0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 04:57 pm
Don't let it be said that I don't play devil's advocate with the Dems:

Quote:
American myths of masculinity draw on the strong, silent archetype -- John Wayne and Gary Cooper, later Charles Bronson and Charlton Heston, and more recently the subarticulate comic book action heroes like Sylvester Stallone and, yes, Ahnuld. American portraits of maleness have always favored instinct over intellect, action over reason. Rhett over Ashley. Patton over Marshall. Kirk over Spock. In this context, Bush's frat-boy past and Arnold's "playful" girl groping (never mind that it looks like creepy power-mongering when you really examine it) qualify as youthful expressions of the same testosterone that makes for grown-up action heroes. By comparison, Howard Dean's choleric outbursts look like Elmer Fudd spluttering, and the aristocratic let-us-reason-together authority of John Kerry comes across as lack of muscle tone.

"Good riddance" may not be a particularly eloquent thing for Bush to say about Saddam -- but comic-strip heroes don't have to be eloquent. In his interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush was like a guy in a sports bar, not much inclined to big-think. Dirty Harry doesn't talk much, and always in words of one syllable, but while the police commissioner is still fretting about getting a proper search warrant Harry has already offed the bad guy with his great big pistol.


Tough Time for Democrats
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 05:11 pm
Bush as the Dirty Harry of foreign affairs. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 06:39 pm
PDiddies post oh too true....a bunch of he man want to bes living their desires vicariously through their perception of a real tough guy....man have these idiots backed the wrong horse........
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 06:52 pm
You'd think they would notice the horse is riding them...Tijuana style! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 06:57 pm
Seabiscuit has better breeding than GWBush - IMHO.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 07:01 pm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16833
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 10:27 pm
Click the graph for details.


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

The Libyan surprise, of course, has not affected the most recent polls. Bush the Younger's prestige among The Electorate continues to suffer little inconvenience. If in fact planning and execution, not mere serendipity, are driving his successess, a growing momentum may be inferred. I expect the fallout from Ghadaffi's declaration will further serve the President's agenda. Without major setback in the near-to-mid term, The Current Administration apparently is assured continuance. Much can change in a matter of hours, of course, to say nothing of months, and just for the symbolism of the season, there is strong reason to expect a major terrorist effort. Even should that eventuate, it likely would play to Bush the Younger's favor no matter were US, European or Asian targets to be involved, and especially so if multiple attacks in diverse places were to be attempted, successful or otherwise. Momentum is a powerful force, and it is not working to Bush the Younger's disadvantage so far as can be seen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 10:46 pm
timber, Let's face it; it's not so much that GWBush is preferred to anybody else. It's that the democrats don't have any agenda, and continue to fight amongst themselves. At one point, I had hoped that Howard Dean would be the best candidate to overtake GWBush, but it's not to be. I've given up on the democrats too - they don't deserve to win anything. I guess I'll go back to Nader - he's still the best choice on principle. Those knuckleheads in the democratic party has shot themselves in the foot.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 02:41 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, Let's face it; it's not so much that GWBush is preferred to anybody else. It's that the democrats don't have any agenda, and continue to fight amongst themselves.

Not to mention they don't have a candidate. But this will change at the Democratic convention in 2004, which will also take care of the agenda problem and the infighting problem. What happens after that will be interesting. My guess is that what Americans really want is a moderate Republican like Bill Clinton. But this choice is not available in 2004, and it's open whether they prefer an average Democrat or a radical Republican. I'm still hoping the Democrats are being 'misunderestimated', as an American philosopher put it during the last campaign.

cicerone imposter wrote:
I guess I'll go back to Nader - he's still the best choice on principle.

I'm curious which principle that might be. Maybe "If you fear that your preferred policy might lose, vote for a total sucker to make sure the worst policy gets reelected"? I confess I can't see the wisdom of this principle.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 08:41 am
Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 with a decidedly smaller percentage of votes cast than Bush in 2000. The reason was Ross Perot. Nader is a sad example of what happens to social 'reformers' as they age. His appeal among some Democrats is real enough to capture a small percentage of the vote. Not a bad outcome, in my view.

The Democrat party today has no self-consistent values, political principles, or platform. It is captive to the menagerie of single interestt groups that animate its various spokesmen and pull the strings of the dwarves who pose as candidates.

Bill Clinton very wisely used the Democrat Leadership Council to suspend that otherwise normal condition in 1992, and that led to his victory. During his eight years in office he alternately aligned himself with the Republican Congress in 'unselfish acts of bipartisan statesmanship' (welfare reform), or symbolically opposed the Congress (the 1996 budget impasse) in the name of Democrat values. (ironically the deadlock likely benefitted the country by paralysing the initiatives of both parties.).

Gore, in his 2000 campaign, appeared to break from the Clinton pattern, with his populist appeals. Hard to be certain just what might be the motives behind his endorsement of Dean, but I suspect it is rage at the continued efforts of the Clintons to manipulate the process and the party. Clark is their candidate. His role, in case Bush appears to be faltering, is to make a speech at the Democrat Convention nominating Hillary as the 'unifying' candidate (and later to be her running mate). Interestingly if that scenario does not materialize, Hillary's best option is for a decisive Democrat defeat, perhaps with a candidate such as Dean. This leads to speculation about an even deeper conspiracy, but I doubt that people are quite that tricky.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 11:13 am
Here's Ralph Nader's (Green Party) platform.
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html
Atleast they "stand" for something; complete opposite of the heartless repubs. The Green Party extremes will never win the majority of voters, but the effort to balance the 'other' extremes of the repubs require extremes of the Green Party.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 12:24 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
timber, Let's face it; it's not so much that GWBush is preferred to anybody else. It's that the democrats don't have any agenda, and continue to fight amongst themselves. At one point, I had hoped that Howard Dean would be the best candidate to overtake GWBush, but it's not to be. I've given up on the democrats too - they don't deserve to win anything. I guess I'll go back to Nader - he's still the best choice on principle. Those knuckleheads in the democratic party has shot themselves in the foot.


Just what the Repukes are banking on, c.i.

Why would you quit before kickoff?

First primary's in thirty days (a bit less, actually).

The real poll.

Why don't you at least make it to halftime and see if the Dems got any game. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 12:52 pm
PDid, The democrats still don't have a game plan. Without a game plan, waiting for half time is useless. All they do is scramble and continue to get penalties, because the defense and offense doesn't know what they're doing. When a team continues to work against each other, they end up losing all the games they play. If they think they can win the game with two minutes on the clock, and they're behind by 50 points, there's no hope left. Let's face it; even the players on the demo team don't know where the goal line is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 12:55 pm
BTW, No team wins when the quarterback doesn't have any protection, and the offensive line is so weak, it works against their own team. As a matter of fact, the front line encourages the defense to come through on every play. It's a wonder Dean is still standing.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 01:20 pm
Good pigskin analogies, c.i.

I think you're being a little overly pessimistic.

It's been a rough week for the Dems, no doubt.

To count them out a month before any votes have been cast, however, is folly.

You're welcome to crawl back on the bandwagon when the tide changes (as it most surely will).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 01:25 pm
That'll be their last hope of survivng the next election, but I doubt any "damage control" they bring into play will help them any. There are too many disgruntled fans out there.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 03:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Here's Ralph Nader's (Green Party) platform.
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html

Thank you for posting this. I now know that Ralph Nader stands for a platform with a 100 point program, all but three points of which I hate. (The three are abolishment of the death penalty, ending the war on drugs, and the refusal to sacrifice civil rights to the war on terrorism) I never thought there is anything that would make me want George Bush in the White House. Now I know there is: It's when the alternative is Ralph Nader anywhere near the White House.

I warmly recommend that every Democrat thinking about voting for Nader read this text, then think again.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 03:05 pm
Truly frogging hilarious!Lord of the Iowan Rings
Quote:
Rings' ends, and a darker story begins
By Diane Carman
Denver Post Columnist

It was 10:30 in the morning and I was souped up on caffeine. After struggling to stay awake through the first two episodes of "The Lord of the Rings," I knew enough to ingest sufficient stimulants before entering the theater this time.

And I don't know if it was the coffee or the diet cola or what, but I finally got into the whole J.R.R. Tolkien thing. I was amused, enlightened, moved. In fact, I was transported to another fantasy world altogether.

Iowa.

At the beginning of "The Return of the King," Frodo speaks the ominous words: "The days are growing darker." And I knew just what he meant. Only 29 days until the Iowa caucuses.

Things are going to get medieval.

But before Karl Rove arrives as the faceless dark knight, we need a bit of scene-setting.

In this, the finale to the trilogy, we rediscover Frodo and his faithful sidekick, Sam, where we left them at the end of Part Two, in the gloomy swamp with the craven, duplicitous Gollum. Gollum simply has to be the face of the insurance industry, the seductive villain who tries to lead even the most wide-eyed hobbit astray in election years. There's no other possible explanation.

Frodo and Sam, the guileless Iowa voters, are exhausted after the first two episodes spent slogging through the haunted forests of the Bush administration. Furthermore, they're hungry, jobless and have no health insurance.

Cut to Lady Arwen, the beautiful maiden played by Liv Tyler, daughter of a rock star, who came from L.A. to save the world and finance the campaign of the front-runner.

"Reforge the sword," she said (and no matter what her dad thinks, it wasn't a sexual innuendo).

Enter Gandalf, the white-bearded wizard, who has adopted Pippin, the shy undecided voter, and set out on a white horse to save humanity. (Ian McKellen is almost as good in this role as he was playing Maggie Smith hilariously kissing Jimmy Fallon on "Saturday Night Live" last year.) Anyway, I'm pretty sure he's playing Al Gore.

"We come to it at last, the great battle of our time," Gandalf said, trying to unify the party despite factions bickering over the ring, the sword, the magic glow stick, war, peace and prescription drug benefits.

Torches burst into flames, bells peal, legions of knights in armor leap onto their horses and earnest Democrats from all over the country gallop into Middle America knowing full well they could get slaughtered in the final battle anyway.

Sure enough, their sadistic opponents mock them. "The age of Democratic men is over," said the Bill O'Reilly lookalike with the dental disability. "The time of the Republican Orc has come."

But most of the Democratic hopefuls scrambled over the rocky precipices and fetid marshes of deadly debates anyway.

John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich stagger in under the weight of their swords. Al Sharpton, the ever-witty Gimli, promises a valiant fight. Carol Moseley Braun plays Eowyn, the sole woman with the guts to go to battle. Dick Gephardt keeps striking poses as the bland, blond Legolas. And Howard Dean is doing his best mighty Aragorn imitation.

Meanwhile, surrogates for John Kerry and Joe Lieberman are hacking off the heads of Democrats that displease them, and throwing them back into the crowded field in a reckless show of pique. They came into this fight with all the advantages heavy armor, party loyalty and years of experience can provide (zilch), and they're so mad about being ignored they've resorted to behaving like Orcs.

Wesley Clark, in classic military-brass style, is waiting to gallop in triumphantly after the serious bloodletting has ended.

"Become who you are born to be," says Aragorn, energizing his base. "You shall live to see these days renewed. No more despair."

Not all the voters are convinced, but with his magic sword aglow with Internet campaign contributions, the front-runner leads his scraggly, hapless army into battle.

The enemies surround the leader of the early polls and torment him with slings, arrows and attack ads.

Gandalf gives the command to advance. Aragorn struggles to lead as the others snipe at him, complaining that he's not a real warrior. He didn't support the Iraq resolution.

Meanwhile the Mumakil, giant elephants with names like Halliburton, Enron, Invesco, stampede the weary masses, leaving them broke and robbed of their 401(k) investments.

Finally, Aragorn appeals to the one power that can save him. He awakens the living dead: the apathetic, those not registered to vote, the Democrats and independents who checked out in disgust when the Orcs raided the treasury for tax cuts.

Their force is enough to overwhelm the naysayers and scare the scales right off the Orcs, whose leader, with his cockeyed smirk, is a dead ringer for Dick Cheney.

Now, I don't want to give away the ending. Let's just say it looks like Aragorn is going to come out on top in this episode.

But this isn't Minas Tirith, after all.

It's Iowa. And it's only the beginning.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 03:17 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The Democrat party today has no self-consistent values, political principles, or platform.

I agree, but how is that different from the Republicans? What, in your judgement, is the consistent theme uniting the libertarians, the fiscal conservatives and the religious right? The only thing I see at the moment is a commitment to winning elections, being good at it, and a self-sustaining positive feedback loop between the two. It seems to work in a similar way as the British Conservatives did in the 80s. One day, the Republicans will start losing a few elections. And when this happens, I predict they'll collapse just like the British conservatives did after Margret Thatcher retired.

But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 03:20 pm
Quote:
I now know that Ralph Nader stands for a platform with a 100 point program, all but three points of which I hate. (The three are abolishment of the death penalty

Yup, the more smelly lower class people dead, the better. That's what made America great.

Quote:
, ending the war on drugs,

True...the war on drugs has helped keep those summy loer class people in squalor where they belong!.

Quote:
and the refusal to sacrifice civil rights to the war on terrorism)

Because Americans have far too many rights! Totalitarianism would be preferable.
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/01/2024 at 09:32:47