BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...

Subject: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:45 PM

the jaws of victory?

Washington Post

How the Democrats Could Lose

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 11, 2008; Page A19

By official count, The Post's 10th most e-mailed column of 2007 was published last June under the headline "How the GOP Could Win." It said that the Republican Party would promote national security as the salient issue of the campaign, making a silk purse (victory in November) out of a sow's ear (the quagmire in Iraq), and keep the White House for four more years. Increasingly, I think I might have been right.

It was Mitt Romney, the Harvard MBA, who left John McCain with what could be the winning business plan. In his campaign swan song, Romney used the two words you will hear repeatedly in the fall: retreat and defeat. Referring to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Romney said, "They would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequence of that would be devastating."

In my 2007 column, I compared this presidential campaign to that of 1972, when George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. The parallels are in some ways obvious -- the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, above all. What I could not have foreseen a year ago was how much more obvious the parallels would become. Back in '72, the Democratic Party was split between doves and hawks, reformers and stogie smokers -- even between men and women. The result was a national convention that was boisterous, unruly and ugly to look at. That convention might, however, look like a tea party compared with what could happen in Denver this August.

At the moment, no one can figure out how the Democrats are going to get a nominee. What the party needs is someone like George Mitchell, a senior figure of trusted wisdom who might be able to do what Howard Dean, the party chairman, clearly cannot -- avoid the train wreck everyone can see coming. But barring either Mitchell or a miracle, neither Clinton nor Obama alone can garner enough delegates. It might take a combination of superdelegates and a revote in Michigan and Florida -- punished for holding unauthorized primaries -- to come up with a nominee. By the time that happens, the Democratic Party will be one huge, dysfunctional family.

In that 2007 column, I did not take the surge into account. Putting an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq has indeed made a difference. It has not won the war and it has not enabled American soldiers to come home, but it has dampened the violence there -- notwithstanding the carnage yesterday. Overall, civilian deaths are down. Overall, military deaths are down. To that (limited but important) extent, the surge has worked.

When I mentioned 1972 and Vietnam to an important Clinton adviser, he pointed out that Nixon initially won in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war. That nonexistent plan was still apparently unfolding four years later. In addition, Nixon made opposition to war seem unpatriotic and defeatist. He exploited the war, exacerbating cultural divisions.

John McCain lacks Nixon's raw talent for hypocrisy, so I don't think he'll go that far. But he will make his stand on the surge, and it will be, for him, the functional equivalent of Nixon's secret plan. His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender, he will say. The issue, if he frames it right, will not be the wisdom of the war but how to get out with pride.

McCain, of course, owns the surge. He advocated putting additional troops in Iraq way back when President Bush, deep in denial, was proclaiming ultimate faith in Rummy and his merry band of incompetents. McCain, in fact, oozes national security. His weakness is that he has too often advocated using -- or bluffing about using -- force (North Korea, Iran, the former Yugoslavia). With the deft application of just a little demagoguery, he can be made to look like Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), the deranged Air Force commander in Stanley Kubrick's always instructional "Dr. Strangelove."

You can see it all happening again: a Republican charging that the Democrats are defeatist, soft on national security and not to be trusted with the White House. And you can see the Democratic Party heading toward Denver for yet another crackup. This time, instead of McGovern, a genuine war hero (the Distinguished Flying Cross) caricatured as a sissy, the party will put up either a candidate who has been inconsistent on the war or one with almost no foreign policy or military experience.

A year ago, it looked like the party could not lose. This year, it seems determined to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM

A lot to that.
Screamer Dean is doing his best to kill his party's chances. Obama is making a run eight years too soon. Hillary has a chance against McCain, but the hell-for-leather youth group might derail her.
The country is still divided, and it could easily be McCain for the next four years.
We will see after Pennsylvania if the Dems can put the wheels back on the wagon and get back in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:40 PM

I wish whole heartedly for a Democratic victory but there is a part of me that thinks that the Republicans have earned the responsibility of cleaning up the horrific mess they have made of ever' dam thang.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:49 PM

If your 3 year old makes a mess in the kitchen, would you dare give him the task of cleaning up?

Maybe the Repubs oughta...but....

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:53 PM

Oh, ye jaded, broken, and bitter pieces.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM

I think that an Obama/Clinton ticket would do quite well, and Senator Obama could demonstrate his graciousness by extending that offer to Senator Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM

Well, it wasn't possible to foresee the exact circumstances from the now distant past, but it was easy beans predicting the Dems would find a way to defeat the country by putting forth yet ANOTHER corporate Dem loser.

And that is now a certainty, regardless of whose name is on the ballot come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

1) Comparing this year's election to 1972 makes little sense. I'd say a better comparison would be to 1976. In 1972 Nixon and his fellow Republicans had yet to show their true colors, but by 1976 enough people were sufficiently sick of Republicanism to toss Gerald Ford out on his ear. I think Mr. Bush has poisoned the Republican Party's well almost as completely as Nixon did.

2) "His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender...." Surrender to whom? There's no "enemy" in Iraq. If there ever was one it was Saddam Hussein and he's dead. Other than that, there's just a bunch of pissed off Iraqis who are trying to get an invading army to leave their country. They're not the enemy, they're the people the invasion was supposed to make free. They're free now, so get out. If they don't like each other and want to fight among themselves, get out of the way and let 'em do it.

3) Saying that the closeness of the race for the Democratic nomination is leading to a trainwreck in Denver is BS. That's the way nominating contests should be run. I personally find the fact that both parties' candidates are usually decided upon by the end of February to be appalling. The Democratic nominee will be decided at the convention. So what? That's what the convention is for. We've gotten so accustomed to conventions being little more than ceremonial rubber stamps that we've forgotten what their true purpose is.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:38 PM

Remember though, the media loves a horse race. Horse trading? Not so much. Hence their dire predictions. It is all for the ratings and revenue.

The train wreck this guy is alluding to is the blasphemous (to the MSM, not the rest of us) idea that bamboozled by the dysfunctional duopoly voters aren't just rolling over and playing dead this year.                                                                                             

I still think there is a very good chance it will all be decided after PA. There is one reality Obama can't skip beyond: he has yet to win a big one. If he can win in PA, he has it locked up. If he loses PA, he may be on his way back to Chi Town.

If he can't win a big one, you will see the party support begin to wilt over summer, for sure. And if it comes down to the convention, I'm guessing the bets will be on Clinton to win it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:46 PM

When's the PA primary?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

Sorry. April 22, 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:01 PM

He's won 12 of the last fifteen races.

The bizarre twist that keeps occluding this fact is kind of mind boggling.

The simple fact on the ground is that he is the leading candidate, not someone coming up from behind. Hillary is the one who has that still to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:24 PM

No it doesn't Amos. But he hasn't won a single big state. Sure he is taking small states, especially those with large, conservative African American communities. And I do mean conservative. These folks don't support a lot of things on the Democratic party platform. They are some of the most religious & social values conservatives in the party.

But he can't win Detroit, NY, LA, etc. And if he can't carry a single one of those states beyond his home state of IL, the party elite will be extremely cautious about handing him the baton, I assure you.

And don't kid yourself--if he loses PA & decides to take it to the convention, it will be the party elite calling the shots, nobody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:31 PM

"Hillary has a chance against McCain, but the hell-for-leather youth group might derail her."


                  Q - It looks like we agree again. I think this is where Geraldine Ferraro was coming from when she made the comments she made today. It looks to me like she was literally throwing herself under the bus in an attempt to save the presidency for the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:02 PM

My bad, he did win Illinois.

Ferraro sounded like an idiot, and she could end up doing Clinton far more harm than good. It was stupid to trot her out.

She was an idiot when she ran for VP w/Mondale, who was also an idiot at the time he ran, but has aged quite well. He was really something to see when he stepped into Wellstone's shoes. A real class act.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM

Obama doesn't have much sense of humor, he pretty much speaks from a script to handpicked audiences, and his handlers keep him away from "the people"--does that remind you of anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:16 AM

I am so sick of that nonsense about Hillary being able to win the big states.
Hillary is TYING the big states.
Hillary is TYING in the big states.
Hillary is squeaking out tiny victories in popular vote and Obama is matching her on delegates. Supposedly Hillary had a huge victory last weak. Obama just made up all of the delegates he lost in that defeat in tiny Wyoming and Mississippi.

In a fair process, She has been all but mathematically eliminated. So now she is clinging to hope and working every angle to make the process unfair.

The media is throwing away any sense of reality in this race because they are trying to keep it close. The big news out of Texas and Ohio was not that she won the primaries. The real news was that she ONLY won 10 delegates. Republicans voted for her in the primaries in Texas, and Ohio in order to prolong the race. I know a guy in Dallas who considered just that. Why do you think Hillary won among rural rednecks? Not exactly her base. I don't guess she can count on those votes in the general election eh?

Here is what a strategic Democratic voter needs to think about. In 2000, Gore would have won with one southern state. He wouldn't have needed Florida. With young voters and African Americans supporting him in droves, with the Bush "values" voters unenthusiastic about McCain, Obama has a good chance to win Southern States. Based on primary results He may even take a western Red State or two.

Hillary will be saying the same old thing in the same old red and purple states. Can she beat McCain on defense? He could use the same ad on her that she used on Obama.

If Hillary wins this nomination she will have to do something shady to do so.
A lot of people who want change are looking at this campaign and seeing Bill and Hillary using the same tactics as Karl and George. To me it looks like more of the same.
Looking at their respective records the best candidates to vote for if we really want change would be Obama, McCain and Mrs. Clinton in that order.

Yes I do think the Democrats can lose the election. Michigan and Florida are also a wound Mrs. Clinton is cheerfully picking at. It is obvious she care nothing about the party except as a vehicle to get her elected. I don't think that the Republican Party can do anything to win the election. This is not 1968, and the "Surge" is not having any long term effect other than bringing the Army and Marines closer to the breaking point. I heard on Countdown that 78,000 may now be casualties due to hearing loss.

But Republican voters can help their chances by continuing to vote for Hillary to make it close enough so that her scheming tears the Democrats apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:25 AM

What news filter do you use, M. Ted? Can you cite any real examples of that? Do you ever watch CSPAN? What I have seen of him was definitely not scripted and it is an insult to insinuate that he is somehow "handled" like that smarmy little bastard that's in there now.

BeeDubyaEll, well said.

Obama's voice is the only one in this whole melee of politicians and the media that is positive and gives people hope. His words of positivity are more powerful than most people realise, but they are feeling it in their hearts and they are crossing lines they've never crossed before to support him. While the rest malpractice against our mass consiousness with dire predictions, worst-case scenarios, and much hand-wringing, Obama stands out and will prevail if enough people will self-discipline themselves enough to say NO! to the negative rhetoric, etc. and really believe and work to help our country become healthy, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:28 AM

If Obama loses PA, he should withdraw. That might help stop the voter revolt in the Democratic Party. Otherwise it is clear sailing for McCain in the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:31 AM

>>>Obama doesn't have much sense of humor, he pretty much speaks from a script to handpicked audiences, and his handlers keep him away from "the people"--does that remind you of anyone?<<<

I like Obama's sense of humor. In the debate, he seemed to actually be enjoying the clip of Mrs. Clinton mocking him.

He speaks to audiences of 20,000 kids, who line up in the rain to see him. Hand picked?

George W. Bush's handlers say that he has a good sense of humor.

Obama not only can construct coherent sentences on the fly. I've seen him string several paragraphs together without once giving a reporter a nickname or mocking their hair.

Obama is not where he is today, like some politicians, because of his name, In fact he is there in spite of his name.

I would go so far as to say that, in my opinion the person in politics least like George W. Bush is Barrack H. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:37 AM

>>If Obama loses PA, he should withdraw. That might help stop the voter revolt in the Democratic Party. <<<

Obama is winning by 110 delegates. You are saying that if Hillary has a huge percentage victory and gains say 15 delegates he should quit with a 95 delegate lead?

The voter revolt in the Democratic Party IS Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:43 AM

What voter revolt? Seriously? I have seen Dems come out in droves, here, in the West, which has been dominated by red for so long. If there is any vote revolt what I see is people in general getting out and being excited and actually taking part in the whole process for a change. The numbers have been phenomenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:15 AM

I think he actually came out ahead, net net, in Texas, despite the media thrash.

But there is a certain endlessly recycled nasty-minded cynicism that keeps showing up in these threads that just makes me wonder. I guess there's a natural reaction in certain mindsets to put out a heavy effort to stop, nulllify, and eradicate someone who looks a little too strong. I am just saying howit loks to me. You could call it an opinion, I guess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: mg
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM

One thing I like about Obama is his sense of humor..I think he has a very sharp wit. I have only seen flashes of it but I like it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:05 AM

Going from past results, "wit" is not a requirement in a US presidential candidate.

Why do you accept this charade?..........Its almost unbelievable.
The people who contribute to this forum appear to be intelligent and sincere....in general.
Why are you not all demanding a REAL alternative?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:27 AM

BWL, terrific analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:04 AM

Well, the media would like to have a brawl, instead of just a floor fight, which wasn't all that uncommon in the 20th century, but thanks to brainwashing of the electorate, people seem to now view as an impossibility because it isn't 'nice' to criticize one's opponent.

The process the Obamamaniacs keep whining about is a process set up by the party. Don't like it? Well then, make a few billion and buy some change--the way it REALLY gets done. Obama has more than enough chump change to buy his way in. What he won't have when he gets to Denver is enough delegates. And neither will Clinton.

So let's say it is a stalemate when they reach Denver. Obama wins everything except PA, and enough delegates to put him over the top.

Clinton wins all the big states, is within 100-200 delegates of Obama, and doesn't have enough delegates to put her over the top.

Who should get the nod then?

What is everyone proposing to broker this deal, because it is NOT going to come down to the number of states won, or the popular vote this year.

So instead of being a bunch of prissy whiners--what is your solution to the Dem conundrum people?

Give it to Obama, because he is nicer than Clinton (you say) and makes people in red states the Dems won't win in November feel good?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:54 AM

Several alternatives come to mind.

One is to count total popular votes.

One is to take as candidate whoever has the most delegates plus superdelegates.

I suppose you could resort to applauseometers in a pinch.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM

Obama is gonna be the next president. Hope y'all can find something you like about him before he's in.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM

If Obama goes into the convention with more than a hundred pledged delegates than Mrs. Bill Clinton and the "superdelegates" over turn that, then the Democrats will lose the election.

The superdelegates have to think of the party. If they are going to use their votes to overturn the will of the people, they had better have a damned good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

After the "Beltway Primaries", Obama finally took a definitive lead, and it looked like it was all over for Hilary--but he couldn't knock her out, and that says as much about him as it does about her.

As a person, for good or ill, Hilary is aggressive, persistent, and tenacious. She doesn't let up, and she doesn't lose her focus.

Obama isn't as tough--but he needs to be if he's going up against McCain--

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

He's tough enough, Ted; he just doesn't take people into the guttersniping arena on trivial, or knee-jerk political, grounds. Why not? Doesn't he want to, you know, win?

Well, he does, but he wants to win at a better game. That's the difference between them in some respects; Hil's claws come out unnecessarily, and it makes her look as though it is winning first with her, and the quality of the game an afterthought.

When you lie down with pigs, you stand up smelling of slops; and when you scrap with rabid badgers at their own level, you look pretty rabid. But the mission of that office is not street fighting. We do not need a President who can jump into any battle that comes along; rather, we need one who tries and succeeds at making battles sublimate into diplomatic evolution and a quest for better solutions, even though willing to put on the gloves when the case is unavoidable.

This is the difference between Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Iraq.
I suspect it is also the difference between HRC and BHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:57 PM

Amos, if you are a Democrat why in god's name are you so clueless as to what the Democratic party rules are for a brokered convention?

It is going to be a brokered convention, like it or not.

Why?

Neither candidate has enough delegates to win outright.

The superdelegates WILL decide it, and some of their rationale will be what is best for the party. But for the most part, the superdelegates will decide who is the best candidate to go forward against their Republican opponent in November.

That decision will be made based upon who won what.

A large part of that what will include who won the states that Dems can count on, who won the states that could go either way but are a must have for Dems to win in November.

At the bottom of the list will be states the Republicans are expected to carry, regardless of who Democratic nominee is.

That's how they do it. Will there be a floor fight? If one or the other candidate doesn't drop out, yes.

What will the floor fight be about?

It will be about whether to seat the delegates from Florida or Michigan, or how the votes from those states will be factored in.

Will there be a backroom deal to choose the next Democratic presidential candidate. If neither of them withdraws, yes.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Your clarity is most entertaining, Gigi, and your overweening certainty is quite impressive, if not wholly persuasive. If you look at my remarks in context you will see I was responding to a question earlier int he thread, not projecting the actual methods that will be used. So you were just a hair quick on the ole trigger there. But hell, it's an easy error to make, I've done it scores of times, so no hard feelings.

Did you ever read that old Dale Carnegie classic about "How to Win Friends and Influence People", BTW? An oldy but a goody.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM

Guest, guest, you seem to be buying Mrs. Clinton's alternate to reality hook line and sinker.

Obama is leading in primary delegates, in caucus delegates, in popular vote and most importantly in pledged delegates. His lead in democratically elected, pledged delegates is all but mathematically insurmountable. Mrs. Clinton cannot win without a miracle or without pulling a fast one.

Mrs. Clinton squeaking out a victory over Obama in Ohio is not an indicator of how either would do against McCain. The primary election was fought over NAFTA. McCain totally supports NAFTA. There will be a completely different dynamic in the general election. If she ahd won real victories in Texas and Ohio, she would have come away with more than 11 delegates. The Democrats have had record turnouts in virtually every primary contest. The super delegates need to look at that and harness it for the general campaign.

If there is a "brokered deal" at the convention that overturns the wishes of the majority of voters and especially if it disenfranchises all of those young voters and African American voters who have turned out in droved for Obama, then the general election is going to come down to McCain and Mrs. Clinton duking it out in purple states over who can garner the most votes from middle aged and old white women.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:31 PM

I remember that book Amos. I did the course too. I especially remember the part where if you go into a man's office and see a picture of a sailboat you are supposed to talk about the sea.

My problem is that when I see a picture of a horse I remember my experience with horses and tend to talk about manure. It doesn't work! What am I doing wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

LOL!!! Sounds like you got the rule down but missed the concept there, brother Jack!!! :D

(My question about Carnegie was addressed to Gigi. I think she would really enjoy the book.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM

Votes and delegates have to be in the right places for a candidate to be valid if there is no outright winner.
Votes in places like Mississippi are worrying- Clinton got 70% of the white vote (60% female), Obama got 90% of the black vote. The state has 26% African Americans.
Can the white male vote be salvaged when they voted in low numbers in the Demo primary (40%) or had voted in the Republican primary?

In how many states do women prefer Clinton over Obama, and how will this translate into votes in the election- if Obama is selected as the candidate, will these women vote for him or stay home?

The superdelegates will be faced with many such questions if neither candidate has sufficient votes to carry the Convention. They may stand aside to let a floor vote or two take place.
A floor fight can change many things. Delegates are not held to their pledge on later votes- the leaders of the delegations may argue for a vote change.

It would then be up to the superdelegates to direct the Convention delegates to the best candidate to oppose McCain. Voting so far in the primaries indicate that he will be strong in many states and not easy to derail.

I don't always agree with G-G, but his conclusion is hard to argue with.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM

Once again I stand by my assetion that Obama will lose the election for the Democrats if he receives the nomination- which is not yet determined, so Hillary bashers may not want to lick their chops just yet.


I fear that the Democrats will consider their losing streak ad infinitum in Presidential elections for two main reasons:

The Democratic Party is just in a shambles. They don't know how to win; often seems as if they don't care anymore. When you watch the process of the Republicans picking their candidate, you get a feeling that they are TALKING to each other..and they are talking about how to get ELECTED. The Democrats seem to consistently pick and back weak candidates, like Obama, who as another poster said, may be a good candidate in 8 years but not now- Demcrats exhibit a great lack of wisdom and cohesion when it comes to trying to have any success at
winning this national office.   After 40 years of being the underdog in National Elections, it seems the spirit, and even the true character, of the Democratic Party is on the wane, if not totally beaten. One wonders if it will even survive or be replaced by a one party system; or perhaps a two party system of Republicans and an even further to the right alternative party.

2. The Republicans and right wing seems to have taken a choke hold on this nation. Some of it is dirty tricks, fixing elections and forcing Dems out of office for the same (or lesser) offenses that their own politicos indulge in. The media also seems to be at the command of the right wing; once the ideas of JFK and FDR, even Jimmy Carter, seemed to have resonance in this nation- an American dream that INCLUDED the poor, the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, a country that, like the Statue of Libery, was willing to embrace and support many different types of people. Now the "Greed is Good" mentality that festered during the Nixon and Reagan years seems to have become a new, albiet grotesque Bible of how to run a country. Not only are the ideas of former great Democratic statesmen considered a liberal anethema to the general media and populace, at this point even the thoughts of an man like Eisehower (who was aghast at the disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, and warned about the power of military industrial complex) would sound like a left wing stark raving socialist to the people who control the airwaves.

Perhaps someday the better instincts of this nation will resound again, but I fear it is not in this election. And I suspect, not even in our lifetimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

And, I suspect, the GOP paid you to post this kind of defeatist crap ad nauseum throughout the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

You couldn't be more wrong. But whose payroll are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:30 PM

40 years of being the underdog in National Elections? In the last 40 years (since 1968), the US has had 28 years of Republican presidents and 12 years of Democratic presidents, 22 years of a Democratic majority in the Senate with 14 years of Republican control and 4 years of tie, and 28 years of Democratic control of the House to 12 years of Republican control.   Please tell us what you mean by "underdog"?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Slag
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:43 PM

Not to worry. You Dems will do what you always do and the Republicans are learning, s-l-o-w-l-y leaning from you. You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. Keep you doubts and your misgivings INHOUSE! Chin up and keep the chant going!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

From Slag
>>You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. <<

You Republicans gave 14% of the vote in Mississippi to Mike Huckabee a week after he had given up the race. Considering that Romney and Huckabee togrther got about 70 % of the vote in the Red States they contested, you will be lucky to get half your members out to vote in November, if you don't have Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton to run against.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

Can't remember what the predictions were for the last ten elections (40 years), but win or lose the Democrats have proven ineffective in promoting their objectives in the Congress. Unfortunately they end up cutting their own throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM

Reguardless, come November, the country well be well into a depression over the resession, the housing free fall, the cost of the war even if in it's short sighted memory it's forgotten about the war itself. Add to that the declinning employment & the Repubs will this time shoulder all the blame & rightfully so. So they can do whatever they want but come November they'll be kissing either a black ass or a female's ass. As far as I'm concerned they can kiss both, preferably the female's ass first & then get out of town so that the counrty can get back to breathing.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:43 PM

What matters, as far as I am concerned, is finding and supporting an individual who retains a percentage of sanity, equability, and emotional stability, and a sense of human judgement, historical perspective, and constitutional values. Barack Obama has all of these. In respect of his character, his learning, and his sense of correct priorities and importances, he is far better a proposition for pulling the nation out of Mister Bush's depression than either John McCain or Hillary, and orders of magnitude better than the cretinous incumbent.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM

Well
   The thread was about the Dems winning not which dem is best suited for the job.

That's a thread in it's self

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

No, you have that wrong Barry. Amos believes every thread is a thread to tell you why you should agree with him, and vote for his man. Note his use of the term 'correct principles' rather than 'principles I agree with' and you get the gist of it.

Amos knows what is correct. If you don't agree with him, according to his logic, then you must be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM

Oh, and I thought that was YOUR gig, gg.

While all of you naysayers, handwringers, and dire predictors are looking backwards, the rest of us are looking ahead, with Obama and hope, we are looking at something other than what is in the past and believing in something better than that past. Where you put your energy is what you create...think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM

Frankly, I think Amos is a lot more objective than that. I just don't think he's taking into account all of the snare traps that have already been set for Obama.
               I just watched a few minutes of "Hannity and Colmes"--I know, I know--but they were running a tape of Obama's ex-preacher telling a bunch of followers how awful Bill Clinton was for having a relationship with Monica. I think folks are going to see this preacher as a raving maniac, and associate Obama with the preacher. I'm sure that's the image they're trying to project. And they haven't really even gotten started yet. As soon as they are certain that Obama is the nominee, it's going to be like the USS Missouri shooting at a mouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:59 PM

That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from:

John McCain recently sought and embraced the endorsement of a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor can be seen in a great YouTube video going over an illustration of "the beast" (which I think represents something bad) as if it were a diagram of an atom. He believes Katrina destroyed New Orleans because of a gay-pride march, and that the Pope is the "anti-Christ."

There's more on all three candidates and religion in the same excellent op/ed piece at the Vail Trail.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM

I am aware of how desperately the slimers and sangers and slanderers and defamers will turn to to try and make nothig out of a good human being. I have seen it before, and heard all the justifications, and as far as I am concerned it is thinly disguised insanity. We get very small doses of it here, with the sarcasm and the sniping, but its nothing compared to the wild, where they will tear a man limb from limb on any excuse they can find --even if doing so harms the larger community. That's pretty osycho, you ask me.

Gigi, you are confusing me with someone else, probably your father. I have my point of view, and I express it as clearly as I can. I rail against covert and slanderous knockings, but then, being human, I sometimes give in to writing them myself. I ain't no saint, just a guy with a big mouth, but I do not require that people agree with me. I do expect them tto think clearly and say what it is they have to say plainly. Just pure bias on my part, I guess.

Sorry if it disgruntles you, but I never promised to gruntle you anyway.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Stranger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:12 PM

Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is.

Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:15 PM

Hagee is a smart weasel who knows how to play on the fears of the common folk and has built a fortune from them. He has many followers in Texas who will listen to him and politicians spurn his support at their own risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM

Stranger, you're missing the point. George Bush endorsed John McCain, too. Obama has made it clear he condemns Farrakhans insanities. Why did you leave that part out of your little hate bullet?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:40 PM

"That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from...a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor..."

Care to give even one shred of evidence that McCain actively sought this guy's support, or are you just making up the facts as you go along, as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:43 PM

"The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam

(Updated below - Update II - Update III)
The McCain/Hagee story is growing, though still not as much as it ought to. My new friends from the Catholic League emailed earlier to advise that Bill Donohue was being interviewed for tonight's program of The Situation Room on CNN. Blogs at The Washington Post and ABC News today covered the growing scandal from the anti-Catholic bigotry perspective, with the latter actually featuring the unbelievably inflammatory You Clip -- found by Ann Althouse, which I posted yesterday and which is now being distributed by the Catholic League -- of a shirt-sleeved Pastor Hagee spewing the creepiest, most hateful bile imaginable about Catholicism ("This is the Great Whore of Revelation 17")."

Excerpted from this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Stranger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:48 PM

Amos, don't be a hypocrite like Spitzer. You have been about hate here for years. Obama says many things properly. If you believe everything, you are quite naive. Farrakhan has a big following.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM

It is unfortunate that Senator McCain didn't come right out and reject Mr. Hagee's endorsement. What he did say is, ""We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it."

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM

Yeah, well Stranger Guest Guest, screw you too. How's that? You are so far off the mark you are barking at your tonsils.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that hateful? Can't imagine what got into me. Tsk, I must be really losing it. So solly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM

pdq, Check this out, Hagee and McCain on the same stage and McCain saying that he is very proud of the endorsement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeBsdSGZx4

>>>Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is.

Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan?<<<

Stranger can you show us a picture of Obama standing next to Farrakhan during or since the endorsement? Check the URL I just posted. McCain and Hagee, thick as thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM

Ho-hum, attack instead of debate and cite...

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

Click for MORE

Oh, and McCain rejects what Hagee said, but then defends him that his words were taken out of context? How can one take " "The Great Whore, an apostate church, the anti-Christ,and a false cult system." out of context?"

What McCain has said, so far: "Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other," McCain said. "And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently — that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you'd give him a chance to respond."

He can't make up his mind about any of them. Eight years ago he was condemning the evangelicals. By courting them so much, now, he will lose a large bloc of Catholic voters who had supported him.

Q, I disagree:

McCain is an abortion-rights foe but his failure to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and backing of embryonic stem-cell research are among the political heresies that some conservative evangelicals cannot forgive him for.

With the influential James Dobson, the founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, already saying he will not vote for McCain, analysts say evangelical turnout -- or lack thereof -- could be key on November 4.

"It's possible that the lack of enthusiasm for McCain could lead to a lower turnout among evangelicals in the fall," said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center.

That scenario could tilt the election in favor of the Democrats as Republicans have come to rely heavily on an evangelical community energized to get out and vote by its opposition to abortion rights and gay rights.

More from HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:22 AM

I doubt McCain will lose a large bloc of anyone over this, because it is a tempest in a teapot.

Now that we are in a horse race lull, the media is going running after anyone who says any stupid thing, and claims to be 'endorsing' a candidate.

Next thing you know, the MSM will be quoting Amos and katlaughing for their 'expert' views on the race, and their hate filled speech against anyone who isn't on 'their' side.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM

Seems that Amos and kat ain't got the ***hate market*** captured, G.G.... You certainly come across as having yer fair share of it yerself...

But then agian, you will say that I do and then Amos will say he doesn'y and then you will say he does and blah, blah, blah...

Labelin' folks as "haters" is old school... It's Bush/Rove tactics... It doesn't make anyone's positions more credible but less so...

That's why many of us like Obama... He's beyond that polorization mentality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

McCain's actual spiritual adviser is a rabid anti-Islamist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:24 AM

hate filled speech LMAO...that's rich, really, really rich! And you hope to have credibility? LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:14 PM

FEar and hate go hand in hand. The politics of fear-mongering are ancient in our history, and they work to the shame of thinking humans. Because for fear mongering to work, all that is needed is for individuals to succumb to it, giving up their powers of reasons, differentiation, their ability to see clearly, their power over data, and give in to the low-grade, low-quality emotionalism. The consequence of buying fear from those who sell it are the placing of self into bondage; there is no-one who is as throoughly enslaved as the person who is chained up by fear. Craven slavery is much more common than often noticed, because it is acheived by the hypnotic drumming of PR machines and terrifying generalizations about how dangerous the world is. This is very economical; you do not have to buy chains and whips to enslave people using fear, because, once you strike the right buttons, the individuals provide their own chains, and include woeful, willing subordination and compliance into the package.

Here;s what we really have to fear, and it is only two things: fear-mongers and fear itself. The invitation to hate is also an invitation to fear. We would do well to decline both.

These bonds are much easier to fight back against than swords and chains. You can drop your sculls, and walk out of the galley-hold, anytime. The masters of your fear are phantoms, and like all phantoms, they will vanish when you say boo to them.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM

Obama's Farrakhan Test

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

"Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said 'truly epitomized greatness.' That man is Louis Farrakhan. '
Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan 'epitomized greatness.' For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- 'They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.' His history is a rancid stew of lies.

It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?

Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. For good reasons and bad, he is already admired in portions of the black community, sometimes for his efforts to rehabilitate criminals. His anti-Semitism is either not considered relevant or is shared, particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.

In this, Farrakhan stands history on its head. It was Jews who disproportionately marched for civil rights and, in Mississippi, died for that cause. Farrakhan and, in effect, Wright, despoil the graves of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and, of course, their black colleague James Chaney.

I can even see how someone, maybe even Obama, could dismiss Farrakhan as a pest, a silly man pushing a silly cause that poses no real threat to the Jewish community. Still, history tells us that anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with. It is a botulism of the mind.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns are involved in a tasteless tussle over the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. What is clear from rereading King's celebrated 'I Have a Dream' speech of Aug. 28, 1963, is how inclusive that dream was -- 'all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' '

This, though, is not Farrakhan's dream. He has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind.

And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his 'depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.' He praised 'his integrity and honesty.' He called him 'an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.' These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting 'present' when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, 'present' will not do."

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

PDQ,

I am terribly sorry, but this is kneejerk bullshit. It is predicated on the notion that an individual equals his church equals its pastor equals some demagog his pastor likes. None of which is in the least bit true.

A man does not equal his church. Nor should his church have any bearing on the merit of his ideas or his performance in a public arena; at least, in this country. If it does so, it is because of people who engage int his kind of sloppy linkage between things, saying that things should be associated in fear and fog when they should not be at all, given the least effort and mental clarity.

A church does not equal its pastor. People just do not work that way. Painting these pictures of "automatic association" in order to make generalized, sweeping assertions of danger, evil, treachery, or other lurking threats is just panicmongering foolishness, and beneath you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM

Rev. John Hagee may have some vile things to say, but he lives in Texas. He has no direct association with McCain.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., is Obama's personal spiritual leader. Obama has been going to Wright's church and listening to Wright's hatred for various people, Jews in particular, for many years. If he did not agree with the man, Obama could walk out. He never has.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM

"Farrakhan's Support For Obama? Hugely Controversial. Hagee's Backing Of McCain? No Problem.

By Eric Kleefeld - February 28, 2008, 5:11PM

Barack Obama was questioned at Tuesday night's debate by Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton about repudiating Louis Farrakhan's endorsement — which Obama said was unsolicited — in the strongest terms possible. He was repeatedly badgered by Russert, and was forced to disown Farrakhan over and over again.

The very next day, John McCain appeared onstage in Texas with Pastor John Hagee, an influential activist in the Christian Zionist movement. Hagee's comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves.

But when it came to McCain's rather controversial backer, the press hardly batted an eye. Seems like a pretty clear double standard, right?

Some readers might remember Hagee from this video put out last year by Max Blumenthal, from Hagee's Christians United For Israel conference. During the event, Hagee proclaimed that the United States must consider a preemptive strike on Iran, and also said that Jews had been responsible for their persecution throughout history because of a failure to properly accept God:

Blumenthal only scratched the surface here — Hagee is a colorful character, to say the least. More available after the jump.

Very much like Farrakhan, Hagee has regularly made remarks about current events and other religions that many would find alarming. But unlike Farrakhan, he has never truly faced the scrutiny of the mainstream press, and major politicians like Joe Lieberman and John McCain have freely associated with him.

In 2006, Hagee laid out his views on eschatology in a book called Jerusalem Countdown, in which he claimed that sources had told him a year earlier about world events to come — and amazingly enough, all those predictions had come true over the past year. Next on the agenda, according to his March 2006 interview in Human Events: Israel would go to war with Iran before May 2006. And from there, Hagee eagerly anticipated an all-out world war against Iran and Russia, followed by the Second Coming.

On the right, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is objecting Hagee's extremist writings, particularly his denunciations of the Catholic Church. For example, Donohue pointed to instances in which Hagee has referred to the Catholic Church as, "The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system." Is Tim Russert going to repeat any of that to McCain, in the same way he read out Farrakhan's "gutter religion" line about Jews?

"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot," Donohue wrote. "McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee."

So here's the question: Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?"



Neat article I felt was worth posting to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:39 PM

I've been supporting Obama all along, and still (so far) view him as the best alternative, but I'm very disappointed and concerned about what we've recently learned about his pastor.

I would have thought he was a smart enough politician to disassociate himself from such a divisive personality. Chicago is a big city; I'm sure there are many other parishes to which he could have redirected his allegiance, perhaps even within the UCC denomination, whose leadership would have better represented his true spiritual values ~ assuming (as we'd all like to believe) that Rev. Wright does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM

McCain called Parsley a great "spiritual advisor." Scroll down and watch the video, esp. from about 2:05 on: Click Here. That's some advisor he's chosen.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM

McCain rejects anti-Catholic views

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 7, 3:45 PM ET


"NEW ORLEANS - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month 'if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.'

McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.

Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as 'the great whore' and called it a 'false cult system' and 'the apostate church' — 'apostate' means someone who has forsaken his religion.

On Friday, McCain took a stronger stance on Hagee's views in an interview with The Associated Press.

'We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,' McCain said.

'I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it,' McCain said.

'And we can't have that in this campaign,' McCain said. 'We're trying to unite the country. We're uniting the country, not dividing it.'

He was responding to one critic in particular, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who raised the issue in a Thursday conference call with reporters.

'She made the attack. I am responding by saying that I am against discrimination and anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic, anything racial, and I have proved that on the campaign trail,' McCain said.

Hagee's endorsement had been intended to shore up McCain's support among evangelical or born-again Christians, many of whom distrust McCain for some of his more moderate views and his willingness to work with Democrats.

McCain gave the interview backstage as he prepared to address the Council for National Policy, a group of the country's most influential social and Christian conservatives.

The council meets three times a year, with discussions strictly off-the-record to promote frank discussion, according to participants. His appearance was televised in a separate holding room for journalists.

Members asked McCain only a couple of tough questions, including one on illegal immigration. McCain has come under fire from fellow Republicans for supporting an eventual path to citizenship for those here illegally, but now he says securing the border is his top priority.

'We would have to, obviously, secure our border first,' McCain said.

Asked about the influence of religion in his life, McCain said, 'It is an important factor in my life, obviously, very important.'

McCain also invoked his faith at a campaign event Friday morning at the headquarters of Chick-fil-A Inc. in Atlanta. The company's founder, S. Truett Cathy, is a devout Baptist who closes his restaurants on Sunday so his employees can rest and honor God.

'It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan,' McCain said of Washington.

He praised former GOP rival Mike Huckabee, who won the Georgia primary, mentioning Huckabee's comment in a debate, 'They asked Governor Huckabee, who as you know was a Baptist minister, what would Jesus do. He said, `Jesus would be smart enough not to run for public office.' '

And he said that illegal immigration is a Judeo-Christian issue as well as a national security issue.

Also Friday, McCain said tax cuts and job training are needed to lift an economy that is either in recession or is headed toward one. McCain, who has said economics isn't his strong suit, was responding to a report showing widespread job losses amid the housing and credit crisis.

The Labor Department said employers cut jobs by 63,000 in February, the most in five years.

'I think the fact of the matter is, many American families are hurting very badly, particularly those in states like Ohio, Michigan, parts of Illinois, those states that really relied on manufacturing jobs and saw those jobs leave,' McCain said. 'And we as a nation have not done enough to help those workers find new employment, new training, new education.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

It's a cast-iron SOB when assholes endorse candidates. Let's maybe cut Obama the same slack we're cutting McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

Yes, indeed. We need to concentrate on who and what the candidates are and not on who and what their fringe supporters are.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

Yeah, I'll have to admit that was one of the few times I actually felt sorry for McCain. When that Hagee guy came out to endorse him, what could McCain say? He didn't want to piss off Hagee's supporters, but if he didn't he risked pissing off everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

Let's maybe cut McCain the same slack we're cutting Obama.

BTW, why is it that is seems acceptable to have people call McCain "McWar", but not to call Obama "Oh Bomb A" or HRC "Hitlery Clinton"?

Do I detect a slight liberal hypocracy around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

"BTW, why is it that is seems acceptable to have people call McCain "McWar", but not to call Obama "Oh Bomb A" or HRC "Hitlery Clinton"?"

Would you be kind enough to quote where I have done that, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM

YOU have not- the BTW was a comment in general. In specific, it is Bobert who seems incapable of being " beguiled so by hatred?"

It seems to me that it is acceptable here to make comments about conservatives that, if made about liberals would cause censure and extensive negative comments.

MANY conservatives have the same goals and desires as liberals- but have determined that the path to those goals is NOT the one presented by the current "liberal establishment" As in the case of liberals who disagree with the methods of conservatives, shouldn't the conservatives be allowed to present their points without the nasty verbal attacks that some here take pride in?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM

BB:

Because John McCain has postulated more war, not less; while Obama and Hillary have to various degrees promoted less war. That's why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM

I have just been learning about Parsley. He makes Hagee look like a red herring. If anyone truly thinks McCain should be president, I would urge a careful reading of the following:

ednesday March 12, 2008, 1:22 pm
Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:


I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:


There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend James Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without Parsley?

The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.

"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain so far is silent.


David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

Sorry, Amos, you have been reading too much liberal propaganda.

McCain has acknowledged thet we may have troops in Iraq for a long while- As we still have troops in both Japan and Germany - How many years after WW II?

Hillery and Barack have both made statements that they will withdraw immediately, then go back to war if there are attacks on American interests.

IMO, the course of action advocated by the Democratic candidates will result in far more bloodshed, and loss BY ALL SIDES than the drawdown of troops with a small garrison force as invited by the Iraqis that McCain advocates.




But then, liberals are all baby killers and advocates of the total destruction of the world by mutual nuclear destruction.


Or do you claim that you can make judgement about others, but no one can judge YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:18 PM

I'm not in this equation, Bruce. You asked why it is fitting to call John "McWar". It is because of remarks of his like "I'm sorry to tell you this, but there will be more wars..." etc. And "Let's stay for 100 years".

You can throw all the spume you want at me about the rational expectations of liberals versus those who share your bitter and jaded view of the world. But the answer to the question lies in John McCains remarks, not in my post.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:41 PM

"I'm sorry to tell you this, but there will be more wars..."

And you claim that this is NOT a true statement? Do you have any idea of what human nature is? That does not make him as warlike as Obama stating he will attack Iraq if Al Quada is shown to be acting there after the US withdrawal. So "Oh Bomb Ah! it will be from now on.


"You can throw all the spume you want at me about the rational expectations of liberals versus those who share your bitter and jaded view of the world. "

NO. I will throw all the words I want about the irrational expectations of liberals, against all past human nature and present cultures, versus a realistic view that takes into account what has happened in the past, and how people are presently reacting, based on their cultures.

If you don't like my words, that's ok by me. But don't give me any more BS about " hateful speech " when you are prepared to justify it against those who disagree with you, then claim all will be peace and flowers forever in the future regardless of what the intent of various nations that we do not have control over.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:00 PM

American soldiers will be in the Middle East for a long time, if not as a separate force, as units with United Nations Forces, regardless of who wins the next election.
Canada's prime minister has just extended the use of Canadian troops in Afganistan. Some film clips on the BBC yesterday showed them in a pretty heavy engagement. UK forces are committed as well.

Pakistan is unable to control their northern provinces; this may be the next place where Americans will be fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:16 PM

PDQ said...

>>>Rev. John Hagee may have some vile things to say, but he lives in Texas. He has no direct association with McCain.<<<

Pdq, please watch this video. You will see film of Hagee and McCain on a stage with "McCain for President" in the back ground. Hagee's endorsement is obviously an official part of the campaign. The straight talk Express has picked up an anti-Catholic voice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23620951#23620951

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM

Bruce

Who sang Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?

McCain is going to be campaigning for the war in Iraq until November 4, no matter how you try to spin it. Obama will be campaigning against.

Try to associate Obama with the war all you want. No one will believe you. I don't call anyone McWar. I think McAged would be better.

and "Hitlery" is plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM

Jaysus, Bruce!!

I see a big difference between sayig that we should seek peace while being prepared for war, a balanced perspective, and the hard nosed prediction there will be more wars.

Sorry to get you riled up, but I would prefer a politician who was going to try to avoid war where possible. I think pursuing war is dumb.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM

I'm far to left of the so-called liberals around here beardedbruce, and I couldn't agree with you more.

The hatred they spout at the people who disagree with them is quite astonishing. The only thing more astonishing than their hate filled posts, is the fact that they are so unaware of their own behavior.

Amos often engages in the same hate filled speech Bobert does, but uses more gentlemanly English to do it. And katlaughing is the most manipulative, un-self-aware person in Mudcat, IMO. Maybe it is that New Age manipulativeness that is so vicious. It is very passive aggressive.

These people figure that it is all just fine to demonize the Republicans, regardless of who the Republican is, what their positions are, etc. The have nearly as much contempt for people who don't affiliate and identify themselves with either of the 2 parties in the US. Clearly, these are people that in 3D life have some control issues.

And they are really, really intolerant of any views and opinions that don't agree with their own.

And that most certainly is NOT the 'enlightened high road' they claim to be taking, because they support a candidate who claims to be doing the same, while doing something quite different. Perhaps that is why they find it so easy to identify with Obama?

Machiavellian is as Machiavellian does, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:42 AM

I'm guessing this is what Poppagator is referring to (which is no surprise to any of us who actually bothered to find out about Obama before jumping on the love fest bandwagon). This is from the NYT:


    "The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

    He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried.

    "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

    Mr. McClurkin's support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama's support for gay rights."

I can't wait to see how the hateful Mudcat Obamamaniacs spin Obama's obviously anti-gay, right wing preacher...

Seems Obama is having a bit of a problem with the Jewish community these days too. Tsk, tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:49 AM

And this is from the Baltimore Sun:

By Michael Hill | Sun Reporter
    January 16, 2008

CHICAGO - The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.

Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 - a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.

The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright's more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as "unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian" - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama's message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.

On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.

Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.

"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.

It is just such rhetoric that has made Wright's remarks an occasional staple on conservative talk shows. They often make the rounds in anti-Obama e-mail.

On occasion, the Illinois senator has distanced himself from Wright. In the past, the campaign has issued statements saying that Obama does not agree with all of Wright's comments. An invitation to Wright to give the invocation at Obama's announcement of his presidential candidacy last year was rescinded at the last moment, reportedly to keep the spotlight on Obama and not on Wright.

Just yesterday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic.

In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright's comments on Sunday.

"As I've told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church," he said. "I don't think of the pastor of my church in political terms.

"Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:51 AM

That bullshit quote about 'like a member of my own family' to innoculate himself?

No way, I say. You can't pick your family, but you sure as shit pick your preacher, and whether or not to praise him.

This is just one many examples one can find of the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Wolf in sheep's clothes, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:16 PM

Gigi:

It is my impression that you -- and to some degree Bruce -- are seeing hatred in posts of mine where none was inserted in the orgination thereof. This is a common problem with written thread exchanges, because there are many clues missing that would be present verbally. I get impatient and exasperated, but hate is not something I put into my posts except on rare and very extreme cases.

I do use strong language, on occasion, to make it completely clear what I am seeing and talking about, but to add to that element an interpretation of hatefulness is inaccurate.

I think we all get angry when seeing our precious viewpoints messed with, to some degree, and the degree to which we allow some time for reflection before jumping uin response to that temporary irritation is really the measure of civilization in this kind of messag exchange; I cannot tell you the number of times I have abandoned a half-written message because I concluded it was reacting to something that possibly wasn't actually there. Or because I concldued it was taking up a gauntlet not worth bending for.

There are a few things I do hate, and one of them is promoting the need for violent assault on others, the selling of war as a "good idea". I know of no conditions under which war is a good idea, even though I have to say I have known some where it seemed unavoidable. Being stuck in such a view of the world is, to my way of thinking, one of the most dangerous conditions a person can be in; offering W as a case in point should allow me to rest my case on that issue.

Aside from that, however, although I am often energetic, I do not feel a smidgen of hatred toward you, toward Bruce, toward Hillary Clinton, or even to John McCain, whom I respect in many ways despite my disagreement with his militarism.

One thing I am constantly returning to, when sparks fly here, is the ancient spiritual rule about seeing, in others, what one is, oneself, generating, popularly known as projection. I do this, and it is an inherent human flaw. I try to remember it whenever I find myself outraged or aghast or annoyed at _______ (fill in the blank). Because at some level I know that for me to be so sensitized to _____, I must have generated a certain amount of same my own self.

This is a healthy perspective and exercise, which I recommend.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:18 PM

"Who sang Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?"
\
The Capital Steps, back in 1991 or 92...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:24 PM

"Sorry to get you riled up, but I would prefer a politician who was going to try to avoid war where possible. I think pursuing war is dumb."


Then why do you support a candidate whose policies INCREASE the likelyhood, both of war in general, and nuclear war specifically?


The easiest way to start a nuclear war is to be PERCEIVED ( regardless of what one might actually do) as being unwilling to respond to a WMD attack- THAT is the entire basis of MAD- That we WILL destroy the world if anyone uses WMD on us or our allies.

The PERCEPTION that we will not is the surest way to get such a war started, by miscalculation of what our reaction will be. Please read how WW I started, and what Hitler would have done if he had been forced to back down in Czechoslovakia.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:27 PM

I just noticed the thread title and thought I'd say that it's not a good time to be talking about Dems and snatch, what with Spitzer and Kristin and all . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:28 PM

By precedent, it is OK for Democrats to have affairs. It is the money-laundering and Mann act violations that will get him.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM

BB:

Killing people in order to be perceived as willing to kill is a very, very slippery slope, pal. WHile it might serve our purposes once in a while to be perceived as possibly psycho, engaging in psycho act to prove it is very risky. Nixon and Kissinger tried this during the Paris talks, sending live nuclear bomber wings straight toward Russian airspace on a high-risk chance at cowing the NV into seeking terms of peace under Russian pressure. It worked pathetically badly, you will recall.

I am not unwilling to kill. ANd I don't think the government should be, in any absolute way.   But I am not going to start elective attacks on others in order to prove it. That way madness lies.

If W had spent one tenth of the money he has spent on his Big Bloody War at establishing HumInt networks on the ground, he could have taken ODay, Bookay, and Saddam out with one well-placed cruise missile. His problem is that he is too dumb to know when he doesn't know enough.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:37 PM

Yeah. All this 'hide the weenie' stuff from Republicans and Democrats is getting boring. The up side is that someone other than the taxpayers is getting fu#ked for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM

McCain is not Bush. The ems have shown they cannot win running on the "I'm not Bush!" ticket- they have to stand for something on their own. This is one of the strong points that Obama has.

But to claim that because Bush did X, McCain is X is stupid- and I do not take you for a stupid person.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:42 PM

I greatly appreciate that, old friend. I hope you'll be at the next Getaway.


I would not for a minute say McCain was Bush. I think he is much smarter than Bush in many ways. I mean more intelligent, not more wiley.

But I think he has an overlap with Bush in his proclivity for armed engagement as a tool of diplomacy. I base this on his history, and what I have heard him say about the future wars we face, in his view. I respect that he feels he is simply confronting the tragtic but unavoidable nature of the world. But that postulate is (IMHO) a terrible foundation for national affairs.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Amos,

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war: Conversely, being unprepared for war and/or perceived as unwilling to engage in war has, and seemingly (vice human nature) will in the future, gotten many nations into wars they did not desire.

I do not advocate war as the solution to all problems: But I will not cripple this country by stating we will not fight when our interests are threatened.

Wishing human nature was different might sound good, but when the lion sleeps with the lamb, the lion is well-fed and the lamb is dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM

fight when our interests are threatened.



Bruce:

Our interests are threatened by low-cost labor in India, by pollution being generated in China, by better manufacturing in Japan, and by our own media who distort and pollute our intellectual environment and promulgate reactive, non-analytical thinking and pushbutton emotions in the publics they are supposed to serve with reliable information.

Our interests are threatened by special interests who put their own coffers above the national good in every discussion, and their profits above the good of their customers.

Our interests are threatened by cocaine peddlers and teachers who will not consult the understanding of their students.

None of these call for military solutions, do they? So, exactly what threats to our interests should be met with precipitate armed violence, or the rattling of sabers?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM

Cheney--long may he rot--visited the tar sands. Does the USA feel it has an 'interest' in that part of Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:20 PM

Has Canada's prime minister killed 1.4 million people? Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

Write and ask him. My question still stands. Yours has no standing at all, pdq. And you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war

That is just what the 'Great Powers' thought in 1914.

I actually agree with you up to a point, a country does need to be seen as willing to go to war. The problem I see now is that the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war.

I expect that one could come up with an equal number of examples on either side of that argument: WW3 vs Vietnam, for instance, or the Pig War between the US and Great Britain vs the Franco-Prussian War.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

"the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war. "

And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD.


And it is the PERCEPTION of THOSE nations that will get us into a nuclear war, regardless of what OUR intent or desire is.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM

And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD.

I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM

Bruce:

When were we being threatened by WMD?

Do you have some intelligence the rest of us are not privy to on the subject?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

"I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are? "


1. Yes, I do honestly think there are nations that will think that.

2. It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM

Amos,

I can neither confirm nor deny...

But I said
"And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD."

NOT the same thing, as you know. You want me to start telling the world what YOU said, and change the words and meaning?

Will you state that the US is NOT threatened by nuclear weapons, and other WMD? I am sure that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, and others will hate to hear that all their efforts are null and void since YOU do not recognize the threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

We probably need a small nuclear war to put the idea of a major nuclear war in perspective. We seem to have learned bugger all from Chernobyl.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:24 PM

Peace,

I will have to disagree with you. Even a "small" nuclear war will establish that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable in combat. Unless of course the side starting the use of WMD is removed from the face of the earth- but I doubt that would qualify as a "small" war.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM

SOrry, Bruce. I could have sworn you directly implied the condition of us being threatened by WMD had recently been or currently was a fact. I guess I over-justified the context of your remark. Sorry.

It seems to me on the face of it that a decent government, if it were going to operate on the notion that we were so threatened, should provide its people with the facts on which it bases that perception.

When W did so, the facts were poppycock -- Nigerian uranium and aluminum tubes and links between Saddam and Al Qeda, and WMDs in the desert -- they were al, apparently, figments of someone's overheated fears.

That does not mean they always will be. I hear you with regard to N Korea. The Russians are mor eon our side of things than they were back in the Cold War, and the Chinese are self-limiting -- they have too much inertia toward a middle class society, I htink, to put it at risk by going whacko all of a sudden. Not that I would put it completely past them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM

It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us.

If they are willing to die in attacking us then the threat of retaliation is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM

The only big bully to have ever used WMD is the US of A. The Big Ones. The minute we had 'em. Those awe inspiring clouds over Japan.

So, lots of pot calling kettle colors there.

MAD isn't any more quaint than detente at this point in history. We just call MAD detente the Bush Doctrine now. We've evolved, you see. We are liberators. Welcomed. Etc, etc.

The Clinton/Obama/McCain campaign (I see it all as the same gibberish mix) are running the opposite way of WMD, nuclear war, the neo-con neo-arms race (did you REALLY think the shooting down of the satellite was to keep us safe? Puhleez!), AND THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!!

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Don't say the 'E' word. Or the 'G' word (for gas).

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no....

Well, you catch the drift, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

This just in on my Google News Reader:

John McCain now the favorite in U.K. to win the Elections

The Republican presidential candidate John McCain is now the favorite to win the 2008 U.S. Elections with some of the odds makers abroad. After leading on the betting sheets for months, Barack Obama has been downgraded with some of the more popular British bookmakers and Sen. John McCain has become the new favorite to win the race in November. "With controversy raging over whether the Democrat Primaries in Michigan and Florida should be counted or even re-scheduled, confirmed Republican candidate John McCain has been backed from 6/4 to 5/4 favourite with William Hill to win the race to the White House," the bookmaker's representative Graham Sharpe told OGPaper. Hills have lengthened former favorite Barack Obama from 5/4 to 11/8 second favorite, with Hillary Clinton offered at 3/1 and Al Gore 50/1.

But not all odds makers are willing to take the risk and "jump ships" so quick. Another British online bookmaker, Bet365, remains confident that Barack Obama will be the next U.S. President. At Bet365 Obama is still the favorite with odds 10/11, followed by John McCain at 7/4, while Hillary Clinton holds underdog odds of 18/5. The situation is similar at the North American bookie BodogLife, where Obama leads with odds 1/1, John McCain would pay out on 7/4 and Clinton is sitting on 7/2.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM

Of course we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction. We are also threatened by relatively minor weapons of intermittent mayhem which will really unsettle us. A meat-packing plant here, a water filtration system there, a kindergarten here, a subway there. A florist shop, a Kingdom Hall, a radio tower.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

Maybe we can talk them into taking out all of the Kingdom Halls and leave everything else alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:47 PM

Fair trade.