Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Good point, Tartarin! (interesting article as well)

I think I got momentarily concerned people might start to downplay the damage Nixon did throughout his life...
Cool

0 Replies

What it seems like to me Tart is that Krugman and ilk are being so squeezed by events they are being forced to recognize that fewer and fewer folks are buying their weasely, appeasement-oriented, denialist inanity. Irrelevance is most discomfitting to those who render it upon themselves.

I fully expect the upcoming electoral process will provide even greater inconvenience to the Bash Bush Bunch. A clear, indisputable popular mandate is going to be hard to argue with, even for Democrats.

0 Replies

Krugman's closing comment,

Quote:

And even aside from the double standard, how important is civility? I'm all for good manners, but this isn't a dinner party. The opposing sides in our national debate are far apart on fundamental issues, from fiscal and environmental policies to national security and civil liberties. It's the duty of pundits and politicians to make those differences clear, not to play them down for fear that someone will be offended.

sure sounds to me like an anguished whine of horrified recognition of failure, an attempt to spin the now evident shift in sentiment, as characterized by a perceived abandonment of The Left by the punditocracy, even further from the left as the result not of public awareness but of Conservative "Dirty Tricks". The only tricks being played here are the dumb tricks The Democrats are playing on themselves. But then, they're the only ones dumb enough to fall for them.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

A clear, indisputable popular mandate is going to be hard to argue with, even for Democrats.

Not if they simply refuse to acknowledge reality. Shocked

0 Replies

timber

I think the yowling you hear is from that thesis you are torturing.

"Squeezed by events"...sure, one could make that case, but the same could be said of folks who protested McCarthy or the rise in power of the Nazi party. I suppose artists, jews, historians and even a few military folks felt 'irrelevant' in Berlin at that time. Perhaps they felt even as if they had 'failed'.

Who might presently be in power tells us nothing of value. And if values are what makes America special, then the worship of power, or even the use of power as a measurement, becomes itself profoundly anti-American.

Krugman argues from principle above. You don't. Even though I know you have them, old friend.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Who might presently be in power tells us nothing of value.

Unless you consider the will of the people as expressed at the polls and through our system of elections to be of value. Then it tells us quite a bit; about who we are as a nation, about what our values are and what they are not. The more clearly we see that most Americans do not share the values of the left, the more people on the left tell us that we shouldn't pay attention to the values of most Americans.

0 Replies

blatham, please understand that, on principle, there isn't much in your last post with which I can agree, other than that both of us have principles.

And, of course, I understand and appreciate your allegiance to the pack with which you choose to howl. I'm just not in that pack.

0 Replies

What is it with the half baked psychology around here? It's irrational when Bush is hated but reasonable when it's Clinton who is the hatee?

0 Replies

Spiro Agnew lives! Timber: who was your grade school teacher? Blatham: Does Timber really have principles? What kind?

One of this administration's favorite words is "overwhelming,"though I'm sure they don't catch on to the irony! "Overwhelming" numbers of Iraqis are pro-American. "Overwhelming" numbers of voters chose George Bush. But if you examine what is really meant by "overwhelming," it always entails lies and dirty tricks.

That's why one of of the most interesting activities for us pedants is to figure out the administration's Orwellian misuse of language. With the help of people from Jay Leno to Al Franken, voters are catching on and are learning to turn their words against them...

Speaking of words, it was good (and really interesting) to hear John Edwards this morning call Ashcroft "despicable." My Republican neighbors agree.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

What is it with the half baked psychology around here? It's irrational when Bush is hated but reasonable when it's Clinton who is the hatee?

That is because Clinton was sooooooooooooo popular with the women Twisted Evil

0 Replies

scrat

Does it follow then that any government elected at any time is 'right', being a reflection of majority opinion? Say, back five years in the US? Or back when interracial marriage was against the law, and an abomination?

timber

Nothing for it but to argue for what we each believe. Anything less is not good enough.

0 Replies

He (Clinton) was only popular with women with no class.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

scrat

Does it follow then that any government elected at any time is 'right', being a reflection of majority opinion? Say, back five years in the US? Or back when interracial marriage was against the law, and an abomination?

You're blending two distinct questions there. Let me sort them out and answer each:

"Does it follow then that any government elected at any time is 'right', being a reflection of majority opinion?"

Yes, it is always "right" for the US to be led by those elected by the people to lead the US.

"Or back when interracial marriage was against the law, and an abomination?"

I don't recall a federal ban on interracial marriage, and believe one such would be unconstitutional. I do not know which states may once have had such laws, nor whether their constitutions would allow such, though I take the fact that no such law exists today as an indicator that our system works in the long run.

BTW, I never meant to suggest that the will of the people is always right, but rather that our elections are a powerful indicator of the values of our society.

0 Replies

Well, that's a compliment, cjhsa.......I loved Clinton......still do. Not only do I appreciate his intelligence and wisdom in most things, but I also think he's very sexy. I guess we know about me now.....oh well, we knew it anyway, didn't we?

0 Replies

Scrat,

Does the fact that Bush won by one electoral vote (only one) and lost the popular vote effect your feeling that it's a powerful mandate from the people? That Bush's win indicates a powerful indicator of the values of our society? Sounds pretty weak to me. We're divided over this "values" issue, clearly. Even if Gore had won the election, it would still not be a powerful indicator of anything, other than that we're divided. And of course (speaking of the powerful indicator, only, not debating who won the election, for those who nit pick) if you add Nadar's votes, we have a better indicator of which direction the division leans.

0 Replies

Lola - Where did I write that I considered Bush's election to be a "powerful mandate from the people"? Please refresh my memory, because I don't recall writing that. Thanks. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Sorry to insult you Lola, but I cannot believe that women loved Clinton as much as they did. The guy just reeked of insincerity, with a capital SIN. It's gotta be the old misunderstanding between the sexes, you know, "How can they find anything attractive about that?"

I would've voted the guy out just so I didn't have to listen to him sing any more speeches (that silly sing song southern voice). It screamed car salesman.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

What is it with the half baked psychology around here? It's irrational when Bush is hated but reasonable when it's Clinton who is the hatee?

Interesting ... other than passing mention of the name, or inclusion within a quote, I don't think The Clinton Card has been played on this thread for a couple hundred replies. It seems too its The Left that tries to bring it to the table most frequently. Some psychology just won't bake, even halfway. Might observe too, allegorically speaking, that it won't wash, either; it gets stuck in the spin cycle.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I would've voted the guy out just so I didn't have to listen to him sing any more speeches (that silly sing song southern voice). It screamed car salesman.

Used car salesman. Confused

But hey, he wasn't my cup of tea, but it seems I was in the electoral minority in that opinion, so he got the gig. I'd give him a D- for his tenure, but I'd only give Bush a C+ so far. (I don't grade presidents on a curve.) :wink:

0 Replies

cjhsa

Talking about screams. Bush screams MORON.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know