BS: Defeat Bush and then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:38 PM

Splendidly put, Joe O... Methinks we could all use a little R&R...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:35 PM

"so we should try to make it even worse?"

No, of course not. It will get better whhen Kerry is elected. Bush has done the polarization, and Kerry will undo it. Simple, Bruce.


Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:26 PM

If Kerry wins, which I hope he does, I predict a rather dull presidency. I don't think he'll have the scandals (or the vigor) of the Clinton Administration. The conservatives have tried to pin a "liberal" label on Kerry, but he really doesn't seem to have strong ties to a political agenda like Bush has. I expect he'll handle problems in a fairly balanced manner. Being a rather colorless leader, I'm afraid Kerry may have trouble getting passage of legislation that moves us forward. I'd like to see universal health coverage, but I don't think Kerry is dynamic enough to bring it about.

Somebody above said that it isn't the President who enacts legislation. That's true, but I think it takes a dynamic President to bring together a coalition that can enact legislation that is truly innovative. I'm not sure innovation is our most pressing need now. We need to settle things in Iraq with some amount of grace and generosity, and we need to patch up our relationships with other countries and get rid of the vigilante cowboy image Bush has built for us. Internally, we need to go back to supporting environmental concerns, balance spending and taxation so we stop inflating the national debt, and put more emphasis on serving the needs of people instead of corporations.

So, I think it's time to fire the Cowboy in Chief and send him back to Texas. Maybe some quiet in Washington will do us good.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:50 PM

"What I would LIKE to see is a gradual return to a footing of negotiation, PR and economic relations, rather than a basis of immediate violence." Amos

What Amos said. Ebbie

"Just as , after 911, Bush had reports of Saddam having WMD, and planning to attack." bb

There is something seriously wrong in a country's intelligence when they get it that wrong. But please keep in mind that Bush, et al, for reasons of their own CHOSE to believe and go with the scnario that would have the most serious consequence. LONG before he acted, he knew there were SERIOUS doubts about the situation. Ebbie

"So I believe the emphasis and focus this election year is in the WRONG place. We should be focusing on grassroots movements to unseat Republicans at the local, state, and national level." Guest

What do you think we are doing? Ebbie

Actually, I don't agree with TTR that if we do not elect Bush we as a nation will be heroes in the world- but I do think if we do NOT
unselect him, we will have exposed ourselves to the charge that we are in his pocket. Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:14 PM

so we should try to make it even worse?

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:12 PM

The polarization of the country has ALREADY happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:02 PM

Ron:

Give it a rest Ron. Come back when you have something to say--something along the lines of, say, evidence?.

"We have a fire in the house, a rattlesnake in the garden"

You make accusations against the Bush adminitration without evidence all the time.


In the case of Iraq, the report is that the information that the Bush Adminitration HAD at the time, from our own intelligence sources, the Russian, and the British, would lead ANYONE, Kerry included, into both calling for Iraq to be dealt with, and , when the UN did not act in a timely manner, to take the needed military action.

The only "lack" of evidence was the actual weapons being found- which could not have been know apriori.

There are people who do not agree with your assesment. At the present time, the polls indicate they are in the majority: This may or may not be the case at the time of the election. If both sides make no effort to understand the other side of the issue there will be a polerization of the country regardless of who wins. I fail to see how that would help.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: van lingle
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:53 PM

Guest, If you think the president doesn't have a great deal of influence on tax legislation,environmental issues, foreign policy and federal court appointments in spite of who controls congress then you are seriously deluding yourself in order, I suppose, to make your argument.
I think the focus should be on changing government at all levels and that there is enough difference between Kerry and Bush to warrant a great deal of attention in that direction. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:31 PM

OK, now in answer to your question of me, and presumably Bobert and the other handful of folks here who plan to vote Green or for Nader, Van Lingle. You asked "Now let me ask you guys, seriously now, what you expect will happen if you vote Nader,Green or stay at home and as a conseqeunce Bush and his thugs are reelected?"

First of all, I don't know why you are automatically presuming that the only way that Bush can win, is if a handful of Americans vote for Nader and/or Cobb. That truly is not the case. This is a dead heat election, within the margin of error whether Nader is included or excluded from the polling. The same thing was true in 2000. The two party system is more polarized than it has been in decades, and that is the dynamic that is relevant to who will win, not the less than 3% of the vote taken by third party candidate, or combination of third party candidates. They have always been there in every election.

The Democrats would like to have us believe that Nader played the same role of third party spoiler with 2.74% of the national vote in 2000, that Ross Perot played in the 1992 election with 18.87% of the vote, which allowed Clinton to slide into office with less than 50% of the votes (42.93% in fact, Bush's 37.38%). The third party dynamic was very different in the 2000 election, and isn't comparable to 1992. The only election result comparable to Perot's 1992 third party effect, was the Minnesota election of Jesse Ventura, who squeaked into office stealing votes from both Democrats and Republicans, and by winning votes of many independents (and there aren't that many registered independent voters in Minnesota).

What that sort of suggestion (that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault) does belie, however, is a belief in the oft-repeated urban legend that George W. Bush is now president because 2.74% of the American electorate voted for Nader. Which of course isn't true.

Much less "provable".

George W. Bush is president because in an election which was very close to being a statistical tie (which would have been decided by Congress, not the Supreme Court), the US Supreme Court intervened to stop the Florida recount (which may have resulted in a statistical tie), and the US Congress (with Al Gore at the gavel) refused to open a Congressional investigation into the voter fraud in Florida, especially the disenfranchisement of African American voters who largely vote for the Democratic party candidates. Those two democratically challenged decisions, one by the US Supreme Court to intervene, and the other by the US Congress' decision not to, is what resulted in the presidency being awarded to Bush.

Now then, getting back to your "what will happen" question based upon the scenario of Bush winning re-election, let me ask you this: what if Bush is re-elected by a clear enough majority that is larger than the Nader/Cobb percentage of the vote? In other words, where will the Anybody But Bush camp find themselves if the results are 55/45 with Bush the winner, which is roughly where the polls have them now?

So there! I am answering your question of my question with another question!

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:27 PM

You misunderstand, Guest...it is not racism, but anti-cultism. And if you want things to be ashamed of, hiding yourself while throwing blame is probably high on the list.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:27 PM

Please stick it up your very overly politically correct and fat ass, Guest 11 Sep 04-12:05 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:05 PM

"...are being hit by every wannabe Mohammed in town"

What a racist bit of crap that, Amos. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:49 AM

OK Van Lingle. Let me repeat:

Kerry will not have the power to levy taxes, that is the legislative branch. So our tax system (it's fairness/unfairness) is not something that the executive branch controls, Congress does. The president has the right to make suggestions to Congress (as with their annual budget), as do the heads of government agencies and departments. But Congress controls this, not the president.

This thread is confirming my suspicions about the Anybody But Bush camp, which are:

1. That many in that camp don't have a clue as to how the US government actually works, and what a president has power to do.

2. That they don't understand that it was the US Congress which gave Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq. The executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare war.

3. That it was the US Congress that passed the US Patriot Act. The executive branch doesn't have the power to legislate, only to veto.

So that means, the Anybody But Bush camp, by focusing exclusively on the executive branch and the horse race for president, is focusing their anger with blinders on, when putting Bush and Cheney's face on these facts.

The fact of the matter is, there would be no war in Iraq, no US Patriot Act, no alienation and diplomatic isolation, no gutting of the New Deal social service agencies within the federal government (that tax thing I'm guessing you are alluding to Van Lingle) and bloating of the US military industrial complex, if the US Congress, including Senator John Kerry, wasn't complicit in the Republican right agenda.

Just to help you get this all straight, here is a list of the legislative branch's duties:

Legislative Branch

Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
Checks on the Judiciary
Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published

So again I ask, what exactly do you think Kerry will have the power to change, considering that the specifics all of you are giving are actually powers rooted in the legislative, rather than executive branch?

I completely agree that the current hegemonic Republican extremist political agenda is destroying the fabric of this nation. But what, exactly, do you think Kerry can realistically do about it with a Republican controlled Congress?

To me, the answer is nothing. So I believe the emphasis and focus this election year is in the WRONG place. We should be focusing on grassroots movements to unseat Republicans at the local, state, and national level. That is the only means we have available to us at this point, because the executive branch, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, has been corrupted by big money interests, and there is simply no way of fighting that as citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:36 AM

Give it a rest Bruce. Come back when you have something to say--something along the lines of, say, evidence?.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: van lingle
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:30 AM

Guest, Let me substitute President for CIC and you can perhaps answer my question. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:26 AM

bb... but Clinton couldn't pardon himself... we have to do that...

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:14 AM

TTR,

Bush can just pull a Clinton, and issue pardons as he leaves office. Can't complain about that, since Bill established it as the proper way to go... No arrests will be possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:12 AM

Arrest him, and press charges... ;^)... Executive privilege will no longer apply, the media will take a step back and scrutinize him more freely, and the military will be answering to someone else.

Aw, George... Just funnin' ya...

No really... Befriend the rest of the world... We as Americans will become heros all over the world for getting Bush out of office. By doing this simple act, We will encounter a massive resurgence of worldwide trust and respect... and take the first step towards ending this hideous cycle of violence... for to lay Al Quida to rest.
ttr

BTW...
---------"people who are so driven by fear and hatred for Bush"----------
-Oh my. Statements like this are perfect examples of closed minded thinking. Bush is not King. He is an ellected ( well, almost... ) official in a Democracy, and it is his job to listen to the American public... not to be manipulated by forces that cast and impune a negatively charged cloud of greed and suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 11:07 AM

We are not voting in November for a commander in chief.

We are voting for a US president, the executive who administers the US executive branch of government. To understand the difference, perhaps some could go here, and read up on the Separation of Powers, which were created to prevent the majority from taking over the nation and ruling with an iron hammer fist.

Instead of concentrated power in one branch of the US government, the US political system is set up to ensure a state of Checks and Balances. Now, I know the current US moronic majority doesn't give a shit about the Separation of Powers and our system of Checks and Balances, but others of us in the minority, most certainly do.

The duties of the Executive Branch in the context of Checks and Balances:

Executive Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

When the president suggests appointments to the federal bench, he is not acting as commander in chief.

The president does not have the constitutional power to levy taxes (that is the legislative branch).

Environmental standards suggested by the executive branch are not within the remit of the duties of commander in chief either.

So why, Van Lingle, are you insisting upon referring to the office of the president as if it's only duty is to act as commander in chief?

That is the tactic of the moronic Republican militarists. It is a tactic that is working very well to brainwash the American public into accepting the militarization of the presidency. The next step beyond is martial law, and a military dictatorship. A bloodless coup.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: van lingle
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:42 AM

Celebrate the fact that we'll have a CIC who:

1. Will make more reasonable appointments to federal benches and especially to any seats that may become vacant on the Supreme court. Any appointments that Bush might make could cast a pall on this country for a good 30-40 years.

2. Will give us fairer tax rates.

3. Will take a more "sensitive" and focused, non-oportunistic approach to world wide terror.

4. Will display a more cooperative and diplomatic front to our supposed allies.

5. Can't help but be more environmentally friendly than the current CE.

These just some of the more important approaches I'll expect of a Kerry administration. Plus, there is the added bonus that Dick Cheney will not be within a heartbeat of the presidency.

Now let me ask you guys, seriously now, what you expect will happen if you vote Nader,Green or stay at home and as a conseqeunce Bush and his thugs are reelected? I really want to know. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:41 AM

Ron Davies:

Just as , after 911, Bush had reports of Saddam having WMD, and planning to attack. That sounbds like a fire to me... So he took care of the emergency as best he could, trying to work through the UN, but putting out the fire when the UN refused to act to enforce it's own resolution.

Glad you agree that the Bush administration was justified in attacking Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:31 AM

Courageous "Guest" (Ghost?:

I repeat, hoping you will understand:


We have a fire in the house, a rattlesnake in the garden--pick your metaphor. Let's take care of the current emergency, which can be done in early November, then discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 10:25 AM

I can imagine a number of courses of possible action, and if I were Kerry I would be building up a list of scenarios and readiness for them. It depends how bad the Bush forces -- which will then become the Kerry forces -- are being hit by every wannabe Mohammed in town. It depends on the economy.

What I would LIKE to see is a gradual return to a footing of negotiation, PR and economic relations, rather than a basis of immediate violence.   I don't have a course of action toward that result, but I am not in a position to put a realistic one together, either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:37 AM

Actually Ron, I'm an advocate for advance planning. Iraq is but one of the many current follies the US finds itself engaged in which resulted from the "kill the enemy first, plan for the aftermath later" mindset.

And I have to say, the Anybody But Bush camp eerily mirrors the Bush camp itself in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 09:01 AM

Absolutely.

First let's put out the fire. Then we can discuss renovations to the house, or if you want, building a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:27 AM

Well, on January 22nd it will be time for the Green Party to regroup like never before to harass the Dems, Kerry be one, like a swarm of angry bees...

Bobert

Subject: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:22 AM

I would like to know what all the "Anybody But Bush" folks who are supporting Kerry, believe will happen January 21, 2005.

Serious question. I'm really curious to hear what people who are so driven by fear and hatred for Bush, think will resolved or fixed by John Kerry.