring to read columns by those who confirm one's own biases. I confess to that preferance myself. I do try to read the likes of Safire and Brooks in the NY Times, but not when I 'm hungover or otherwise feeling foul...

Regarding all the formality above--Mr. this and that--is this supposed to be satirical? It's starting to sound a bit leaden.

0 Replies

No bias is more noticeable, nor more objectionable, than bias one happens not to share.

D'Art, leaden is as leaden does, so to speak. Stuff pretty much soars or sinks on its own merit, IMO.

0 Replies

Timber knows from leaden.

0 Replies

"Blanco thoroughly alienated her Democratic base by opposing abortion, taxes, affirmative action, and gay rights (the last one albeit ambiguously)." ( http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=kushner111703 )

So much for any correlation to the Dean campaign.

0 Replies

I fixed your link, nimh ... you have to separate the parentheses brackets from the URL by at least one character space at either end, or the URL will render as text, not a link. Just FYI.

Interesting article, BTW, thanks. The one given at the moment is that there are damned few, if any, givens.

0 Replies

thanks!

0 Replies

New Bush Job Rating poll ... from CNN / USA Today / Gallup

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALpres.GIF

Approve 50%
Disapprove 47%

About a month ago (10-12 Oct), his approval rate was still up at 56% vs. 40%

But some two months ago, he was also already once down to 50% vs. 47% (19-21 Sep).

Three months ago, though (4-6 Aug), he was still riding high at 60% vs. 36%.

At no other point except for 19-21 Sep was the Bush approval rate this low (the numbers go back to Feb 01).

Another (CBS) poll asked last week: "In general, do you think the policies of the Bush Administration favor the rich, favor the middle class, favor the poor, or do they treat all groups the same?"

Numbers for November, compared to those from May this year:

Rich 63% (+9)
Middle Class 9% (-5)
Poor 1% (-2)
All the Same 23% (+1)

All from http://www.pollingreport.com

0 Replies

Now, Trent Lott gets tarred and feathered for an obscure reference to an abandoned and repudiated political era while offering birthday flattery to a retired elder statesman at a private party, taped by and for a minor-market local broadcaster, while Ted Kennedy gets a last-paragraph, page-6 pass for equating blacks, hispanics and women to "Neanderthals", and Republicans to "Turkeys", from the floor of the US Senate on live national television ... just how does that work?
The Dems seem set on distancing themselves from the South, from minorities, and from women. If they keep this sort of idiocy up, and there's no indication they won't, not even the liberal mainstream media will be able to hide their cynicism and hypocricy from the populace. With freinds such as themselves, the Dems could achieve defeat without active opponents.

0 Replies

Did anyone catch Wes Clark lose his cool on Meet the Press when Tim Russert used Wes's own quotes to demonstrate Clark's inconsistencies? Wes may have thought he was being "firm and resolute in the pursuit of accuracy", but he came off as a hotheaded waffler, likely giving his candidate-wannabee compatriots more ammo with which to attack him. I think Wes might just become the kid every other kid on the playground likes to beat up. He definitely revealed he could be riled up pretty easily ... not very Presidential.

0 Replies

Gotta agree; we don't need a hothead as our pres.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

while Ted Kennedy gets a last-paragraph, page-6 pass for equating blacks, hispanics and women to "Neanderthals", and Republicans to "Turkeys", from the floor of the US Senate on live national television ... just how does that work?
The Dems seem set on distancing themselves from the South, from minorities, and from women.

Stupid though the remark may have been, Kennedy did not call "blacks, hispanics and women" Neanderthalers - he implied that six individual judicial nominees had been Neanderthalers, of whom three were women and one was hispanic.

And alienate minority or women voters the episode would only if you assume that somehow, women voters, for example, will strongly identify themselves with Patricia Owen ...

Lott, I believe, extolled a political figure who had been a symbol of racist politics. I dont see how calling six Bushist nominees of different gender and ethnicity comes down to anything similar or parallel in terms of racist/sexist abuse.

I also dont quite get all of the hullaballoo about these filibusters, in any case. So Bush c.s. only got their way on 168 out of 174 nominees, and had to give up on the remaining six. How is being limited to such a 97% success ratio such a scandal? Especially given that one was voted in on a mere 48% of the vote in any case - when the nation is so neatly divided in two near-equal parts, a little bit of bipartisanity (is that a word?) is obviously asked for. And insisting on every single last of your nominees, no matter how repulsive to the other half (s)he may be, being pushed through is hardly a sign of that ...

0 Replies

nimh, I think the real sticking point is not the 6 appointed nominees, but the unprecedented obstruction of the voting process by the use of the fillibuster. Its not that the appointments were voted down, its that they were prevented from coming to a vote at all. And just for the record, I don't place much one way or the other on either Lott's or Kennedy's gaffes. More is made of less, and less is done about more, in politics than in any other field of human endeavor, I think.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

nimh, I think the real sticking point is not the 6 appointed nominees, but the unprecedented obstruction of the voting process by the use of the fillibuster. Its not that the appointments were voted down, its that they were prevented from coming to a vote at all.

Timber - I think part of the problem is that most liberals don't understand this point, and the others don't care.

0 Replies

Well, apparently filibustering is a legal recourse in US politics, and the Dems have used it to block six out of one-hundred-seventy-four nominations. What's the hullaballoo?

If you feel filibustering is a practice so vile it shouldnt be allowed in a democracy, turn your fire on the laws that allow it (and allow it to be used by both parties), not to the Dems who have used it this specific time. They have used it merely to fend off the six most repulsive nominations out of a total of 174 - 3% of the total - which doesnt in itself evidence a great "blocking fever".

From what I gather, the filibuster option allows a sizable minority to block the majority from pushing its each and every piece of policy through even when its majority is only narrow. It protects the 46% against the 54% and as such, it seems a reasonable enough concept, however ludicrous the actual practice comes across. Considering the percentage of Bush nominations that did get through, it doesnt look like the Dem minority is using it excessively. Just my two cents.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Well, apparently filibustering is a legal recourse in US politics, and the Dems have used it to block six out of one-hundred-seventy-four nominations. What's the hullaballoo?

You appear to imply that a political action has to be illegal to merit a hullaballoo -- or a scandal, as you phrased it earlier. It doesn't. For example, it is perfectly legal for Bush to hire a lobyist from a particular industry to head the agency that regulates that very industry. It just stinks to high heaven. By the same logic, if the Democrats' filibuster decisions they don't want made, that's perfectly legal. But it is nevertheless a scandal. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganter, regardless of the ganter's party affiliation.

That's what the hullaballoo is about. And I believe that's what timber was trying to explain to you.

0 Replies

Convoluted Logic
There he goes again. Timber just loves to twist logic into a Shrub pretzle.

Quote:

Lott, I believe, extolled a political figure who had been a symbol of racist politics. I dont see how calling six Bushist nominees of different gender and ethnicity comes down to anything similar or parallel in terms of racist/sexist abuse.

The above is logical. What Timber posted is that typical Repub. trash.

BTW that Medicare Bill stinks like 5 day old fish left in the sun.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know