0
   

2004 Elections: Bush's Campaign Performance.

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 07:10 am
Good man, you're temporarily redeemed. We'll see. Wilson may well not have it right in specifics, but somebody in the White House was guilty. Some there is there.

It will depend upon how tenacious and ethical the head of the investigation is.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:20 pm

Zell Miller to give speech at GOP convention.


Will help drag the Yellow Dogs over... There are still so many of them--who still pull the Dem lever out of heritage, rather than conscience.

A plum for the convention.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:44 pm
I dunno what pull Zell will have for the fencesitters, Sofia. He's pretty much seen now as the GOP's Tame Democrat ... identified far more with The Party in Power than with The Challengers. I really doubt there will be any "Miller Effect" one way or the other; he's already priced in, so much a given as to be a gimme, the way I figure it.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:57 pm
I do acknowledge your point.

We may be forgetting the (less than) average guy, who doesn't follow politics like we do--and tunes in at the Conventions for his current view of the parties.

(I nearly fell out of my chair at the hairdresser's a couple of months ago. My daughter and I were talking politics, while I was getting highlights, and my hairdresser, who has always appeared to be 'with it', said, "Don't make fun of me; I want to ask a question."

The question: What party is Bush? Yet, she votes. I couldn't begin how to decipher HOW she does it... (She may vote looks or name recognition...) Last time for her--Clinton. (Didn't ask her if she knew HIS party affiliation.) Probably another 'heritage' voter.

<disturbed>

I mean, this woman went into business for herself, and is doing quite well. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 06:39 pm
Taking the risk to sound misogynistic, but the lady probably chooses candidates on the basis of perceived physical attractiveness ... a not uncommon phenomenon among the politically inadept regardless of gender or inclination.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 06:51 pm
<sad>

I can't TELL you how many times I heard about looks, and youth, the Kennedy factor, and Bob Dole being too decrepit... (Women voters, sometimes...<broil>)

Stupid and irritating as it is--I'm glad Kerry is so wrinkly and stand-offish. Looks and personality seem to play as big a role as ...Nader...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 05:49 pm
Little datum on Zell Miller...interning for him in 1980 was none other than Ralph Reed.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:17 pm
You mean Zell allowed a....<Christian> to work for him!!!

Wonder how much longer that'll be legal.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:57 pm
Well, coulda been worse ... at least it wasn't Rex Reed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:52 pm
Sofia wrote:
You mean Zell allowed a....<Christian> to work for him!!!

Wonder how much longer that'll be legal.


Actually, Ralph wasn't much of a Christian back then, he was actually the budding operative who spent much of his nightlife drunk, who ran dirty elections, and who got busted for plaigerism (which he described at the time as a mistake, but the revelation of it was a low-down personal attack - it wasn't...a graduate student had read the source piece earlier then saw it plaigerized in Reed's column, and that student notified the editor who verified).

But in any case, sofia's little 'legal' joke is smarmy and disingenuous. For every non-Christian who thinks this administration has placed separation of church and state in real danger, there will be a practicing Christian who agrees. Nobody here or anywhere I've ever read has advocated making a faith illegal. So it's a smarmy comment.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:56 pm
So, your slap against Ralph Reed was based on his private life?

.....I thought that was none of our business...? Shall we delve into the private lives of all interns...? Presidents? I do recall many vociferous objections by you when this was practiced by others.

I think your "smarmy" shot has missed widely, circled around and mussed your suit.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:07 pm
We'll wait here for you to find such a statement made by me. You recall many, so finding just one ought not to be terribly difficult. We'll all wait.

Private life IS relevant to political office. That is, if one defines the term to mean history of drug and alcohol use, or public political statements, and public behavior.

What Ralph does in a bedroom, or who/what he worships is NOT relevant.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:22 pm
So, now you are tailoring your comments on private life to exclude bedroom activities and religion. <hmmm>

That's convenient.

So, its drinking you don't tolerate in an intern? Really. I think you've stepped into it. I imagine if its not OK for interns, perhaps its an important distinction for Senators, too? Should we similarly discuss Ted Kennedy, as his drinking is legendary...

MLK was a plagerizer, as was Biden. Do you throw them out as examples as plagerizers and drinkers?

sigh

All this isn't to mount some unseemly attack on you. But, to point to such insignificant trivia about Reed--when glaring examples of the same ilk are worse and more powerful-- leads me to believe it is you, caught putting down a man for his faith (and possible activism re same), who disengenuously twisted, tried to backtrack and slipped further--exascerbating the whole thing with an over the top shot at me.

Come on. I know you can do it. Tell what you really had in mind when you threw Reed's name out...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:23 pm
Ah for the good old days . . .

Augustus the Strong, Electoral and Hereditary Duke of Saxony, and elected King of Poland, was widely renowned and celebrated for bedding a great many women. When Petr Alexeevitch (Peter the Great) was trying to marry his daughter Elizabeth to a French Prince, he promised to put him on the Polish throne, and the French promised a French groom for Elizabeth just as soon as Petr could provide the Polish throne, after Augustus died, and the throne was vacant. Petr objected that Augustus could live another 15 years. The French minister in St. Petersburg commented that all they had to do was find a young, vivacious mistress for him, and she would finish him off. Little did they know Augustus. He lived another 10 years, dying in 1733, when all his old friends and enemies were dead. His one legitimate son was no prize, he was known as Augustus the Weak. His eldest and bastard son, Moritz von Saxe, was France's greatest field marshall, known as Maurice de Saxe. Near the end of his life, Augustus asked his chamberlain how many acknowledged bastards he was paying a pension to--that man replied (this is from the chamberlain's diary) that he didn't recall exactly, but he believed the figure was 355.

At about that time, the King of France was still a boy, and the Regent was Phillipe, Duc d'Orleans. He was famous not only for his sexual escapades, but for a certain taste for country girls and actresses (notorious for centuries as harlots). He usually was the first to try out new girls brought to Paris for the trade, and had a penchant for the homely ones. His mother was embarrassed--not at the nocturnal antics, but the seeming lack of taste he displayed. He replied: Bah, Maman, dans la nuit, touts les chats sont gris. (Bah, Mama, at night, all cats are gray.)

We Christian Soldiers, however, will have no truck with such antics. Perhaps we should just acknowledge our perverse predilections, and insist that all political candidates be castratos.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 09:31 pm
sofia

Waiting for you to come through with some quote from me which you said you'd seen lots of.

Reed's faith is irrelevant, except as it may be in contradiction to democratic processes. If he were, for example, a reconstructionist who held that the US ought to be a theocracy, I'd hold that against him. He's not a reconstructionist, but that demonstrates (if one isn't happy just with the Constitutional warning) of how a notion held by someone with faith (or without) can have negative consequences for liberty. A simple point.

Do I have an interest in showing Reed in a bad light? Yes, I do. I think he's a danger to liberty. What constrains what I say about him? First, it has to be true. Second, it has to be relevant. I could easily forgive him the drinking during his college days, except that I suspect it is something he doesn't want folks to know. That, and his present posture, puts him pretty close to, if not smack into, hypocrisy. That is a valid target.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2004 04:57 pm
blatham wrote:
sofia

Waiting for you to come through with some quote from me which you said you'd seen lots of.
Yes, clever man, you neatly dismissed bedroom activities from private life... cutting your private life declarations to a nub.
Reed's faith is irrelevant, except as it may be in contradiction to democratic processes. If he were, for example, a reconstructionist who held that the US ought to be a theocracy, I'd hold that against him. He's not a reconstructionist, but that demonstrates (if one isn't happy just with the Constitutional warning) of how a notion held by someone with faith (or without) can have negative consequences for liberty. A simple point.

Do I have an interest in showing Reed in a bad light? Yes, I do. I think he's a danger to liberty. What constrains what I say about him? First, it has to be true. Second, it has to be relevant. I could easily forgive him the drinking during his college days, except that I suspect it is something he doesn't want folks to know. That, and his present posture, puts him pretty close to, if not smack into, hypocrisy. That is a valid target.

So, we're calling out all hypocritical interns and office-holders... Reed has each inhabitant of Congress, nay the world, as company. My point. Also--why is it that people calling themselves Christians are expected to be without blemish, while other sordid individuals get a pass on their corruptions? Perfection is not in the Christian credo. Why don't you give them the same deference as Clinton, Kennedy (pick one), et al? Isn't it relevent how Ralphie mixes in with the masses in DC? He just wants to pray a bit more than they do... Weren't you REALLY alluding to the fact that no self-respecting Democrat would house a pray-er in their midst; slapping Zell with a Christian?

I do believe Ralph is operating within the Democratic processes.



But,no answer required here. I think we're entrenched.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2004 05:38 pm
Quote:
Also--why is it that people calling themselves Christians are expected to be without blemish,


You are really slow on the uptake on something in here sofia, and I'd like you to get it right so I don't have to keep pointing it out.

I expect no Christian to be without blemish, nor do I expect it of anyone.

But where anyone, christian or atheist or wiccan, presumes a morality superior to that of his neighbors such that he is justified in coercing his neighbors through law into behaving as HE thinks they ought to behave in the bedroom, with each other, or with their own bodies, where all are mature and informed individuals, then he is my enemy. This has NOTHING to do with religious belief or practice except where the above is violated. It wouldn't matter to me in the slightest if the Christian Coalition's membership and name was the Buddhist Coalition or the Group of Concerned Short Atheists...if their program set out what is set out by the Christian Coalition, then they'd be my target.

Specific religious membership is IRRELEVANT to me. I don't assume idiocy and I don't grant special dispensation. What is said and what is done is all I give a damn about.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2004 05:43 pm
I appreciate the clarification.

As I thought, it was Ralph's Christian activism that impelled his mention re Zell Miller, not his drinking, or plagerizing.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:33 pm
The Novak Article issue seems to have swung into Bush's cornerin a major way--and ushered some great PR in with it!!

It bodes verra well. Wilson is proven a liar. And, for those sheeple that keep bleating "Bush is a liar"; they are properly smacked down with the fact that Bush isn't guilty of all these accusations--

Glad the Commissions have also proven Bush is innocent of nutty MoveOn-type charges of 'pressuring the CIA' to find what wasn't there--

Bush comes out of these two recent Commissions INNOCENT OF WRONG DOING, INNOCENT OF LYING.

Wilson, proven guilty of lying.

The indies are watching. A GOOD week.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/06/2020 at 08:46:08