BS: And the next US President will be

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:13 PM

When I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of this line from a song I know: "the porch light's on...but there's no one home..."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 11:37 PM

Whether Bobert is right or wrong, his evaluation is useless in predicting the next president. The personality of the candidate is no indication of his ability. Both Carter and Ford were seen to be decent, moral gentlemen who were overwhelmed by the responsibilities of the office. Ronald Reagan's sincerity and likability was undeniable, even to those who questioned his ability and intelligence. LBJ, a New Deal Democrat, waged a war that makes the Iraqi debacle look popular. You, just, never know.

                Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 08:03 AM

War seemed to be a big thing with the New Deal Democrats. FDR had WWII, Truman had Korea, and LBJ had Vietnam.
                     If Clinton hadn't gone into Kosovo to get Monica Lewinsky's picture off the front pages of the papers, his record would be spotless.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 10:46 AM

Speaking of spotless, if Monica Lewinski had used a good dry cleaner,....

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 12:12 PM

Just wondering........ do you consider Kosovo a success or not?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:11 PM

It was a great windfall for Albania, and a bitter loss for Serbia.

            A more worldly view of the outcome might be, Albania has an undereducated population largely addicted to the ancient superstition of Islam. Therefore they turn their backs on birth control and family planning, and have a runaway population growth.
            Sebia, on the other hand, has a more educated population, more willing to deal with reality and has had a more stable population growth for many years.
            For the world, then, I would say that NATO's adventure in Kosovo was a net loser and detrimental to the planet. It got Monica Lewinsky's picture off the front pages of the newspapers, at least for a while, but it was the wrong thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:23 PM

I tend to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM

I'd have to look it up to make sure but isn't Serbia a 'christian' nation and the Kosovars Islamists? I believe that was one of the objections that the western world had- that when we went to war we were on the wrong side, no matter what the Serbs were doing.


grrrrrrrrrrrr

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

"- that when we went to war we were on the wrong side, no matter what the Serbs were doing."

            Ebbie - Yes, that's exactly right. That's why Madeline Albright had to discover that she was Jewish in order to make it all right to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:40 PM

The religious issues in the Balkans were not what I was referring to when I said, "I tend to agree." I take no sides in the religious divide there between the various Christian groups and the Muslims.

What I meant was that I agree that that NATO's adventure in that region was a mistake.

But I'm quite prepared to listen to someone tell me why it wasn't. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM

No, I understood what you meant. I don't think the religious elements had a lot to do with it either. It was just a convenient way to divide the factions for the sake of reporting, I think. Kind of the like the Orange and the Green in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:17 PM

My point is that there were those who objected to the western world combatting the 'christian' nation of Serbia and protecting and supporting Kosovo.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:31 PM

Well, looks as if the Repubs think that the Dem. ticket will be Clinton/Obama...

Any thoughts on a Clinton/Obama ticket???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:40 PM

Ebbie - I don't think Serbia could be called a "Christian" nation necessarily. It was one of those eastern block countries that took a dim view of religion for a very long time.

             Nevertheless, the media in its drive to hype absolutely everything made the point about the differing religions continually when the conflict was going on. I don't think the whole thing got a fair airing, however, because Serbia felt justified, I think, in driving out alien elements from part of their homeland.

             It would be a similar scenario if the US decided to drive illegal aliens out of California, and NATO came into the conflict on the side of the aliens, and all of that resulted in California being awarded to Mexico when it was over.

             I think that's the way the Serbs must feel about it, especially the ones who now live as minorities in Kosovo. I doubt very seriously if the Albanians treat the Serbs any better now than the Serbs treated the Albanians before the whole thing started.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:33 PM

The Serbs have been, in effect, a Christian nation for a long time...both before and after their stint under Communism. Tito may have discouraged religion some, but I don't think he ever tried to stamp it out. The Serbs are predominantly Eastern Orthodox Christian, the Croatians are predominantly Catholic, and then you have the various Muslim people in that area as well, which I guess are mostly the Bosnians and the Albanians, if I remember correctly.

And if I don't, be sure to correct me. I won't get mad. ;-)

Anyway, the religious divisions in that population have been VERY significant in contributing to their many wars with each other, and their wars with each other go a long way back. Long, long before Communism came and went.

When the Germans went into Yugoslavia in 1941, they found willing allies in the Croation Catholic community, and bitter enemies among the Serbs. The Croatians formed their own Axis-allied forces, and their own local administration, and they gave the Germans much help fighting the Serbs....they had the back luck when they did that to back the losing side in WWII, but in 1941 the Germans looked like the winning side. That sort of thing happens.

I place no particular judgement on the Croatians for the decision they made at that time...after all, the Pope was in Rome, right, and Italy was allied with Germany at the time. So of course the Croats sided with the Germans against their traditional Serb enemies.

It was as inevitable as Finland siding with Germany against Russia. These things are always driven by pragmatism and alliances of convenience...as well as by traditional grudges between former enemies.

Only Tito was able to hold together all those people and make them put their grudges aside for a few decades. For that, he deserves some credit. He did a better job with Yugoslavia than anyone else ever managed to.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:37 PM

Thanks, Little Hawk. Succinctly put.

Riginslinger, taking that analogy just a step further, I couldn't criticize Mexico if it tried to take back California!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:08 AM

By the way, my impression is that the big machine that runs both parties and is behind the whole election thing in the USA wants Hillary Clinton to be the next Democratic candidate for president, and wants her to win the next election. If I am right, then it's almost certain she will be, and she'll win. I'm not at all sure who they will groom as the Republican candidate (or as Hillary's VP), but if they have decided that they want Hillary to win, it hardly matters...they'll pick some schmoe who will go down to defeat just like he's supposed to. Time to change the curtains on the White House again...the plebes are getting restless.

It would be surprising to me that they would even consider electing a woman to the presidency, given the huge weight of past American tradition against it, but maybe they think it's time now.

We've had one female prime minister in Canada...briefly. She started out looking VERY strong, and then politically self-destructed so rapidly and completely that I don't expect to see the parties here risk another try at that for a long, long time. They'll go the safe route, and pick male party leaders.

The above was not her fault, by the way, it was just a set of larger political circumstances around her, that's all. She really had no chance, in my opinion.

As far as Hillary goes, I have a rather high opinion of her on a personal level. I think she's a very smart and capable person, maybe even a brilliant person. I do not have a good opinion of the massive forces that stand behind her and use her as their face to put in front of the public. From them...I expect nothing but more of the same corruption and imperial ambitions...regardless of whom they advance to the next coronation ceremony in Washington after the votes are "counted".

Just my best guess. We'll have to wait and see if I hit the bullseye or missed the whole danged target... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:24 AM

Here's some info about Kim Campbell, Canada's first and only female prime minister. She won the leadership of the governing Conservative Party in June, 1993...thus automatically being appointed as Prime Minister. Her time in office till her defeat at the polls lasted only until November of the same year.

Campbell's career was characterized by some as "a quick rise to fame from a relatively unknown cabinet member to prime minister." In fact, she had served in four cabinet portfolios prior to running for the party leadership and had more experience than eleven of the 18 men who preceded her as prime minister, including Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, who had no cabinet experience at all, and Pierre Trudeau, who had served only one year as Minister of Justice. Campbell had developed a considerable profile during her three years as Minister of Justice and garnered support of more than half the PC caucus when she declared for the leadership.

Like John Turner before her, Campbell's term as Prime Minister would be almost entirely dominated by an electoral campaign. Initially she was very popular[4]- and became the eponym of "Campbellmania," just as one of her predecessors, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was the subject of late-1960s Trudeaumania. For a while, she appeared to have a chance of repairing her party's reputation, which had been badly damaged after a number of scandals during the Mulroney government.

Campbell did extensive campaigning during the summer, touring the nation and attending barbecues and other events. By the end of the summer, her personal popularity had increased greatly, far surpassing that of Chrétien.[5] Support for the Progressive Conservative Party had also increased, and they were only a few points behind the Liberals, while the Reform Party had been reduced to single digits.

Campbell also became the only Canadian Prime Minister not to have resided at 24 Sussex Drive since that address became the official home of the Prime Minister of Canada in 1951. Initially, Campbell's predecessor Brian Mulroney remained at 24 Sussex while renovations on his new home in Montreal were being completed. Campbell instead took up residence at Harrington Lake, and did not move into 24 Sussex after Mulroney left.


The 1993 election
When an election was called in the fall of 1993, the party had high hopes that they might be able to remain the government and, if not, would at least be a strong opposition to a Liberal minority government.

However, Campbell's initial popularity soon declined due to public-relations mistakes committed after the writ was dropped. When she was running for the party leadership, Campbell's frank honesty was seen as an important asset and a sharp contrast from Mulroney's highly polished style. However, that backfired when she told reporters and a Rideau Hall event that it was unlikely that the deficit or unemployment would be much reduced before the "end of the century". During the election campaign, she stated that discussing a complete overhaul of Canada's social policies in all their complexities could not be done in just 47 days (the time allotted to an election campaign). However, a reporter truncated this comment to "an election is no time to discuss serious issues."

Campbell appeared to have troubles relating to "regular" Canadians, and many felt that she had an overly condescending and pretentious tone. In addition, she was criticized as carrying much the same attitudes and positions of her widely detested predecessor. She was frequently greeted by the activist chant "Kim, Kim, you're just like him."

Some have attempted to point to her gender as a major contributing factor to her historic loss, but there is scant evidence to support that assertion. Analysis of the press coverage of the campaign reveals that a constant theme of the coverage itself was its unfairness. Journalists wrote openly about the double standard applied to Campbell, but there was little or no attempt to analyse why this was the case. Scholarly analysis by experts such as Richard Johnston of the University of British Columbia asserts that Campbell's "47 days" comment, (a response to a journalist's attempt to charge her with a hidden agenda) was not the key factor in the vote decline, but was made after the trend had shifted. Rather, the attempt to attribute a hidden agenda on social programs to her in and of itself reminded voters of what they believed about Mulroney - that he would say one thing but do another. Without time to establish a new record for her government, Campbell remained vulnerable to the negative perceptions people had of her predecessor.

The Conservatives' support tailed off rapidly as the campaign progressed. By October, it was obvious that Campbell and the Tories would not be reelected. All polls showed the Liberals were on their way to at least a minority government, and would probably win a majority without dramatic measures. However, Campbell was still personally more popular than Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. Knowing this, the Conservative campaign team put together a series of ads attacking Chrétien. The second ad appeared to mock Chrétien's Bell's Palsy facial paralysis, and generated a severe backlash from all sides. Even some Tory candidates called for the ad to be yanked. Campbell claims to have not been directly responsible for the ad, and to have ordered it off the air[6] over her staff's objections. However, she didn't apologize and lost a chance to contain the fallout from the ad.

The ad flap was widely regarded as the final nail in Campbell's coffin. Conservative support plummeted into the teens, all but assuring that the Liberals would win a majority government short of a complete meltdown in the dying days of the campaign. Canadian humourist Will Ferguson suggested that this incident meant Campbell should receive "some of the blame" for her party's losses, though "taking over the party leadership from Brian (Mulroney) was a lot like taking over the controls of a 747 just before it plunges into the Rockies."[7]

The Somalia Affair took place during her "watch" as Minister of National Defence and became a handicap during her subsequent period of public life. When the Liberal Party of Canada took power, the incident became the subject of a lengthy public inquiry, aimed further at embarrassing Campbell and the PCs.

On election night, the Conservatives were swept from power in a massive Liberal landslide. Campbell herself was defeated in Vancouver Centre by rookie Liberal Hedy Fry. It was only the third time in Canadian history that a sitting prime minister was unseated at the same time that his or her party lost an election. In 1921, Arthur Meighen was unseated in his Manitoba riding at the same time that his Conservatives were defeated; this recurred in 1926 to end his second brief tenure as prime minister. Mackenzie King led the Liberals to victory in the 1925 election, but lost his seat and had to win a by-election to get back into Parliament. Except for Jean Charest, every Cabinet member running for re-election lost their seat. With few exceptions, the Tories' previous support in the west moved to Reform, while the Bloc Québécois inherited most Tory support in Quebec. In some cases, the Bloc pushed Cabinet ministers from Quebec into third place.

The Tories still finished with over two million votes, taking third place in the popular vote, and falling only two percentage points short of Reform for second place. However, due to quirks in the first past the post system, Tory support was not concentrated in enough areas to translate into victories in individual ridings. In contrast, the geographic concentration of support for Reform in the West and the Bloc in Quebec garnered them significant numbers of parliamentary seats. As a result, the Tories won only two seats compared to Reform's 52 and the Bloc's 54. It was the worst defeat in party history, and the worst defeat ever suffered by a governing party at the federal level.

Campbell faced hurdles that she blamed as being insurmountable despite evidence to the contrary. Mulroney left office as one of the most (and according to Campbell, the most[8]) unpopular prime ministers since opinion polling began in the 1940s. He considerably hampered his own party's campaign effort by staging a very lavish international farewell tour at taxpayer expense and staying in office until only two and a half months were left in his mandate. Under the circumstances, Campbell came into office with almost no room to make mistakes. Nonetheless, Campbell's pre-election summer tour did put the Progressive Conservatives back up in the polls to only a few points behind the Liberals. Her finger-pointing after the massive loss has been seen by some as more evidence of her lack of fitness for the position.

By the time she dropped the writ for the 1993 election, she was only a few days from becoming the first prime minister to allow a Parliament to expire. Another factor was that the race was a five-way contest with Reform and the Bloc competing with the three traditional parties for votes. There was no issue like the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement five years earlier to make support for such parties seem risky.

Soon after the defeat, Campbell resigned as party leader; Charest succeeded her.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:43 AM

It is not the job of the parties to nominate the most qualified candidate. Their job is to nominate the most electable candidate. This has been the watchword of the Democrats for years. They, mistakenly, believe that an identifyable leftist is unelectable. They point to McGovern and Humphry but they forget that Harry Truman was re-elected after he integrated the army, no small feat in the 40's. How do you htink he would handle this don't ask, don't tell nonsense? I think that Goldwater would have been a lot like Truman. He, too, was a very principled man.
Thompson will be nominated because he is the most electable candidate they have Besides, the party needs to appease its base and Thompson is conservative enough for them.
If the Dems were smart in 2004, they would have nominated a fringe candidate with some attackable ideas. Someone like Harrison Wofford or Ralph Nader. This year, they have some, potential, stars. They will, again, disdain substance for style but, this time, their style is more stylish. What a delightful choice, a Negro, a famous
lady and a grieving husband with movie star looks. I can't wait to see how the Dems blow this one.

                            Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:50 AM

"The Serbs have been, in effect, a Christian nation for a long time...both before and after their stint under Communism."

          You're right to point out that the conflict between Muslim and Christian factions goes back hundreds of years, but the point I was trying to make was the recent conflict in Kosovo had more to do with economics than religion. The Clinton Administration seemed to want to go the extra mile to play down the religious aspects of the struggle because they didn't want to be seen as being on the wrong side. I think they were, but not for religious reasons.


         "Riginslinger, taking that analogy just a step further, I couldn't criticize Mexico if it tried to take back California!"


          Okay, well they're trying, in a very big way.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:51 PM

Yes, I agree, it had much more to do with economics than with religion. The religious identities just were a convenient asset in exacerbating the divisions between people...for those who wanted to do that. This has been a favored technique of fomenting wars for a long, long time...while the wars were in fact generally really about control of land, money, and resources.

I have had an interesting time playing computer games of the Roman wars lately. Those wars are always about the same essential things:

land
money
resources

Land and resources are a relatively slow, but very reliable and long term source of money and power. You have to have powerful armies to hold them. Siezing and plundering neighbouring lands is the fast way of raising a lot more money, which enables you to build a bigger army so you can prevent others from doing the same thing to you later.

It's totally ruthless pragmatism, masquerading as a desire to spread "culture" and spiritual truth and raise other people out of the morass of their ignorance and false beliefs. (ha! ha!)

No population is ever very appreciative of such outside cultural assistance. ;-) Consider the Iraqis, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM

Oh, and here's the really ugly part of it:

Maintaining huge military forces is VERY expensive. That in itself will presently drive the owner of those forces to either...

1. disband much of the military (which is a very hard pill to swallow, when you spent all that good money building them up)

or

2. launch new invasions of your weaker neighbours to raise much-needed cash (Thus putting your glorious military to the use they are intended for and gaining valuable experience for your troops and raising their morale and making the folks at home feel GREAT! And increasing the government's popularity too!)

You can see why option # 2 is much more appealing. ;-)

All you have to do is make sure you don't LOSE the war.

Any of this sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

LH - Yes, it sounds too familiar.

          I was never able to grasp what the US was able to get from Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

It's so predictable that it's almost inevitable.

Another thing you don't want in a society is a lot of unemployed former soldiers wandering around in a foul mood. It's not good for public order. And that's another strong reason for not disbanding military units unless you absolutely have to. Better to send them off to fight somewhere and get payback on your investment.

Look what a can of worms the Americans opened for themselves by disbanding the Iraqi army after the war. That was a gigantic mistake.

The Romans wouldn't have done that. They would have turned those local boys into fresh legions in service of the armies of Rome, and paid them and armed them well. That was the standard Roman technique for converting "barbarians" into useful citizens of the Empire. ;-) Then you send them off to kill more barbarians for you in some other "lucky" place....

The inevitable end of such an aggressive expansionist empire is this: it finally becomes so huge and unwieldy that it can no longer administrate itself effectively. Corruption sets in. Public confidence wanes. The economy falters. There are shortages of vital resources, leading to riots. The troops lose their fighting edge and their morale goes down. Rebellions occur in many places. The government loses touch with reality, while its leaders party and get drunk. New foreign foes sieze the opportunity and strike from many directions. The Empire slides into decline and disorder, and finally, it falls.

And something new rises out of the ashes.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:28 PM

Regarding Vietnam: there was a gigantic illicit drug trade being done out of Southeast Asia to the western world, just as there is now out of Afghanistan and Colombia. The CIA moves the drugs.

The so-called USA's "War Against Drugs" that you may hear about in the media is NOT a war against drugs at all, it is a war against competition in the moving of those drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:52 PM

"The so-called USA's "War Against Drugs" that you may hear about in the media is NOT a war against drugs at all, it is a war against competition in the moving of those drugs."

            You would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone who looked into it. I wonder why they're so successful in keeping it going.

            Also, do you think there was any truth to the rumor that the Reagan Administration was directly marketing crack-cocaine to inner city black youth in the 1980's, in order to control that population?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM

MICKEY MOUSE

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 03:05 PM

It is never about religion, even when it is said to be. Religion itself, in its organized form, is often not about religion (except in some of its inner cells). It is almost always about money, and the power it brings, and perhaps sex.


A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM

I believe you are quite right about that, Amos. Religion is just the excuse used to rile up people and get them to go out and fight.

Rinslinger - You asked, "I wonder why they're so successful in keeping it going?" For the same reason the Romans were successful...they have the strength, the will, and the resources to do it...and there is a huge MARKET out there for it! Where a market that hungry exists, the product WILL be supplied...by he who has the greatest firepower to control the turf.

The Romans did grotesque things too...such as their gladiatorial circuses and their mass crucifixions of people who resisted the Empire. Empires usually do whatever works to maintain their control of things...regardless of whether it is morally repugnant or not.

The CIA does not have to disclose its financial activities to anyone. They can thus effectively launder multi-billions of dollars of money into the US economy, and they do. It's drug money, and it is probably the most lucrative single business operation in the world. Wars have been fought over it, and further wars are going to be fought over it, but the national media will never make a peep about the real reasons for those wars.

I have no idea about the Reagan administration's involvement in moving cocaine that you mentioned, but it wouldn't surprise me. It sounds like the sort of thing that would fit right in.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:19 PM

By the way, Amos, you also said: "Religion itself, in its organized form, is often not about religion (except in some of its inner cells). It is almost always about money, and the power it brings, and perhaps sex."

That is a brilliant statement, Amos, dead right, and it deserves a thread all its own.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

Mike,

It isn't that the Dems blow themselves up but that they have to rerly on a perfect storm to win... The Southern Strategy (which now includes most of the midwest) is tough to crack in presidential elections...

Yeah, I know it may sound simple but really, it ain't too hard... The same old stuff get used every 4 years that the Dems haven't been able to figure out:

1. The Dems are for flag burnin'...

2. The Dems is baby killers...

and...

3. The Dems want your kid to marry a queer...

That's the Trifecta that the Repubs roll out and then they sprinkle in a little current events like:

* The Dems will let bin Laden take over our country...

* The Dems wnat to bus yer kid 2 hours to school...

* The Dems will raise yer taxes

Same game, different elections... Intertwined are pokes at5 anyone who bothered to get a college education, folks who teach and of course, the liberal media...

Never anything new...

This is all it take to get Souther and Midwastern white men to the polls and it works almost to perfection...

The only reason that Clinton busted up the ball game is that he was able to do his awww-shucks stuff just enough to carry a couple southern states, as well as his own...

I don't think John Edwards would carry North Carolina afetr a steady barrage of all of the above listed Repub. tricks...

So, unless something real strange happens, inspite of the working classes disallusionment with the Rebups, enough in the South and Midwest will go fir the same ol' Repub bait and we'll get our 2nd movie actor prseident...

Sorry, Ebbie, and other folks who have this hope that it won't turn out that way... And I hope it doesn't.. The last one was a terrible president...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:38 PM

I think that the Democrats lose because they are so arrogant. It takes brass balls to tell the American people how greedy, bloodthirsty and rude they are and, then, expect them to vote Democrat. The posts, on this forum, are replete with stereotypes of Southern and Mid-Western white males, corporate arch-criminals and everyone else who doesn't vote the Mudcat way. When the candidates start listening to the voters, instead of lecturing them, they will run stronger campaigns.
Democrats do very well in local and state elections. That is because they have to deliver services and they are subject to closer scrutiny. Republican "free enterprise" and "rugged individualism" have little mening when it comes to picking up the garbage and running the schools. Even cities in red states, have blue administrations. It is in the larger, more philosophical areas that the voters seem to choose what they believe to be the American Dream.
The Democrats, relly, dropped the ball after 9/11. They, seriously, misjudged the mood of the country. They missed the fear, the panic, the anger. The left was so bust defending the "innocent" Arabs and telling us that we were to blame for what happened that day. Oh yeah, that's gonna play well in Podunk. It is astounding that the Democrats, occasionally, win.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:49 PM

"I have no idea about the Reagan administration's involvement in moving cocaine that you mentioned, but it wouldn't surprise me. It sounds like the sort of thing that would fit right in."

                   LH - It had something to do with funding the Contras in Nicaragua I think. Which point up the fact that you can also finance wars with drug money.

                   So if you want to have an unlimited amount of money to go on whatever military escapade you want, it's imperative that you make sure drugs stay illegal in countries where there is enough unattached capital to buy them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:43 PM

I must say that some of you people have a strange perception of the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:11 PM

*grin*...thank you, Ebbie...I was trying to decide whether to write a LOOOONG critique of some of these 'interesting' views, but your comment will do JUST fine.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:49 PM

They win, usually, when enough people get fed up with self-serving dramatization and crony-based opportunism. So they change over and elect someone with a "truth, justice, and the American Way" mind set, for a change. And they get cronyism. But it's a kinder and gentler cronyism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:56 PM

It sounds like the "Tweedledee - Tweedledum" theory is in full swing. It must be time to elect a third party.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:04 AM

Big difference between "the Democrats" and many left-of-center Mudcatters. If there weren't, Democrats would never get elected. What with burning issues, to Mudcatters, of "under God" in the Pledge, 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, the evils of organized religion, and an amazingly absurd self-defeating conviction that there is no difference between the political parties. I could go on, but I'm sure you can also add more to the list.

And Mike, I suspect you know there's a huge difference between some Mudcatters and "the Democrats" but for your own inscrutable purposes choose to ignore it.

Not that we'd ever want to accuse you of being "arrogant", since that's your word, in your own postings. Heaven forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:23 AM

Mike, I really don't follow you on that last diatribe....about "It takes brass balls to tell the American people how greedy, bloodthirsty and rude they are and, then, expect them to vote Democrat..."

Look, private people on Mudcat may say that stuff like that....

But for gosh sakes, Democratic candidates who are running for office sure as hell don't say anything like that!!!!!!!!!!!! They do not say anything resembling that. They don't have that kind of guts. So why would people vote against a Democratic candidate on account of something they heard some private person say...unless they're simply irredeemably prejudiced already by their own past mythology.

Democratic governments have been just about as ready to go to war in the past as Republicans....maybe even more so. So it IS mythology, mister. The Democrats normally serve the military industrial complex just as faithfully as the Republicans do, despite Republican propaganda to the contrary.

It's just a general impression of Democratic weakness to defend America that is created by people like Karl Rove, and the impression is total BS as far as I can see...both those parties serve the imperial agenda with absolute devotion.

By the way, a significant proportion of the American public IS greedy, spoiled, ignorant, bloodthirsty, and rude, if you compare them to the public in most other western democracies. They're infamous all over the world for that. They live in another friggin' reality all their own. So if it takes brass balls to say it, pal, it's for one simple reason: it takes brass balls to speak the truth in a neo-fascist society.

Yeah, you bet it does.

But you will NEVER hear a democratic candidate with balls enough to state that truth. No siree, they will state the usual patriotic platitudes and rabble-rousing nonsense...as if nothing that ever happened to America was caused by anything except vicious, democracy-hating foreigners of one variety or another... ;-)

So the Democrats, as a party, are not guilty of what you accuse them of. They're just as jingoistic and USA uber alles gung ho as the Republicans are, and the whole world outside the USA knows it, but the conservative movement in the USA has managed to make the American people think they aren't.   Quite a propaganda coup, that is. I think it must have all started with Richard Nixon, who made a fetish of depicting Democrats as "soft on Communism". What a load of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:27 AM

Ron,
   Arrogant? Mois? Cynical, maybe, and scarcastic, for sure, argumentitive, unfortunately, and pontifical, no doubt. But my arrogance is just a guise, a ruse to amuse, a ruse by any other name.
Of course, there is a difference between the Democratic party line and the usual Mudcat portside rant.
These little discussions we have are excercises in faceless arrogance. I dis you, you dis me and we all go to the seashore.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:30 AM

True enough, Mike. Kind of laughable isn't it, when you think about it?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:09 AM

Leedle Hawk, what on earth would you do without the Americans! Sometimes you are funny.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:31 AM

M'sieur Hack, he eez jus' bloviating, Ebb. No worries, 'ow you say.


A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:52 PM

oui

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:58 PM

I am in the classic position, Ebbie, of a Gaul or a German or a Greek living in the shadow of the Roman Empire in 32 BC. ;-) That accounts for how I feel about the USA...as a Canadian, living in a protectorate of the Empire...just like the Greeks were a Roman protectorate much of the time. It was not what they really wanted, but they had no choice about it.

Then too, I had the experience of living from age 10 to 20 in upstate New York in a redneck little town that voted solidly for Barry Goldwater, and where "n*ggers", socialists, and leftie folksingers (and other total undesirables like that) were never even seen, only discussed by the good folks there...like one might discuss a dangerous disease. Those childhood memories really stick...

I would probably like the USA a lot better if I'd grown up in the Pacific Northwest instead.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 02:12 PM

Thank you for that bit of critical self-assessment, LH. I wondered things of that nature but thought it would be presumptuous to so state.

But guess what there are (lots of) ignorant alcohol abusing prejudiced "rednecks" on the west coast, too, north and south of the 49th parallel. Surprise!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 02:33 PM

Oh, yes, I realize you have them out there too, and I have them in Orillia, Ontario as well...but are they in the majority??? No. I don't mind them that much as long as they don't totally dominate the local scene.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:49 PM

Mon cher Hawk,

   Bigotry is more temporal than geographic. Racial division is, and was, a problem in every area of our country and, alas, the world, in general. As for the sympathy for lefty folkies, I suggest you view the election results over the last forty years and check out the New England record vs. the rest of the country. Small towns are like big families. They are hard to break into and they tend to distrust change. They are, in a word, like countries. Canada is a beautiful land with great, natural splendor and with as horrendous a treatment of their natives as ours. Canada spends a pittance on defense, compared to the US, but, then again, they don't have to. Isolated from the madnesses in Europe and Asia and protected by the might of American armed forces, Canada has managed to remain the largest small country in the world. Hell, if it wasn't for your crappy weather and your rotten baseball team, I would move there in a New York minute.

                     Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:18 PM

Yeah. ;-) You and a lot of others.

Militarily speaking, we are a minor satellite of the USA. We don't need a very big armed forces, as you say, because of our geographical position. The only nation which can do a land invasion of Canada in any practical sense, is the USA (I don't envision the Russians trying to send an army across the North Pole. ;-) The USA tried invading Canada once, back in 1812-1814, but they weren't a superpower then, and Britain was, so we stopped them. There would be no way of stopping them if they tried again in modern times, but there would be guerilla warfare just about forever, I expect, until the occupying forces left.

However, I think there is little danger of that happening in the forseeable future. It's much more profitable for both of us just to do business as usual...and the USA can get what it wants through economic pressure on Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM

How many descendants of the people who fought for the North now live in the South and how many descendants of those who fought for the South now live in the North? The answer: One HELL of a lot. That historical artifact sheds no light on current events and issues and does not inform us about relations between (or the nature of) groups of people today.