A generally positive review of Dean's performance on "Meet The Press" from the New Republic:
There were two striking things about Howard Dean's performance on "Meet the Press" Sunday. First was Dean's ability to fend off the many Russertian gotcha questions thrown his way. Second, and more importantly, was the fact that the Howard Dean on "Meet the Press" sounded more like the Rockefeller-Republican Howard Dean one hears about from Vermonters than the red-meat Howard Dean one hears on the stump. Both aspects of Dean's performance should come into play as the campaign progresses.
PDid, Howard Dean deserves watching. So far so good; I hope it stays that way until election time. c.i.
Russert definitely laid some booby traps. So far, Dean is my man.
Are most of you counting Gephart out of the race? If so, why?
I don't like Gephardt for the same reason I dislike Kerry - I noticed a rise in their "passion" in direct proportion to how much they were challenged by the likes of Dean. Their rhetoric seems prefab to me - as opposed to Dean's, who seems to me to speak with the courage of his convictions.
A subjective judgement call, to be sure. But isn't much of elective politics?
Ditto. To me, Gephardt always looks (and talks) like someone out of a comic strip. Kerry is kind of a throwback, a NotQuiteKennedy paper doll. Pre-fab is the right term, Snood. Hand-puppets. Would like to have seen Dean on TV -- only I would have turned off because I can't stand Russert's new, vapid, neo-con persona.
I've always been a "flaming" (leftward) Democrat. But when I returned to the US after a long absence, the Dems seemed as full of cant as the Reps. If Dean seems to be stripping that away, he'll have my vote for sure.
The only time I see TV is while I'm panting away on the Precor at the gym and it's almost always turned to Fox. I don't know how much longer that virulent stuff can last. Surely not much longer? The question is, Will we step back from neo-news or will it only get worse? How many of us feel real disgust?
I can only watch Fox in small doses. A sidebar - What the hell did they do to Geraldo? I remember his days in the earlier versions of '20/20' - he was a real pistol! I wanted to be like him. Now he seems to have sold his soul.
Anyway, I worry what goes on in this country that causes jingoistic, rightwingnut tripe like the daily fare on Fox to be so popular.
Yup -- worries me too, Snood... a lot. But we love trends and change and for that reason if no other I think Fox will eventually take a dive. The war is almost bound to reveal things about us that we won't like -- maybe that'll do the trick. (Also, I think the economy is really going to tank. That will make everything slick and un-nourishing -- like Fox -- seem much less attractive.)
The "Hardball" MSNBC guy (can't think of his name) scares me when he says things like "I'm afraid we're heading for the worst International disaster in history, with this war."
up here in Canada we get CNN...and most people up here think of CNN on the same level as many think of Jerry Springer....
Marc wrote:up here in Canada we get CNN...and most people up here think of CNN on the same level as many think of Jerry Springer....
Marc - In another discussion you claimed to have information that US troops set fire to oil infrastructure after the first Gulf War. I and others are awaiting your citation of any source to back up that claim.
"CNN on the same level as many think of Jerry Springer....?" What do you Canadians drink up there in north country? LOL c.i.
Canadians -- thanks to all those cleansing cold fronts -- think clearly. Glad to hear CNN is rated accurately up there. May move north of the other border just to recover sanity.
P.S. to Mark -- I also have heard a number of interviews lately with Gulf War vets who bear out the oilfields story. Will try to remember to jot down the source next time. It's an old story.
Tartarin wrote:P.S. to Mark -- I also have heard a number of interviews lately with Gulf War vets who bear out the oilfields story. Will try to remember to jot down the source next time. It's an old story.
I look forward to either of you providing a source to support this provocative claim, and would also ask you to consider the value of sharing such inflamatory information when you aren't prepared to back it up. (I mean no offense by this; it's just something to consider.)
The whole point of having a discussion of this kind is to share information, find out its validity. Again I urge that we regard these forums as places to try out ideas, talk about news we've heard, post links when possible, but not withhold something interesting and relevant because we can't at once provide "proof." I object strongly to any attempt to "Ashcroft" discussions of this kind.
no comment but i did find this:
GULF WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION QUESTIONS WHO STARTED THE OIL WELL FIRES IN KUWAIT.
For the past six years, the American Gulf War Veterans Association have received numerous reports from veterans stating that US forces were responsible for the setting of the oil well fires at the end of the Gulf War. These testimonies are now being taken very seriously in light of recent revelations of the events that occurred during the first Gulf War.
i do not know the valitidy of the source
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0302/S00215.htm
