There are other possibilities, however, Sofia. I agree this is fun. Interesting. I think Clark may prevail. And here is the reason why. Clark is not a member of the Christian fundamentalist group, he's actually against it and because he can beat Bush who is a member of this group.
I think it must be hard for mainstream Republicans to recognize that the Republican party is in power today because they are in bed with the devil. I don't say this to be sarcastic or mean. I'm saying it because I believe it's true. And I intend to back up what I'm saying for several reasons. One is I need to make up my own mind. And another is I believe we're at a crisis point in this country and it has implications for the international community as well.
I'm not anti-religion, although I don't personally have much use for most religions in my own life. What I am concerned about is this particular religion/political organization which has no name because it's not an actual organization as in the noun sense of the word, but rather in the verb sense, bears many important likenesses to a fascist organization. It isn't as extreme as the Nazi's, or I don't believe it is. But they are already in power in many states, in Congress, in the Executive branch and all that remains is the courts. If Bush wins this election, it will be much harder to fight the battle against them and will take much longer. In the meantime many people will get hurt. And if we can judge by what Bush has already done by making a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, the welfare of the international community is at stake.
It may be a fine goal to secure oil reserves so that the US isn't overly dependent on ruthless fanatical fundamentalists of the Muslim religion who are in control of the oil. I can understand that this is a danger. But we are fighting fundamentalist extremism with fundamentalist extremism. And I think this is a bargain with the devil that will back fire in a dangerous way. I recognize that my evaluation of the situation may be wrong. But I intend to find out as much as I can about it so I can make up my mind. In any case, I know we are giving up too many of our civil rights and this can't be good or necessary.
So Clark may be in place and have the backing of the DNC and the Clintons (heaven forbid) because he can make the important difference now. So he has the backing, intelligence and creative power that the other candidates don't have. I'm speculating here, so I hope some obsessive person doesn't come along and demand my documentation on the spot. I'm working on it and I'll share it with you as I find it. Actually, I'd like it if others would help me in this regard. This could be a cooperative effort. (Please excuse my idealism.)
I know lots of people think the Clintons have sold out. But I don't think of it this way. I think many practical minded people in the DNC know what is at stake and recognize how to win.
One way to look at this is that there is a culture war going on world wide. It is between those who recognize the value and necessity of individualism (not wild individualism, but responsible individualism) and those who want to fall back on authority, which in my opinion abdicates individual responsibility. There's a lot more I could say about this, and I have a lot more thinking to do about it, but for now I'm saying it because it gets me to the next point.
I believe that genuine change cannot be forced on anyone. Change must be gradual. Protestation is a fine tool for change. But when it comes to winning an election, there has to be some give and take. Some trade off, some building of good faith, in order to make it to the next step. But the trade offs cannot be fatal. So that's what I think the Clintons did that made them winners. And it's why they have my respect. Now we need another candidate like Bill Clinton. And it's too early for Hillary. So, I think Clark may be it.
The stage is set for the right candidate. People are fed up with Bush. We're hurting economically and in the high emotional price for this war. Our sons and daughters are dying needlessly. It's reckless what Bush and his advisors have done. And I think this election is ripe for a turn over. But it will take the right candidate. That's my opinion.
Lola--
Don't be concerned if anyone makes unreasonable demands for immediate links. No sensible person should support such behavior.
Thanks for the in-depth treatment of your opinion. I can understand your rationale for most of it. I don't believe there is a sinister cadre of secret fundies controlling anything. I think they are mixed in the administration, just like Catholics, blacks, women, and gays. I don't believe these factors play a part in their criteria for job placement....but I do think more fundies are GOP rather than Dem., for obvious reasons.
I really get your rationale of Clark for President, and I think you may be onto something....'trade offs'.
When you have time, could you share the civil rights we've had to give up re: terrorism, that is too much, or that affects you negatively?
It is my conjecture, re Clark, that he will for the immediate future be at the center of the chaotic internecine fight currently occupying the Democratic Party, squabbles I perceive as leaving Kerry, and just possibly Gephardt, as "The last one(s) standing", and, by comparison with the others, relatively unscathed. Clark's own political future, from what I can see, has little real prospect. He is a pawn. I do not discount the possibility a bitter fight for the Democratic Candidacy might continue even as far as a multi-ballot, eventually coalition-brokered, Democratic Convention. I rather expect that will prove to be the case, in fact.
Sofia,
I understand and respect the fact that you don't see or recognize the organized fundamentalists who are in power in your party. I consider it my responsibility to demonstrate that for you.
And I appreciate your respectful and reasoned response to my post. What a relief! Hopefully others will pay attention and follow in your footsteps. I recognize that I've been as guilty as others in making, short little cheap shots, but I think the time has come to get down to some serious debate and investigation.
One of my biggest concerns is women's rights. They are severely endangered, and I'm not just talking about the right to choose about abortion. The right to function as individuals, according to our own conscience is in danger.
And while I recognize the need to fight against the terrorists, which may mean some very temporary curtailment of certain rights, the controls on these temporary measures are not in place and are not given a high priority. Can someone else help me here with the details of the treatment of "war criminals?"
But the separation of church and state is in extreme danger. I'll try to provide more information for you on this that is specific to help you understand that it's not just, "let's have equal representation" of religions, as george has so eloquently advocated. There is a plan to enforce a certain, highly authoritative, literal interpretation of morality on all the citizens of this country, as well as the world. These folks are sure they are correct in their extreme beliefs and believe it is their duty to force it on the rest of us.
John Ashcroft has already got his nose deeply embedded in our bedrooms. He has already begun interfering with the rights of some dying patients to get the medicine they need to live as long as they can with as little pain as is necessary. (Help me here everyone, what else is he up to?)
I'll compile a better list when I have the time to think about this. Thanks for helping me understand those areas I have to clarify.
More on the political strength of the religious right:
http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction.html
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
This web site is produced by TheocracyWatch
a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University
By Joan Bokaer, Executive Director
Susan McGreivy, Web Master
Last Update August, 2003
Quote:This drive for "dominion" is underestimated by the media and political analysts. Karl Rove estimates the number of people from the Religious Right who voted for Bush in 2000 to be about 15 million, and he talked about raising that number to 19 million. With the Religious Right's passion to gain control of the federal court system and its ability to send followers to the polls by the busload, Rove's estimate is probably modest, and its number as a voting bloc could exceed 20 million.
The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th Congress, was intended to bypass campaign finance reform and allow houses of worship to collect money for political campaigns. It was drafted with help from Pat Robertson's law school. These contributions would have been both anonymous and tax exempt. This bill was lobbied for intensively by virtually all the key organizations of the Religious Right, and opposed by a strong coalition of mainline religious groups. It was defeated in the House of Representatives on October 3, 2002, thereby denying unrestricted campaign contributions to be made through the collection plate.
Because most groups except the Religious Right opposed the bill, it was a good measure of their numbers in the House. Roughly 43% of those who voted supported the bill (178 for, 239 against). Candidates backed by the Religious Right won 18 new seats in the House of Representatives. The bill was re-introduced in January, 2003. To read a fact sheet on the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act from the Interfaith Alliance. Click Here
Another bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives that indicates the strength of the Religious Right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed on July 23, by a vote of 260 - 161. The bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts. This bill is an assault on an independent judiciary.
To quote from Church and State, "One Alabama newspaper blasted the amendment. Calling the move "outrageous and wholly unconstitutional, " The Tuscaloosa News editorialized July 30, "While the amendment can and certainly should be stripped from the bill in the Senate, Hostettler's move shows that the same kind of blatant disregard of the law that Moore is trading in back here in Alabama is also current in Washington. That his ploy is not likely to stand does not make it any less outrageous. "
Seems to me, Lola, that article raises a lot of concern over what it points out are failed initiatives. I would point out that regardless of legislation and/or public sentiment, law is a matter of The Constitution and its Ammendments. A better example of that cannot be found than the current flap over the National Do-Not-Call List.
Is Bush wearing a flak jacket, or is this just another one of his attempts to be more macho
Trying to be more macho......definitely.
Timber,
It is the Constitution I'm concerned about. The courts are stepping back 5 decades if Bush is reelected.
timberlandko wrote:I gotta wonder why someone would take the time to develop and present valid points of rebuttal, then diminish that rebuttal by framing it with cheapshot and thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. Then again, I s'pose there's little cause for wonder.
Low self esteem? Low self control? Or maybe some people are just plain assholes.....you can take a pig out of the mud and bath it, tie ribbons on it and put cologne on it and the pig goes right back to the mud because at the end of the day that's where they like it and are most comfortable....
This is not meant to be an insult aimed at anyone in particular of course.....merely an observation and an attempt to offer my humble opinion of the answer to timber's question.
Since a recent conflagration, with attendent memos, I have decided to join the Canadian Republicans for Christ and Wholesome Foodstuffs. Well, perhaps that's an overstatement.
But BPBear, perhaps we ought to reduce the personal attacks. Your post above is generally good hearted, like you are when jesting, but it does have some other consequences when we allow ourselves this bit of fun. We are, and I'm partially responsible, in some danger of heading into abuzzland if we continue.
Timber
You know, I too think that Clark is possibly best thought of in that manner - a personage who it's considered has the right sort of elements to beat the incumbent. But that is precisely the way in which I considered Bush when I first heard long ago that he was being pushed forward. As you might suspect, I both consider Clark to be a far more capable individual than Bush, and though I would prefer a fellow with the passion of Dean, I would support Clark if it seemed more probable he'd beat Bush.
I'm glad you tossed in the "overstatement" qualifier, blatham ... I'd hate to think of you giving up junkfood just to make a political statement ... that'd be an awful lot to expect of anyone, let alone a Canayjun Clarkist
Clark if nothing else he can speak in coherent sentences while Bush cannot. But in retrospect Bush's speech patterns reflect his policies they too are incoherent.
Tell you what then, here's my pledge...no more jests light hearted or otherwise of that type from the Bear....but we headed into Abuzzland the first day a certain poster showed up as far as I'm concerned
there...no more about it...... :wink:
I think that's a good idea Bi Polar Bear. I think it would be best if we all tried to ignore flamers. That's what I'm going to do, and I hope others will do the same.
...still reevaluating....
reevaluating what ... goals, junkfood, Clark?
timberlandko wrote:Its good to have goals.
Especially if you can prevent the other team from scoring them.
