BS: Political Promise(s)

Subject: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:50 PM

I have noticed that many people air their respective views to do with politicians. It tends to pit us one against the other. So, to start the New Year with a thread that could allow us ALL to come together regardless of our political view, let me pose the following question:

How many politicians have actually kept promises they made during the election campaign?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM

brucie:


Don't hold your breath waiting for the response!

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM

Errrr ! Do you mean :-

1/. All Promises ?

2/. Some Promises ?

3/. Those Promises that you can't avoid keeping ?

4/. Those non-promises the press and public thouht were promises ?

Personally I have a regard for Huey Long's attitude - "Tell them I lied".

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 05:57 PM

Well, the current guy in the White House cannot be faulted for breaking all of his promises. He has certainly "changed the tone in Washington"....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 05:59 PM

Gareth: So far, I'd settle for one!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:06 PM

In fairness, we have to accept that many sincere promises are not kept because the politician discovers that matters turned out to be far more complex than s/he had thought and simplistic promises couldn't be met.

As they say, if you have *both* sides mad at you, you probably got it about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:23 PM

I'm not a Clinton supporter, nor am I a Democrat (or Republican), but believe it or not, Clinton did manage to keep some of his promises. He "ended welfare as we know it", and he whittled down the budget deficit. Both of those accomplishments pissed off his Republican opponents mightily though, because those were the issues they had been campaigning on for years.

Interestingly, now that the Republicans no longer have "balancing the budget", and "ending welfare as we know it" on which to base their campaigns, they are relying on the "War on Terror". Bush did promise that the war on terror would last a long time (into the forseeable future). I bet that's one promise he can keep.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: DougR
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:24 PM

Yep, Carol C, I think you are right. Actually Bush has kept several campaign promises including cutting income taxes, raising the limit on the Estate (Death Tax), prescription drugs for Seniors, overhaul of Medicare (as part of that package), and I think there are probably others.

One must keep in mind, however, that a president can rarely fulfill promises alone (though Executive prviledge is available but usually sparingly used). The president must have the concurrance of the Congress to pass laws.

I think Clinton probably kept some promises too. Probably most presidents have kept their promises subject to what Ebbie said, and the cooperation of the congress.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:29 PM

MacArthur said "I shall return"....does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Cllr
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 08:54 PM

I've kept all my promises during my election campaign and frankly if you want to start a thread where we come together it shouldn't alienate those mudcatters that are polititions. Cllr PS I better get off my high horse now other wise I might fall Aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh *thud*

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:42 AM

In what way does the thread or brucie's opening post alienate you, Cllr? Could it be that you're stretching a point to consider yourself a politician in the first place? There are thousands of elected representatives in UK local government. They get to play with about 12 per cent of the national economy between them (with any scope for manoevre heavily constrained by directives from central government), and most of them have "proper jobs," in addition to their part-time work in town and county halls. For those deemed to be "backbenchers" under recently introduced "reforms," the responsibilities are minimal.

But let's go with your definition, Cllr, and accept that you're a politician. Don't be alienated, just respond to the challenge. For instance, you could say what your promises were --- yawn --- and on what basis you claim to have kept them all..

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:20 AM

our pollies say lots of of good stuff -

Once upon a recent time a Prime Minister said "No child shall live in poverty by (date)" - oops, there are still lots in very poor circumstances, maybe even more than there were when he said it, long after the date passed. I think a British pollie copied those words recently?

The current incumbent talked about honesty in Government. Yet every time one of his ministers or members gets caught with their snout in the trough or telling porkies - nuffin' happens. There are always good excuses why they don't follow the Westminister tradition & resign. (In case you don't know, the current incumbrance is not a tall man & is small minded, which is why he is called the Prime Miniscule by workers in his department !)

He also coined the saying "core promises" - these are the ones that absolutely WON'T be broken. The others, well, they weren't core or at least that's what he told us when they were broken! Political cartoonists has a field day with that showing little kids repeating the PM's words. Not a good example for the citizens of tomorrow.

Tho is any politician a good example for the citizens of tomorrow? Now if we all had a few statesmen/women we might have a different world.

'nuff said

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:59 AM

I thinkj the one thing we can all agree on about politicians, is that they are all confirmed liars,and the biggest lie that they perpetuate,is that this Capitalist"parliamentary democracy" can provide a better world,or even maintain basic standards for our people ,in the long term...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 09:45 AM

It was election time, again. So, a politician decided to go out to the local reservation to gather support from the Native Americans. They were all assembled in the Council Hall to hear the speech.

The politician had worked up to his finale, and the crowd was getting more and more excited. "I promise better education opportunities for Native Americans!"

The crowd went wild, shouting "Hoya! Hoya!"

The politician was a bit puzzled by the native word, but was encouraged by their enthusiasm. "I promise gambling reforms to allow a Casino on the Reservation!"

"Hoya! Hoya!" cried the crowd, stomping their feet.

"I promise more social reforms and job opportunities for Native Americans!"

The crowd reached a frenzied pitch shouting "Hoya! Hoya! Hoya!"

After the speech, the politician was touring the Reservation, and saw a tremendous herd of cattle. Since he was raised on a ranch, and knew a bit about cattle, he asked the Chief if he could get closer to take a look at the cattle.

"Sure," the Chief said, "but be careful not to step in the hoya."

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM

Yo Doug,

Well, it's a given that any Repub who gets into office by any means necessary is going to cut taxes. That's all you folks can think of to solve problems. Then your PR folks get people parroting their favorite little nugget "Well, ya can't slove problems with just money" which means, after you strip it down, means "spend and let yer danged kids pick up the bills."

Lets take California fir example. A lot of the problems in California are related to Bush's tax cuts which mean less revenues to the states at a time when the states are expected to provide more services, especially in the area of Homeland Security, which the feds aren't paying their fair share. But back to California. The new governor is going to try to balance the budget by making deep cuts in programs for the poor and in mental health and in eductation. Now, given that the United States is the wealthiest of the developed countries while also having the highest rate of poverty, this seems to be a human rights issue. 1/3 of children in the US living in a single head of household family live in poverty. 1/10 th of all children in the US live in such poverty that they suffer from malnutrition and/or poor health.

So your guys think that by cutting off breakfast programs for malnourihed kids is the way to fix fiscal problems. Or cutting off day programs for mentally ill people who either do not work or cannot afford to purchase the services of these programs. And if you and your friends would take time to visit a few inner city schools, I'd be real curious to know what exactly more you could cut out of their budgets that haven't allready been cut...

Now, Doug, I know you to be a honorable man but sometimes I don't think you realize that fixing fiscal shortcomings by punishing the poor is what you Republican buddies are all about. Yeah, you can set these realities aside by just hiding behind the ol' "bleeding heart" PR crap but if you'll look beyond those cozy little PR defense mechanisms you'll see that lots of people suffer when the rich get their way in this country...

Lots!.......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:26 PM

Bobert: Ho hum. Same old same old socialist line. Yawn. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:47 PM

Hang in there, Bobert. You're wearin' him down. DougR will vote Democrat in the next election. Mark my words. (He may never admit to having done that, but Mudcatters will know.)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:08 PM

Providing a decent standard of living is not socialism. It's humanism...

How come every other industrialized nation, bar none, has a lesser percentage of people living in poverty, Doug. Socialism???

Hey, they aren't socialist nations. Just caring nations....

Now go find Cindy, that purdy wife o' yours, and have her read this thread an' maybe she can get you to see that you are indeed being a knothead here...

Come on, pal... Move beyond that "commie" ot "socialist" crap and discuss issues....

Now come on over here and get a big hug, Big Guy...

Sniff, I hate beatin' up on you but you are such a knothead...

But I love ya', dangit...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:23 PM

Nope, Ake, that's bit too strong. The main problem with politics is the same problem as with the world at large: short-termism. Nobody tries to encourage electorates into thinking long-term, and no politician can hope to meet any electorate's aspirations in the short term. Euqally no politician gives a damn about the long term, because he/she is not going to be around for that.

It's the same with the sotck exchanges and most things capitalist, and to a large extent it's the same with command economies and totalitarian regimes.

One world statesman who hung in for the lang haul was Castro, and maybe it's no coincidence that his prioritising led to some of the best education and health services in the world, in the face of punitive sanctions by the US, specifically intended to reduce Cuba's economy to ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:24 PM

Sorry about the typos. Must remember the preview button.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:29 PM

Or Fionn - Sober up.

I note from a previous post you claim to be a "cllr" yerself - Perhaps we could here what promises you have kept ?

G

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Cllr
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 07:54 AM

I would have thought that from what I had written (especially the last comment) people would have realised that the post in itself while trying to make a small point was not to be taken too seriously.
but thats ok because I don't take seriously some of the other posts.
Gavin has the right of it by pointing out that promises have to be defined in this context. (individual or corporate etc)
All councillors have a role to play either in poicy development or in a scrutiny capacity. My individual promise if elected was to do my best and give my full commitment to the role . Cllr. PS I do work full time as a councillor but as I am the cabinet member I have the sole political responsibility for forty eight point two million pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM

Margaret Thatcher (in answer to a question) expressed the view that Britain would not see a female Prime Minister in her lifetime. But that was an opinion, not a promise

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peg
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 03:56 PM

Clinton also promised to overturn the "gag rule" (wherein federally-funded clinics are not allowed to discuss abortion as an option to unwanted pregnancy) as quickly as possible if he was elected, and did so in the first week of his presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 04:14 PM

aye Fionn...Maybe you were a bit pissed,it being New Year ,but you still made more sense than all the rest .
Personally I dont see Casto as a "politician".   Its the mans charissma which has held his country together ,in the face of tremendous obstacles,rather than any political theory.
Iv never been to Cuba, but afew of my friends have ,and they tell me hes loved like a father by his people ,although they are very poor.
Its a wonderful testament to the man,that he can keep the affection of his people in such circumstanses....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 04:19 PM

Sorry about spelling....Its New year in Scotland too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 04:59 PM

What most people don't know, and DougR will never admit, is that old Dougie is a closet Socialist (are you reading this Cindy?). Check it out:

"When we pledge allegiance to the flag"

Who wrote that Pledge?

What? You say The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist?

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 11:50 PM

I don't know if Howard Dean will be able to keep all his promises. Congress may get in the way. But I was out getting soaking wet passing out Dean literature today, because I expect he will bust a gut trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 08:55 AM

Congratulation LadyJean, you at least now the downside of a political canpaign !!!

Would that some others have the same experience.

Gareth **BG**

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:24 AM

Excellent points, Fionn.

Most politicans are poll driven and just tailor their campaigns to the whims of the electorate. And that's the main reason that I like, and like LadyJean, will be working for Howard Dean this year. He stepped out and went against the polls. That's what *leaders* do. And they try not to let the media frame their campaigns around *squabbles* and *personal* stuff but hammer, hammer and hammer in issues. Look at the way the media is handling Dean's campaign right now. It's trying it's darndest to frame it around the supposed riff between Dean and Clark when if you were to hear Howard dean talk for one hour all you'd hear were his ideas about how to *lead* the country to a more civilized place...

Some would argue that George Bush is *leading* bu8t I see it more like *ordering* under the vile of being branded un-patriotic. This is not leadership and under Bush you cant's say that he hasn't kept his promise to change the tone in Washington! Think Joe McCarthy here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 11:06 AM

I've just had a look around Kucinich's website, and I've decided. I'm voting for Kucinich. I'll even write-in his name in the presidential election if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination. He's the only candidate (Democratic or otherwise) who hasn't been lying to us about the Middle East in one way or another.

He's the only honest Democrat in the field, so therefore (in my opinion), he's the only one likely to take his promises seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:51 PM

I misspoke in my last post. I couldn't find any mention at all of some of the most important issues re: the Middle East in the websites of Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton, so they won't be getting my vote for that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 03:40 PM

"...under the vile of being branded un-patriotic..." Fortuitous typo, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:27 PM

CarolC:

I love Dennis... He is as much a Green Party cadidate as there is and, oh, if he could become president then this world would get turned around but, no matter what the press has been saying about Dean not being electable, he's more electable than Dennis and the main thing is getting Bush the heck out.... Then turn around, get behind Dennis for '08!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:35 PM

Congratulations Bobert - You have reached "realpolitic".

For myself, this side of the pond, I still mourne the loss of Kinnock, Blair is a little left wing for my tastes, but hell he's the best Prime Minister we got.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:03 AM

I dont' know, Bobert. I'm not convinced that if he won, Dean wouldn't take us to war with Iran. From what I've seen, Dean's a lot more of a hawk than he's been letting on in his campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:36 AM

Hmmmmmm, CarolC. I'm not too sure where you are getting your information but it apparently isn't from his website or his campaign office or from is position statements. Right now there is a vast PR campaign being led by Dems, Repubs and the Press to discredit Dr. Dean. You notice that the press really isn't reporting too much about his "positions" but focusin' on trying to trip him up with details, much they way Teribus likes to divert attention away from the big picture here at Mudcat. Dean is the most scutinized person in the world right now. I'd like to see just half that scutiniztion applied to Bush. Heck, one third would even be nice... Outsider candidates scare the heck out of the establishmnet (Dems, Repubs, Press).

Try going to his website and read what he has said and I think you'll be less concerned about a scenereo where he would give any thought to furthering a foriegn policy based on pre=emtion.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:50 AM

When a dog urinates on a fire hydrant, it is not committing an act of vandalism. It is simply being a dog.

When politicians lie . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:14 AM

Dean would take us to war with Iran - Where the hell did that one come from???

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:02 PM

It came from a speech he gave to AIPAC. I've posted this before.

Bobert, I don't see the same slant you do with respect to the media and Dr. Dean. It looks to me like they are promoting him pretty heavily. Personally, I think it's the media who are responsible for Dean's success so far and for the fact we barely hear anything about people like Kucinich.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:51 PM

As far as the next election is concerned, I would urge you all to remember ABB -- Anyone But Bush. Rather than worrying about which Democratic candidate is best (I like Clark), let's worry about ABB.

MoveOn.org had a contest in which people could submit video ads they had made for the next election. The winners were announced today, and can be seen at the site below. They require Apple QuickTime, and I strongly recommend that you start with the bottom ad and work up, as the best ones are at the top. Some of them are EXCELLENT.

BestBushAds

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:39 PM

CarolC,

You apparently haven't been reading the Washington Post. Today's edition is an exception but it's been one story after another about riffs between Dean and Clark Dean ans ________, and locked away records, etc.

What Dean has done that Dennis hasn't is good old fashioned organizin' and using the interent to it's fullest...

Now, I don't want to seem like a Dean apologist becuase he certainly isn't my first choice of the "Anyone But Bush" field but he's the one I think has the best chance to succeed. But I would like to see him do what Bush did in 2000 and announce to the voters what his cabinet might look like. I would love Clark, if he cannot be pursuaded into the VP slot, to be slated as Secretary of Defense, and Ms. Braum HEW, and I'd, if I were Dean, send out a triel baloon to Colin Powell to stick at State but not as Porch Negro but a real Secretary of State...

But, it don't matter, I'll work fir any Dem this time around. Even Joe Lieberman who I find just a cut above Bush...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:58 PM

Err ! a bit late now Cllr but Don't call me Gavin (copyright "Airplane (of what ever number))

Incidently I see Mudcats biggest Mouth, Aka Fionn, has run away rather than expose his own record to public or (Mudcat) scrutiny.

So I'll ask the questions again :-

1/. Why does Fionn consider the word "Informer" an insult ?

2/. Can he confirm his role in the Newark Labour Party affair ?

3/. What Parlimentary seats did he apply for. ?
and

4/. Despit his claim to be a "Crusading Journalist" what has he actually had published ?

Gareth

PS - I think that this is a proper thread to ask these questions in.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 01:41 PM

Five thousand years ago, Moses said "Hitch up your camel, pick up your shovel, mount your ass and I will lead you to the promised land.

Five thousand years later, Franklin Roosevelt said "Light up a camel, lay down your shovel, sit on your ass. This is the promised land!"

If you elect a Democrat he will lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass and tell you there is no promised land."

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:32 PM

It's true Bobert. I try to avoid the Washington Post like the plague these days. As far as I can see, it's become a newspaper by, of, and for Neo-Cons.

I've mostly been getting my news from NPR, CBC world news, BBC world news, and a smattering of other sources. I stand by what I said with regard to a bias in favor of Dean on the part NPR. I'm not too crazy about NPR these days either.

I'll not be participating in any sort of ABB type of thinking or voting practices. I think that way is not necessarily as productive as people might think. So I'll just be voting my conscience. I figure, no matter who wins (with the exception of Kucinich), by virtue of the fact that I am a citizen of this country, I'll have the blood of innocent people on my hands, figuratively speaking. I'll feel better about myself if I vote for the person who I think has the most moral and political integrity, rather than someone who I know will behave in a manner that is inconsistant with human rights, just because he's not Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 12:02 AM

Well, I decided that Clark was the electable and ethical choice over two months ago. He's a complex, even contradictory man who doesn't fit into easy sound bytes -- preceived as "moderate" while in fact sharing more positions with Kucinich than with Dean -- and I think he's the one candidate who CAN unite this country.   For insight into his candidacy from an initial disbeliever click here or, for a more passionate defense, here (then scroll down to Hanukkah Message). I didn't know whether to be heartened or disheartened recently at the conclusion of Georgie Anne Geyer's column WESLEY CLARK OFFERS ANTIDOTE TO ADMINISTRATION'S AMORALITY (click

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 12:12 AM

don't know why I got lopped off, but to continue: (click here); "Wesley Clark," Geyer writes, "is probably too intellectual, too individualistic and too clear about issues to be elected president. But don't say there's not right in front of us a moral corrective to the amoral policies we are embarked upon. "   Right on!   And in New Hampshire it seems that voters are listening . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 06:02 AM

Gareth: for once I agree with one of your political comments;
"Blair is a little ............., but hell he's the best Prime Minister we got."

Yep, he is a little ....
and he's the only Prime Minister we've got!

CHEERS

Nigel
(Isn't selective quoting great?)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 07:45 AM

There are several things about Clark that I'm having problems with. One of them is his use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in the Balkans.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:57 AM

What would YOU have done in his shoes, Carol?   He'd seen (in Ruwanda, where he'd supported Madelaine Albright's desire for military intervention) what inaction in the face of genocide meant -- and was determined never to let it happen again -- but though he pushed for the option of ground troops (which would have saved many more civilian lives) and lower flying Apache helecopters (ditto), he could only get the Pentagon to agree to the kind of bombing that IS very destructive of human life. So now he's getting brickbats from both sides: the generals who never wanted a "humanitarian war" and the humanitarians who are aghast at the only war he was permitted even to threaten...
So, I repeat, what would you have DONE?   ("Nothing" is what we "did" in Ruwanda)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:30 PM

robinia, are you saying that depleted uranium and cluster bombs (as opposed to other kinds of bombs) were his only options? And if that is what you are saying, could you please provide some documentation to support your assertion?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:50 PM

With apologies to everyone else, I've decided that when Gareth makes idiotic allegations about me, knowing I've denied them, and knowing he can produce not a shred of evidence, I'll try to deal with them in the same threads. (If I overlook any of his challenges to me, I'd appreciate someone - anyone - drawing them to my attention, as has just happened in this instance.)

CarolC took this approach when Gareth tried similar abusive tactics on her, and it was very effective. He shut up, and then sidled back into the thread as though he'd never had an issue with her. (Anyone who wants to see what I mean, might start at this post of Gareth's. Sorry, it takes a while to load.)

So let's take Gareth's latest points.

1. Why do I consider "informer" to be an insult? He asks this because I had previously wondered why he had described me pejoratively (as well as wrongly) of being a "police informer". His accusation on this point relates to his point 2: Can I confirm my role in Newark Labour Party?

The background here is that in a PM to Gareth I put my full name, Peter Kirker, as I have aimed to do in all PMs. After receiving my message, Gareth saw fit to tell the Mudcat community that I lived in Newark - presumably because he had done a search. (I think I'm the only Peter Kirker in the UK.)

I didn't mind the information being made public - though of course some Mudcatters might have had legitimate concerns if Gareth had behaved similarly towards them. But the problem is, Gareth wasn't quite right. I do have a Newark postal address, but do not live in Newark. Neither do I live in the Newark parliamentary constituency. Naturally I have told Gareth I hav no connection with Newark Labour party, but he has got himself so excited that he can't bear to accept this simple truth. He happily tells the Mudcat community not only of my connection with Newark Labour Party (false, and denied), but also that I had some role in the deselection of Newark's last Labour MP (Fiona Jones)! Utter fantasy! Faced with my denials, he has solemnly responded that his allegations (including that little matter about being a police informer, which he now treats so lightly) are "substantial and will be repeated."

Gareth's point 3: Again as I have stated unequivocally in other posts, I have never applied to be a candidate for any political party in any parliamentary constituency.

Gareth's point 4: I don't recall ever claiming to be a "crusading journalist." I am a member of the NUJ (freelance branch) and publications I have written for include the New Statesman, the Independent and of course Tribune. I am on the board of a campaigning left/green magazine, Red Pepper, which is strongly supported by, and is a strong supporter of, Noam Chomsky, whom I don't suppose Gareth has ever heard of, among others. For many years - not that it's any business of Gareth's - my earnings from journalistic work have largely been in respect of consultancy work (producing employee publications) for major employers; drafting speeches, roadshows, corporate videos, etc; freelance sub-editing, and editorial design.

One other point: even though Gareth has tracked me down to a Newark address, he still questions (when it suits his strange purpose) to question whether Peter Kirker is my real name, and constantly boasts that Gareth is (of course!) his own real name. (Again he took this line with CarolC too.) I frankly cannot see the purpose of such persistent stupidity, and I don't expect Gareth will be inclined to offer any explanation.

Anyway, many apologies for departing so far from the thread theme to deal with all this, but I intend to do it every time Gareth sees fit to fire off gratuitous pop-shots in my direction. Unless Gareth is even now dreaming up new fantasies, my future responses will at least be shorter, as I will be able to refer to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 06:18 PM

Yeah, I must admit that I don't know what all of the military hardware options were either, Carol -- and I apologize if I came across as a know-it-all! Or an unthinking idolizer either; I don't necessarily defend Clark's every decision. But I do know that he bucked the Pentagon (he wasn't insubordinate, but he had to bypass the standard chain of command) in taking action against Milosevic, that the consequences of inaction were very much in his mind (okay, he says they were, and I believe him), that before bombing he worked very hard on the diplomatic front (some of which is also held against him, since it meant consorting with future "war criminals"), and that he did push, unsuccessfully, for a more hands-on military approach (or at least the threat of one) that could have better protected civilian populations . . . .
    So I guess I'd have to say that maybe I'm naive, but I do admire Clark, on balance here, for stepping "out of line" with a NATO force in Kosovo. No, it wasn't the neat little war that's shown in "American Son" -- I'm not that naive! -- but I think it was better than "standing by" as the world did in Ruwanda.   And no, I don't know that Clark will live up to my political expectations, but I'm hopeful that this year we'll have a real debate.
    Anyway, thanks for pushing me on this.....

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 07:18 PM

Fionn - Thanks for your confession it is now on file. I will ignore the insults of a fool.

If you can't take the truth, well, don't hand out lies.

Obviously when I am presented with a CV in your name and address it will obvoisly be a forgery.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:45 PM

(Why am I hearing background music from Fellini films in my mind's ear just now?)

;-)

Thanks robinia. I know how you feel. I was pretty impressed with Wesley Clark at first myself. I changed my mind after reading what he has to say in his website about some key issues. The depleted uranium thing is important to me, but not the most important thing. Being a voter in the US is a terrible responsibility, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:09 AM

Yes, it is, Carol, especially today -- and the supporters I've met of both Dean and Kucinich, people like me who've never become involved so early and so deeply in any presidential campaign, all feel the same way. This time it's too important to "wait and see." In fact, I feel much more in sync with these "rival" supporters than I do with ABBs complacently (or despairingly -- it has much the same effect) sitting back and passively waiting for that "anyone" to appear.

I'm curious about about the key issues that turned you off, though. Could you say more? Because I admit to a core, well, naivete in my attachment to Clark -- I believe that *he* truly does believe in America's "better self" (as I put it) or (as he puts it) in the unique constitutional and environmental heritage that we ought to be passing on to our children and grandchildren and that he sees George Bush destroying. How corny that sounds! And how surprised I was to find myself starting my letters to New Hampshire voters (and Iowan and Arizonan and . . .) with "dear fellow American" -- I, who'd never been a flag waver and wasn't even sure, as a child, if I was an American citizen (I'd secretly hoped that I wasn't!), to be saying that and, I suddenly realized, really meaning it!

Clark has that effect on people. His "vision of America" is no gimmick, and I think it's a large part of his appeal across a broad range of the political spectrum.   I may not share all of his "positions" but I trust his long-term sense of America a heck of a lot more than I do George Bush's. And I think he'll give Bush one hell of a fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:06 PM

Gareth, perhaps you could explain what truth it is that I cannot take. The rest of your message makes no sense. (I make no comment on your spelling and punctuation, except to note that when I apologised for a couple of typos earlier in this thread, you told me to sober up.)

Oh, and don't feel any obligation to apologise for your earlier rubbish. I realise you're not capable of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 04:36 AM

Gareth,

I more often than not enjoy your contributions but your posts accusing Fionn bother me, to put it very mildly. The main reason for my reaction is that the Fionn described in your posts is so completely different from the Fionn I know from his own posts.

I feel that if a Mudcatter clearly denies allegations, more often than once, one has two options: (1) to stop posting the allegations (with or even without an apology) or (2) to call him or her a liar with very specific arguments and proof.

The option merely to repeat the denied allegation without anything new of evidence added leaves a bad feeling in me.

A Peter Kirker is mentioned on this site as a Labour candidate near Newark. If that is all, I feel the 'case' should be closed for good.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:09 PM

I'm going to have to spend some time on my answer for you, robinia. When I'm done, I'll probably send my response to you in a PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 08:01 AM

Thanks for the link, Wolfgang. It even takes me some way back to the topic of the thread! (I hadn't seen it, and it may well have been what Gareth turned up in his search.)

I couldn't see a date on it, but that web page must be quite a few years old. The council to which I was elected, though listed under Newark and District, was actually Bilsthorpe parish council.I'd been put under some pressure by Roy Alsop (also elected), who said he would defer his retirement if I would stand. That's how desperate Labour was to get enough candidates for all the seats. In the event, I stood down before completing the term, and at the last election Labour could find only four candidates for 11 seats. (They nominated themselves at a private meeting, without recourse to Bilsthorpe branch Labour Pary.) As only about two independents stood as well, they were all appointed without an election, and they then chose who to appoint (co-opt) to the remaining vacancies. That's democracy, in what used to be part of Labour's heartlands. (Bilsthorpe is a former colliery village where the pit was closed in 1997.)

Parish councils in England (I'm not sure about Wales, Scotland, etc) exist only where there are also two higher levels of local government - county and district. Parish councils get park fences repaired, etc, and in my experience party politics don't come into it. Serving on a parish council is not a good career move for anyone contemplating a political career.

If we had any sort of manifesto when I was elected, I didn't see it, so I'm fairly sure I broke no promises. I resigned from the council when it criticised the (Labour) local education authority for closing a secondary school where I happened to be a governor. I believed the closure to be in the best interests of the school's students, and many who opposed me at the time have come round to my view with hindsight. But the school had not been an issue when we were all elected.

So a short and undistinguished career in politics, alas, though it was good fun at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 06:50 PM

Keep posting Fionn - dig your self in deeper - Oh ! and I repectfully suggest that you learn how to use a search engine, and the records at Companies House - Which are public domain.

Thanks for your information on your business address at Newark I was not aware of that.

- And give my regards to the "Pink Porker", again Public Domain, and most informative.

Oh and by the way - If U think that you are going to provoke me into breaching Labour Party Rules, and the Data Protection Act dream on!

Gareth

Oh and by the way I do not reprint posts regarding any 'Catters! self diagnostics on mental health, unless they specifically request me to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 08:44 PM

Well I'm reasonably confident with search engines Gareth - I just haven't felt the need to do a search on myself. Likewise I know my way round the records at Companies House, but I don't spend my time trawling them for information about fellow Mudcatters or me.

I don't have a business address at Newark, so I don't know what that's about, but feel free to enlighten me, since you sound quite excited about whatever you've found. You might also enlarge on your reference to the Pink Porker, which has bemused me but sounds fascinating.

As for my provoking you to break Labour Party rules and the DPA, I really don't think I've ever provoked you to do anything. Though from the semi-hysterical way you trail me from thread to thread, and even vent your spleen where I haven't posted at all (as in this charming contribution to an otherwise intelligent debate), I can see that it doesn't take much to provoke you.

As for reprinting posts containing self-diagnostics on mental health, I would have thought it was a bit late to pretend you have scruples about such matters. If there's a post of mine you're itching to reprint, it's in the public domain, so what's your problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 05:22 PM

Is this a lovers' spat?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 06:27 PM

Ebbie - My appologies for wasting other 'Catter's time but it is timw Fionn realased that his usual tactic of insulting any body who contradicts himself will no longer work.

Fionn, keep digging, the hole is getting deeper - You contadict yourself time and time again - In fact, with exception of the very rare occasion when you post to a music thread, any post or article by yourself should be accompanied by an "accuracy" warning.

But if it makes you feel self important, well carry on !

By the way, from previous posts in this thread alone, one wonders about the basic intelligence of a "Cllr" who stands for election on an address he did not see, or approve. Still that is your problem. I wish it had not been a problem for the 296 people who voted for you in May 1999.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 07:14 PM

Ebbie, I haven't a clue what inspired Gareth's outburst of affection, but it's all very flattering! Maybe one day he'll get a life, but in the meantime I've decided to refute his insinuations as they arise, until he either justifies them or gives up.

If he had any honour about him, maybe he would make his points directly rather than hide behind snide and obscure hints. Thus in his last post, he threw in the gratuitous observation that he does "not reprint posts regarding self diagnostics on mental health" unless specifically requested to do so. Normally I wouldn't dream of asking him, or anyone, to do such a thing, and I'm sure no-one else would either. But if it is a post of mine he has in mind, then I do specifically ask him to regurgitate it. I can't believe that anything I have said about myself could be worse than the effect of his malicious innuendo.

Many months ago I mentioned that I have a serious eye disorder, and I have said recently that I had a heart attack in early December. I would urge Gareth to make free with these posts too, if they help his purpose in some way.

I would again ask him to explain his Pink Porker reference, and to say what his point was about my alleged business address in Newark, as I cannot otherwise address these points. I assume he has now abandoned (without having the guts to apologise or retract) his lies about my membership of Buckingham and Newark Labour Parties and about my supposed role as a police informer.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 07:28 PM

In a response to CarolC as well as others,

This is a very interesting thread. I am in a dilemma because I will support the front-runner against Bush but I really believe in what
Kucinich says. I believe that the Bush Doctrine is so detrimental to American foreign and economic policy that even a change might have a salutary effect regardless of who the front-runner is.

The unfortunate part of the democratic system that we are giving up is that it is for sale by corporation lobbyists and wealthy individuals whose agenda is to keep their wealth concentrated in their
corner. For this reason, Kucinich doesn't fit. In a truly democratic society that hasn't been sold, he might have a better chance.

Dean has been able to mobilize anger and that fits his personality. He comes across as an angry man.

Clark has some good points such as protection of our "inalienable rights" but I fear that he as a military man is not in touch with the economic needs of our country.

Kerry seems to have the kind of personality that encourages a thoughtful approach although he voted for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq resolution. He seems to have a military record that would
show some ability to understand the military unlike Bush whose record is spotty and shady.

Carole Mosely Braun is an intelligent woman who has a shadow of political money intended for her candidacy for personal use. Don't know if these are allegations that are substantiated or not.

Sharpton has a trenchant view of the African-Ammerican experience though I don't know if he has the experience necessary to lead the country.

Gephardt is pro union and I find that attractive but other than that, I don't see much difference between him and Bush. It would either be W. Bush or Anheiser Busch. (I think alcohol should be taxed).

Lieberman is not a centrist, in my view. He has turned to the Right.
I don't see any solution to the Mid-East conflict with him in office.
He plays into the prejudices of the religious Right.

Most of my impressions are gained from the un-liberal media and observing how the candidate behave publicly. There may be something to the idea that you can tell which person is better for the job by the way they seem to act.

As to promises, the delivery is not as important to me as the
consistency and sincerity in the attempt to deliver.

I really don't know if I said anything useful or not. And these are just opinions. I don't know anyone who really has "facts"...maily spin.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 07:34 PM

Ebbie, I haven't a clue what inspired Gareth's outburst of affection, but it's all very flattering! Maybe one day he'll get a life, but in the meantime I've decided to refute his insinuations as they arise, until he either justifies them or gives up.

If he had any honour about him, maybe he would make his points directly rather than hide behind snide and obscure hints. Thus in his last post, he threw in the gratuitous observation that he does "not reprint posts regarding self diagnostics on mental health" unless specifically requested to do so. Normally I wouldn't dream of asking him, or anyone, to do such a thing, and I'm sure no-one else would either. But if it is a post of mine he has in mind, then I do specifically ask him to post it. I can't believe that anything I have said about myself could be worse than the effect of his malicious innuendo.

I would again ask him to explain his Pink Porker reference, and to say what his point was about my alleged business address in Newark. I assume he has now abandoned (without having the guts to apologise or retract) his fantasies about my membership of Buckingham and Newark Labour Parties and about my supposed role as a police informer.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 09:52 PM

Peter K (Fionn), several years ago, I had a very strange experience. An attorney who lived in my area decided that he didn't like the fact that I was schooling my son at home (even though it was perfectly legal for me to do so), and he petitioned the court to allow him to take me to court about it. While we were embroiled in that fiasco, he decided to take the opportunity to accuse me, in court, of being a Witch (despite the fact that the US constitution guarantees me the right to be a Witch, and also despite the fact that I am not a Witch).

When asked why he thought I was a Witch, he indicated that it was because I had once read the book "The Witches" by Roald Dahl (also the author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), to my son.

It's a funny old world, innit? Some kinds of things just don't surprise me any more.

Thanks Frank. I find that it's a very difficult time to be a US citizen right now. At least one with a conscience anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:45 PM

Bobert: your post on January 4: shame on you! Don't you know you lefties are supposed to back Hillary in '08? Dennis will only a dream by then.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:29 AM

Frank, please take another look at Clark because he's surely NOT your standard "military man" and his appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans rests on his message as much as his military experience. That America should live up to her ideals. It's that simple, that "hokey," when you get right down to what has inspired an army of grassroots volunteers (yes, we've learned a lot from Howard Dean!) to work our tails off and also raise an impressive amount of money (though the average donation is less than $100!) for a candidate we truly believe in. A candidate who's focused, NOT on petty rival bashing but on offering an alternative vision of America. A candidate who can beat Bush.
For details, including Clark's Families First Tax Reform, visit the official website here; for a better understanding of what makes his supporters tick try this "ex-deaniacs site;
and for intelligent Clark news and commentary try this or this . . . well, maybe you get the idea. Clark websites are springing up like mushrooms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:58 AM

is there going to be any money left to fund political promises?

see this article from the sydney morning herald:

Global fears as US goes into the red; By Matt Wade; January 9, 2004; Sydney morning herald

The huge black hole in the US budget and the country's ballooning trade deficit are threatening to push up interest rates across the globe and destabilise the international economy, one of the world's most powerful financial institutions has warned. The budget deficit - which has swung from a healthy surplus in 2000 to a forecast blowout of more than $US400 billion ($521.2 billion) this year - was a "significant risk" for the rest of the world, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday.

...The fund said the US would soon have a foreign debt totalling 40 per cent of its gross domestic product - an "unprecedented level debt for a large industrialised country". This could trigger a "disorderly" plunge in the US dollar ....... The IMF said the US Government must develop a credible five- to 10-year plan to balance its budget and warned this would mean spending cuts and tax rises. ...... the "large US fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world", it said.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 03:29 AM

From Wesley Clark's website:

Every president since Harry Truman has kept America's commitment to the security of Israel. At Camp David, President Clinton helped the parties come close to peace, but Arafat balked and chose violence.

This is a variation on "the Palestinians reneged on Oslo" big lie, and on the "Barak's generous offer" big lie. Even Shimon Peres admitted that it was Israel who reneged on Oslo,

We have a skeleton, we didn't complete the house. The Oslo agreement has had a rather short occasion to implement itself, and that was between 1993 and 1996. The Oslo agreement was stopped in 1996 when the government in Israel was changed and Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister. I think that the foundations and the structure of Oslo are still the best ones available. And once we shall have an opportunity, we shall complete the building that may withstand the winds of the outside world, and the skepticism of the people.

And according to Yitzhak Rabin, Arafat and the PLO were willing to work with him in stopping terrorism. (This was during the time when the Palestinians still had hope because they thought the Oslo agreement would be implemented)...

In the last two years, not one Israeli has been killed by PLO terrorism...

The "Barak's generous offer" big lie is exposed for what it is in these links:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/030102/030102u.htm

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf (this one has multiple pages)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9673-2001Jul17?language=printer

If Clark wins the presidency, we will not see any progress toward peace in the Middle East while he's in office.

Here's what Kucinich has to say about it:

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/middleeast.php

Of the candidates who address the subject of the Middle East in their websites, Kucinich is the only one who doesn't lie about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM

Robinia, I do agree 100 per cent that Clarke has much more about him than his military background, and on what little I've vbeen able to follow in the UK about the candidates, he would have got my vote. Not because he's pro-Israel: I'd begun to think that everyone has to be pro-Israel in the USA to stand a chance of getting elected. Well maybe there's some truth in that, but CarolC is opening my eyes with the evidence that some politicians don't fall in with that.

CarolC: LOL - though I'm totally deflated now! I've NEVER been called a witch....

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM

I think the term pro-Israel isn't the most accurate in this situation, Peter K (Fionn). It's possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Likud (as many Israelis themselves are). If, as I believe, and as many Israelis also believe, that the policies of the Israeli government are responsible for the deaths of many innocent Israeli Jews as well as Israeli Arabs and Palestinians, then to be anti-the current government of Israel is to be pro-Israel and to be in support of Israeli Jews (as well as Israeli Arabs and Palestinians). This is the same thing as being pro-the people of the US, and anti-the current US government. I would put myself into both of these categories.

I think Kucinich would fall into the first category.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

Yes, I agree with hindsight. My shorthand was too crude.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 01:07 PM

I've read Noam Chomsky's book, Mid-East Problems (title not quite right) and he brings up an interesting point. A national theocracy is not broad enough to include democratic diversity. He suggests that a divided Israel and Palestine might result in the "bantustans"
like those of the former South Africa. He advocates a coalition government that is run by both Israelis and Palestinians, a kind of federation. Of course he thinks it should work as a socialist government, something that Bush would never go for or most of the hawkish Israelis.

He thinks that the earlier vision of Zionism by Ben Gurion included the Palestinians (before they were identified as such) and thought that Israel should learn to live with the people they disposess. Ben Gurion has recently been deprecated by current hawks in the Israeli government and as a "mad man" by some. The thing is this, we know that the US can't be run by a Christian theocracy and be expected to respect the basic religious right of every American. Israel has a similar problem.

It's too easy to assign blame to an abstraction like "terrorism" without looking at the whole picture. Arafat can't control the Palestinian people and it's futile to blame him for that. If Clark thinks he can, I think he's dead wrong on that point, Carol. Hamas is considering that their Islamic views would be in jeopardy under an Israeli occupation. They are a reactionary force.

Why is it that almost every major war is somehow fought over religion?
Maybe someone can understand an aetheist point of view.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 01:41 PM

This one's not over religion, Frank. At least not from the point of view of the Palestinians. Before the Europeans started settling in what is now Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Muslims, Jews, and Christian Palestinians (those whose ancestors had been living there for centuries) were living in harmony together on that land.

When the Europeans started settling in the region, their aim was supremacy, and to take every bit of land they could aquire by any means necessary.

So from the perspecive of everyone, with the possible exception of the European Jews, it was never about religion, but only about land.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 01:44 PM

Let me rephrase this part:

Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Palestinians (those whose ancestors had been living there for centuries) were living in harmony together on that land.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:44 PM

Clark hasn't been saying as much on this question as he could -- whatever he says, he will be jumped upon!-- but I note that in his official "position" he identifies strongly with the policies and vision of fellow soldier/peacemaker Yitzhak Rabin and commits himself only to what is truly a non-issue: the right of Israel (NOT the Likud party's Greater Israel) to exist.   I have also read in at least one of statements (sorry I can't give the link -- wish I could find it myself!) some very strong implied criticism of the Sharon government; he was praising the courage of isolated Israeli military commanders who opposed Israel's West Bank actions.
So I give my candidate credit for political prudence rather than pandering.   He's made no false promises, and I don't think he'll be anyone's puppet in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM

would that it were true. I would be interested in him but I fear he would be Hilary's puppet. There is something amiss there. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: robinia
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 05:08 PM

What's amiss in both of the Clintons liking him, Mary?   (Clearly Clark admires Bill Clinton's political legacy, and in the on-line discussion of possible VP choices Hilary is often mentioned, though I don't think very realistically...) But why read that as a "conspiracy"?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 05:27 PM

Bill Clinton is one of the authors of the "Barak's generous offer" lie. I don't know what Mary's problem is with the Clintons, but that lie caused me to totally reassess my opinion of President Clinton. In my opinion, that lie has caused the deaths of many, many innocent people, both Israeli Jews and Arabs, and Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 07:28 PM

Man of Honour Fionn ? - I doubt if you could spell the word without a "spell checker".

But then what can we expect from an idiot who continually makes unfounded allegations, denies, then admits, and insults any 'Catter, who has the temerity to contradict. This despite my comment that your petty posting might be due to the nature of your illness.

Still I've no doubt that you will continue your facile arguments.

I look forward to continue to pricking your pomposity. Or is it the result of underchievement when collated against your ambitions ?

Tho its interesting that a quick Google, and reference to my back copies of the "New Statesman", that I fail to find any article with your by-line in it. Nor any cross reference on "Pen Names".

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 08:47 PM

Frank, the Chomsky piece you read might have been an essay, "Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood," which was published in a collection called "Middle East Illusions." But what you describe sounds more like "The Fateful Triangle," published last year by Pluto. (The triangle being the US, Israel and Palestine.

Gareth: if your copies of NS/NSS go back to Bruce Page's editorship, then you need to look more carefully. Since those days most of my journalistic income has been from subbing and magazine design. In very recent years I haven't really needed to earn much at all from anywhere, and most of what work I do nowadays is in the voluntary sector.

I suppose your reference to "the nature of (my) illness," just about sums you up. Since you've been challenged directly on this point, and have been given the specific permission you solicited, to quote from any posts of mine that have mentioned my health, it is a pity you don't have the guts to say what you're talking about. As the reference is no longer to "mental" health, I'm wondering whether you've widened it to take in the heart attack I had in December 2003, and the serious eye disorder I have had from childhood - both mentioned somewhere among all my posts. Please make free with any of this information, since I would hate to cramp your peculiarly snide style.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 09:33 PM

Peter...Sorry to see you once again subjected to this idiotic abuse.
Gareth seems to have more of a problem than I previously thought.
Considering the amount of space given to the "nasty guest" controversy,its a disgrace that you should have to put up with this crap from a member. Perhaps it would be better not to respond.
    Best wishes Alex.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 11:04 PM

I have been watching C-Span, where live speeches in Iowa are being broadcast in their entirety, as well as Q&A sessions with the audience and the 'milling about' that happens afterward. Tonight they ran Dean's appearance, and I have to say, I found him balanced, thoughtful and aware of the issues. He answered question from the attendees directly, with no hesitation and with data to back up his remarks. (I have seldom seen Kerry answer ANY question directly--he answers with a prepared sound-bite about what HE wants to say).

In all the questioning (some of which was adversarial) and talking, I saw little to make me think of Dean as an 'angry' man....he was passionate about some things, but he did impress me.

I have no doubt Kerry, or Clark, or Gephardt...or even Edwards.. could manage to be a reasonable president..IF they had the job, but none of them seem to me to be saying much except "stop Dean"...Lieberman has moved from 'interesting' to "oh, my God" in 4 years.
Braun and Sharpton, of course, have less than NO chance, so I won't say much...

Kucinich...well, now....interesting. He seems to believe 'exactly' what he says, and that means to me that, like Ronald Reagan, he would DO exactly what he promises, and damn the consequences...whether it is pragmatic or not. He just strikes me as a paragon of righteous indignation who would make a fine gadfly, like Ralph Nader, but would conduct foreign policy by shooting from the hip, according to HIS current moral code. Could I be wrong?...sure..the job of being president has a way of softening single-minded approaches..(with the exception of the occasional R. Reagan)........but I still remember what a mess Kusinick made of being Mayor of Cleveland, and though he is older now, he still has that "get out of my way" approach that worries me, even when I AGREE with his view on something.

It ain't easy sorting out 7-9 candidates in this atmosphere when they spend half their time figgering out how to run down each other almost as much as they do Bush.

I doubt *I* will have much influence on it all anyway....what we need is some system that doesn't decide that Iowa and N. Hampshire are the decision makers for the rest of the country!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 06:33 PM

CarolC, I still see the Mid-east problem as a religious one. The Likud party and the orthodox extremists in Israel will never allow Israeli parity with Palestinians.
They are as extremist as are the Mullahs of Iran. But from the Palestinian point-of-view I believe you are correct although isn't Hamas Muslim based?
Isn't it their interpretation of the Koran that acknowledges a "jihad"?

If Israel were more "secularized" perhaps with a strong separation of church and state, maybe a more reasonable solution could be found.

But I concurr with your assessment about how it started.

Peter (Fionn)..yes that's the book. They are Chomsky essays. The Fateful Triangle may be part of those essays.

Bill D., As to Dean, I believe that he is popular as a front runner because he is feisty and some would call that angry. He is not measured in his speech such as the others. Kerry does refer to what he would do quite a bit but if you visit his website you will find he is up on issues and data sources.

As to Kucinich, he articulates the most specific point of view, the most honest without subterfuge. Example: Dean has downplayed his relationship with the
NRA and his interest in supporting the AIPAC. (I would fear for the Brady Bill under a Dean presidency.) Flexibility seems to be being valued in the Bush Administration these days since he has changed so many positions that his choregraphy looks like a marionette Micheal Jackson. Kucinich seems to be a reasonable man unlike Reagan who really articulated very little about his "Morning in America" which turned out to be more like Americans "Mourning for America". I don't get it that Kucinich is a pedantic sort. And during his tenure in Cleveland, didn't he keep the energy for the city out of the hands of Enron-like corporations thus saving taxpayer money? I'm not sure it was Kucinich that orchestrated the "mess" any more than Davis did in California.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Political Promise(s)
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 07:57 PM

Nice post, Frank Hamilton.

But from the Palestinian point-of-view I believe you are correct although isn't Hamas Muslim based?
Isn't it their interpretation of the Koran that acknowledges a "jihad"?

From what I've been able to learn about Hamas, it appears to be an organization that forms itself around the Islamic religion, but does so for political purposes. From what I've seen, the tighter the government of Israel squeezes the Palestinians, the more Palestinians, who would not under other circumstances ally themselves with Islamic extremists, become radicalized and look to Hamas to help them accomplish their goal, which is independence from Israel.

Hamas also provides the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories with help and services that they are desperately in need of with the conditions in the Occupied Territories being as deplorable as they are (and becoming worse all the time). So it's probably fair to say that Hamas would not recieve much support from most Palestinians if they weren't under occupation by the government of Israel.