0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:21 pm
And Snood expresses strong opinions too. Don't you Snood?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:36 pm
snood, You sulking? I don't think so. LOL c.i.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:50 pm
<sulk>

<sulk>

<sulk>
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:52 pm
Lola--
Never fear. I made no assumption about you, and going over my post, I can't see what I could have said to lead you to assume I'd made an assumption...
I pleaded that no one blindly take Carville as objective or a man without ulterior motive.

Of course, liars aren't bounded by party lines.

I didn't take exception to anything you said, but I did think it was hilarious that the DNC letter you posted said the Rpubs lie. As if the Dems don't. Your comments about who lies and to what end were on the money, and makes me feel better about you. (I know this was a concern of yours :wink: )

I valued your response, and you have made a miraculous recovery from your pathological past!!!

Craven-- Shocked After climbing back into my chair, I would like to sincerely thank you for your kind words. I have had a few of my more rigid views blown to bits, and in other instances I have developed a new respect for the alternate view while not changing mine. I thank you for noting my mind is not closed, although it may be heavily guarded. Cool
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:54 pm
Snood--
Am I to blame for your sulking?
Do I have the power to un-sulk you?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 06:36 pm
Lola,

I do apply that logic equally.

Sofia,

No prob. But I must say the defense was also self-serving. Long story.


Snood,

'twas just a mini rant. Often those who state opinions forcefully are accused of not being open to other opinions. While it may be true, I think it's a false syllogism to deteremine that a mind is closed solely on the tone with which a member posts something.

Really not a knock on you.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:59 pm
Quote:
Far right greases skids for GOP fall By Robert Kuttner, 4/25/2003

JUST WHEN Democrats were feeling stymied by the (short-term) triumph of the Bush Iraq strategy, some self-inflicted wounds have been opened in the coalition. Each, in its own way, reflects the hubris of the far right that dominates this administration. If Bush II goes the way of Bush I, he will have been done in by the excesses of his own camp.

On the war front, Colin Powell has been playing the role of benign diplomat, putting a reasonable face on a policy that he abhors. But this isn't enough for the ultras. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and company evidently want total victory, over the State Department as well as Saddam.

Rumsfeld, a close ally of the disgraced Newt Gingrich (who serves at Rumsfeld's pleasure on the Defense Policy Board) unleashed the former speaker to give a startlingly undiplomatic anti-Powell diatribe at the American Enterprise Institute, the citadel neo-conservative ideology.

Gingrich attacked Powell's efforts to enlist Syria's diplomatic cooperation as ''ludicrous,'' even though they have the explicit approval of the president and Condi Rice, the national security adviser. He characterized Powell's State Department as a ''broken instrument of diplomacy.''

Insiders say it is inconceivable that Gingrich could have given such a speech without Rumsfeld's knowledge if not his active connivance. The White House, through press spokesman Ari Fleisher, responded with faint praise, terming Powell an ''able, able diplomat.''

Powell is in an awkward spot. Thus far, he has been determined to stay, to rise above the attacks and continue the infighting, using his influence to make a dangerous foreign policy slightly less awful.

Though the neo-cons may not appreciate him, Powell has been immensely useful to them. By pressing the administration to go initially through the UN, Powell gave Prime Minister Tony Blair the necessary fig leaf for British participation in the war. The ''coalition'' with the Brits in turn made the US seem less unilateralist when Bush simply ignored the UN and invaded Iraq. Powell has also limited the diplomatic damage done by the Pentagon's bullying.

It would serve Rumsfeld and company right if they succeeded in forcing Powell out, which would further reveal the administration's plain radicalism.

On the domestic front, Bush and his far-right allies are making a similar blunder, alienating the fiscally responsible wing of the GOP with an aggressive campaign for more tax cuts for the very rich. The tax-cut lobby, reportedly with White House blessing, has been vilifying moderate GOP senators who drew the line at a still excessive cut of $350 billion. The lobby, which in typical Orwellian fashion calls itself the Club for Growth, is also threatening primary challenges to moderate House Republicans who voted against the full tax cuts.

Doesn't anyone remember Jim Jeffords, the Vermont Republican senator who quit the GOP over the right's highhandedness, causing Bush to lose his Senate majority in 2001? At this rate, Maine's Olympia Snowe, Ohio's George Voinovich, and Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee could be driven out, too.

And, in case an internal squabble over tax cuts isn't sufficient, we have the case of the gay-bashing Pennsylvania Republican senator. Senator Rick Santorum, a close ally of the religious right, said the other day that if the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that allows gays to be arrested for consensual sex in the privacy of their homes, it would encourage bigamy, incest, and adultery.

A gay Republican group, the ironically named Republican Unity Coalition, has demanded, but not gotten, an apology. (Given this administration's policies on gay rights, would somebody remind me why any sane gay person votes Republican?)

In the decade since Bill Clinton took office, broad tolerance of homosexuality has gone from an issue that divided Democrats to one that embarrasses Republicans. But, if you hear directly from God that homosexuality is a sin, why would you apologize?

What all these episoides have in common is overweening arrogance - the pride that goeth before a fall (The radicals around Bush must have missed that part of the Good Book.) This is the occupational hazard of governing without checks and balances.

To win elections, you need swing voters. The hard-core, partisan Republican vote is around 40 percent of the electorate; and the government-bashing, Bible-thumping, nuke-'em far-right electorate is substantially less than that.

In the past, moderate Republicans saved this radical administration from itself - on tax and budget issues, on military adventures, and on tolerance issues. Now, the radicals want nothing less than total victory. They are inviting electoral defeat.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 4/25/2003.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 10:00 pm
sulk


Smile
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 10:04 pm
hey, snood, gotta nother mood? Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 10:05 pm
Again?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 10:51 pm
Hey! I figured what the hell - got me a minute of attention!!! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 11:19 pm
Craven,

Fine with me. In that case we should apply that logic to James Carville. the man is a steaming caldron of strong opinion. :wink:

Tartarin,

Great article. This is what I'm hoping for. I don't know how the Republicans did it, but the last election was marked by a remarkable phenomenon. Somehow the fanatical religious fringe was successfully gaged. They were almost completely absent during the last campaign. (Good advise from Carl Rove?) And the few times a story about one of their antics erupted into the news media, they suddenly disappeared from view. But this group cannot be contained forever. Continued silence by them is unlikely. They haven't the restraint, will power or good sense to keep silent in the face of so much heady "success." Not to mention GW, who believes ever more each day that he was predestined by God to rule the world during this time of near Armageddon.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 08:07 am
Lola -- But I'm wondering whether they will backstop Gephardt by proposing some sort of healthcare plan again? These guys don't sit still. Each Democratic candidate will be examined and one or two of his issues coopted, don't you think? They don't ever follow through with the cooptions, but it's words, not deeds, which grab the American public.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 10:33 am
Tartar, What you say is so true; look at Lieberman, the guy who coopted so many initiatives we didn't know where he was going to end up, but is still popular with the voters. I could never understand why. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 11:33 am
Here's a recent tidbit from infoclearinghouse.info:

Quote:
The first public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States was held on March 31 - April 1, 2003 at
the U.S. Custom House, One Bowling Green, New York City.

The Commission is restricted to $3 million for their investigations
-see the end of http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm

By comparison, the government spent over $47 million by March of
1999 investigating Clinton's Whitewater and Monica Lewinski dealings,
according to the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/counsel1.htm

This restriction in funds, after the Bush Administration resisted
having an independent commission, and then tried to appoint Kissinger
to head it, shows how serious they are about knowing what happened [...]
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 12:05 pm
Lola,

There are many other factors that I did not cover. My point was that tone of voice and emphatic style do not, by themselves, indicate a closed mind.

I did not make any case that would exempt certain persons etc. This is why fair application of said logic is a non-issue.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 12:24 pm
Craven dear,

It may be a non-issue for you. But I think there was some question in Sofia's mind. Or there seemed to be. Is this correct Sofia?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 12:27 pm
Tartarin,

Yes, I think co-opting is the name of one important game in politics lately. The best example I can think of is Clinton's move in his State of the Union speech in what ever year that was (96?) If only the Democrats will come up with a candidate who can play the game as ruthlessly as the Repubs.........if only. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 12:29 pm
As Charlie Brown used to say,


AAUUURRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2003 12:54 pm
Lola--

Nope. No question in my mind about what Craven said.

He said that a strongly stated opinion does not in and of itself imply a closed mind. I agree.

If you are asking if I think Carville is open-minded, I don't. Do you think Ann Coulter has an open mind? I don't.

I think an open mind, or lack of, is evidenced by the type of discussion one practices. One signal of a closed mind is when the debater can't stay on topic, and turns the debate on the person, rather than staying on the topic.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 11:30:59