BS: The End Game

Subject: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:59 AM

We are now able to survey the wreckage of the political primary season landscape. Still standing as the contenders: John McCain, Barak Obama, and Hilary Clinton.

The dilemma: most Democrats and Independents say they want dramatic, meaningful change to come from the presidential election in November.
In order for that to happen, there must be a real break from the past: the voters must elect either Obama or Clinton, resulting in either a man of color or a woman as leader of the country.

No one's crystal ball seems very clear at the moment as to whether voters will go with the devil they know (McCain), or one of the other two candidates, both of whom truly represent a change in how the presidency looks, at the very least, even though realistically neither Obama or Clinton seem likely to change the 2 party system, or reform the government, or go after political corruption in any meaningful way.

Which means we are, in practical terms, likely going to delude ourselves into believing that electing someone who isn't a white guy can actually bring about meaningful reforms and systemic change.

We know Big Media and Big Money are hyping the race/gender issue, and framing it in a propaganda context that changing the race/gender of the head honcho politician in the nation equates with making meaningful government reforms, bringing about long overdue systemic change in the 2 party system, and rooting out corruption. So in this sense, the emperor clearly has no new outfits to wear to the inaugural parade.

I don't mean to pooh-pooh the fact that electing Clinton/Obama isn't a big break with tradition--it is. But is it anything more than that? And will voters choose that, believing they are voting to change the system and root out corruption at the highest levels?

Or is this just a first baby step towards breaking the system in one or two more election cycles, in order to remake it in a way that better fulfills the needs of our globalized world?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM

One corollary example: how can we as a nation constructively use the creative power which is challenging the inertia and security of our nation's political ego?

How best can we face the challenges head-on in order to contribute wisely to this process of social, political, and economic change?

How do we avoid pitfalls like the twin evils of either a dependence on or a return to the past, or an over-radical transformation which would destroy that part of the past which is essential to our future?

And finally, are the 2 party partisans going to be able to grow beyond and transcend their individual political egos which are so immersed in the politics of hate (of Bush/Cheney or of the Clintons, for example), and do what is in the best interests of the nation and the world?

And will we be able to move beyond the current obsession with celebrity driven politics--remember, even Rush Limbaugh and
Al Franken are celebrity political operatives--and get to work on meaningful reforms and changes to the government and the current Big Money/Big Media political system driving it, which causes this terrible, cyclical political amnesia to recur every four years when we are force fed a meaningless horse race of celebrity candidates?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:46 PM

As a well known political TV pundit said yesterday "What we are seeing is a tendency of people to vote for people they like!"

She gets paid for this stuff?!?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM

McCain should chose Evan Bayh as running mate.

I can't help but think it's interesting to speculate about. Oh, it won't happen. I think that Bayh would sorta be "above it" – there's little in it for him (except a darn good chance to be president – provided his darn bad chance to get so elected miraculously happened).

But from McCain's perspective:

He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, so he has nothing to lose by trying to out "history" the history makers on the other side. Whatch gonna do when either one of the Dems makes voting so damn fun? Americans are fairly wetting themselves at the prospect of voting for a history maker.   …and either Democrat gives the American populace – that same American populace that thinks that American Idol is the highest form of entertainment (especially the early auditions wherein the mentally ill are laughed at), and who loves to go to death sites – Lennon, Princess Di, and now Ledger – and lay down wreaths as a means of meaningfully participating in "history" -- that chance.

In other words – making history is WAY more important to the American people than is policy. McCain should note this (if he hasn't already) and get on board by being the first major party candidate to pick a running mate from the other party. Make some history of his own.

McCain's big claim to fame is his "bipartisanship". It has put him on the political map. It doesn't really matter what the bipartisanship leads to – it's about feeling good. The perception of getting along. He has bet his presidential run on the possibility that the Republican base has nowhere else to go to express their political will. They (he thinks) will vote Republican no matter what. He believes, as much as any 3-year-old believes in Santa, that his hope for getting elected in the open election is to entice otherwise Democrat and Independent (read: Democrats who don't like "labels") to vote for him because Americans dislike "partisanship" – and both Obama, and certainly Clinton are quite partisan.

He's wrong, of course. Americans (at least those voicing their discontent with "partisanship") are NOT tired of partisanship. What they don't want is REPUBLICAN partisanship. McCain has been made SO popular by the pundits with his anti-Republican bi-partisanship that he is blind to this distinction. So I could see him looking around for the PERFECT, ULTIMATE bi-partisan move – a Democrat running mate. I am pretty sure that if Leiberman weren't both too old and a proven bad choice from the 2000 election, he would be McCain's choice. I'm kidding about Bayh. I'm not kidding about Leiberman.

At least it is not a boring election cycle. McCain is Gerald Ford with a hand grenade.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:01 PM

I love it, John--"Gerald Ford with a hand grenade". Can you give us the parallels?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM

"McCain is Gerald Ford with a hand grenade."

I hadn't looked at him quite like that, but it's interesting to think about.

I think you are most definitely on to something with the idea of McCain reaching across the aisle to pluck a Dem to run on a "bi-partisan" ticket. If he picked someone with a strong domestic policy background to match his foreign policy/military background, they could threaten the Dem nom, whomever it is. It wouldn't be that bold a move for him, really. It would be a far bolder move for whatever Dem he would choose.

And the punditocracy would, of course, have to attack whomever his Dem VEEP was in the same way they are currently going for the Clinton jugular.

Out of the three, I still see Clinton and Obama as twin DLC establishment candidates of Big Money.

McCain doesn't have Big Money on his side. At all. Which does make it interesting too. Big Money is on the Dem's side this time around. So of course, there isn't a bloody thing to be gained by electing either one of them, as they are both in the pocket of the Big Money interests.

Also, what if McCain could "fix" our current disastrous Iraq & Afghanistan war on terror policy? Nothing else (certainly not withdraw), but do something dramatically different to end the violence and suffering, and calm the region down, and bring about a peaceful resolution of the political violence of the post-9/11 clusterfuck we are left with? I know it is a big what if. But what if he could turn things around to the point where our troops could function as true peacekeepers, or we could send in UN/EU/NATO peacekeepers? If I thought he could bring us that far down the road, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. The greatest injustice of all, IMO, would be to abandon Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & the region to a descent back into the hell that was the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and walk away from that tremendous suffering caused by our incompetent, evil political and military leaders.

I have been vehemently opposed to all the post-9/11 reactionary shit, from the Iraq invasion propaganda campaign, to the Bush Hot War against Islam Doctrine, to the anti-immigration xenophobia that was inevitable in the post-9/11 reactionary climate, to the destruction of the Bill of Rights and our constitutional protections being voted conveniently away by our political "leaders" in both parties, to make Americans "feel safe".

But if I truly believed McCain could, militarily, turn things around over there, I would vote for him in a NY minute.

But I too fear he is more likely Gerald Ford with a hand grenade.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM

McCain needs to tap into that desire for change by doing something really dramatic that provides people with a whole new, fresh outlook to politics. I suggest that he strip all his clothes off and campaign in the nude from now on. His slogan could be, "I have nothing to hide."

As for Iraq, here's what I would suggest.

1. A gradual withdrawal of all American forces over a period of 2 years. Simultaneous training of the new Iraqi army and security forces.

2. The American (and coalition) forces to be replaced in an orderly fashion with a multinational peacekeeping force provided by the U.N., and staffed with troops only from countries that took no part in the "Coalition of the Willing" that fought the Iraq War.

3. Iraqi forces to be trained in the 2-year interim to take over the duties of securing order in their country.

4. Complete handover of all military authority to the new Iraqi forces at the conclusion of the 2-year period. Removal of all foreign troops at that time. Dismantling of all US military bases in Iraq...or their handover to Iraqi forces.

5. Full war reparations to be paid to Iraq by the USA and the UK, commensurate with the damage that has been done to Iraq by Mr Bush's illegal war...as dictated by the World Court in negotiation with the new Iraqi government.

6. Iraq's oil industry to be totally under control of Iraqis, and to be freely allowed to sell their oil internationally in whatever currency they desire. (meaning most likely: the Euro)

7. An international war crimes trial at the World Court of those political leaders responsible for launching the Iraq War? Naw....that would be too much to hope for!

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: pdq
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:16 PM

"But from McCain's perspective...(h)e doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected..."

What? You are usually quite sharp on politics, John Hardly, but this time you are mistaken.

McCain has positioned himself as a social liberal, actually to the left of most Democrats. His only conservative position is War on Terror, where he stands side-by-side with Lieberman and a fair share of the other party. He is even in favor of amnesty for illegal Mexicans putting him in opposition to most Republicans on the issue.

He not only can be elected, he will be elected. No matter how the news media spin things for Obama, his accomplishments in life make him a true lightweight. The fact that he was born to an African and raised in Indonesia makes him very suspect here in rural America. It's not the race but the fear that he is an internationalist and not a US patriot.

Same for The Hillary when it comes to internationalism. Her hubby allowed foreign interests to buy a huge number of American companies many with extremely sensitive information. Many supply parts and serveices to the US military. The Hillary would be even less patriotic than her hubby was. She is also a liar, although not as much as Slick Willy.

One other kicker for McCain is his last name. Those of us who are not Irish pay little attention, but the Irish do. He spends time, when he can, in Irish-American bars drinking with his people. Since nearly 1 in 4 Americans claim Irish ancestry, this is a huge plus for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:20 PM

By the way, GG, I think your leading 2 posts are very good. It's a dilemma indeed. How can a corrupt system be reformed when the very people who are benefiting most from the corruption are the only ones who really have the power to reform it? And when they own the Media, thus controlling the flow of information? How then? That's a dilemma allright.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:24 PM

If McCain is elected, I will laugh hysterically, knowing that I have now seen what will probably prove to be the ultimate American folly...and achieved in my own lifetime! I may even go out with Chongo and get stinking drunk....and I NEVER do that. Never.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:38 PM

If anyone thinks that McCain does have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected (what? …asbestos snowpants?), they'll have to riddle me this one, Batman ...


How does McCain win an election when in the primaries Obama (in second place in his primary) has acquired more popular votes than McCain and Romney COMBINED in theirs?

Exactly who does that leave to vote for McCain? The Democrats have NEVER <<<-----not hyperbole ... it's actual. Democrats have NEVER had a greater turnout for a primary season. And it's not over. They cannot wait to make history.

The rich white eastern Democrat can't wait to prove that he's not a racist. He wants something beyond pointing to the household help he hires to prove that point so he'll be gleefully voting for Obama. And white women want Hillary -- whether she gets there on her own merits or not.

Curiously, though...

it's a no brainer that if one desires a progressive political agenda they should be praying day and night for a McCain presidency. If a Democrat is in the White House, the small remnant of Republican legislators will HAVE TO fight tooth-and-nail to obstruct progress – lest they prove themselves ineffectual and lose their congressional seats.

And as small as their number is, it has been proven that a non-majority can effectively obstruct. But if McCain is there, the Republicans who WOULD HAVE obstructed progress will be under extreme political pressure (read: federal money) to go along with their party leader.

You want universal health care? Pray for a McCain presidency.

You want liberal judges appointed to legislate from the bench? Pray for a McCain presidency.

You want more federally centralized public education system?   Pray for a McCain presidency.

You want a Democrat president in 2012? Pray for a McCain presidency.

Those things may happen anyway. They will happen eventually. They are a done deal with a McCain presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:46 PM

That's an interesting viewpoint, John. It seems unlikely to me that McCain will get a strong conservative turnout to vote for him if he is as progressive as you say.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

I suppose McKain could outflank the Democrats by selecting Condoleezza Rice as his running mate (Vice President). However, she doesn't bring in a geographical region of the States and she would have little appeal to the conservative Republican base. But it would be another historic ticket.

GG-

I also prefer your more thoughtful posts, even when I disagree with smoe of what you have to say. I don't put a lot of trust in chrisma either, but I certainly recognize it's power when it's generated.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM

John Hardly, McCain could win with independents and enough Democrats to squeak through, just like Bush did.

You need to remember that independents are now roughly 1/3 of the registered voters in the US, and we don't vote in the primaries. The primaries is for registered Democrats and registered Republicans.

Some states allow independents to vote in the primaries, others don't. Some states allow independents to vote in the Dem primary, but not the Republican. I am not aware of any states that allow independents to vote in Republican primaries.

So that is the answer to how he can get elected. By gaining a solid Republican base, capture the indie vote, and steal a few Dems here and there. And voila, he is in.

No matter what way you dress it up, the Democratic party is looking more and more like a divided party with the race dragging out between Obama and Clinton. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where that will work to the Democrats advantage in this election, and haven't come up with one yet.

I also haven't seen that anyone else has either. McCain may even declare a running mate sooner rather than later, just to get a good head start on the campaign trail over the Dems, who will be bleeding themselves to death through the primaries, battling for super delegates, nasty fights over whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, and BIG demonstrations from the anti-war wing of the party.

Pretty soon, it starts looking like 1968 all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: pdq
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:52 PM

"Pretty soon, it starts looking like 1968 all over again."

Wonder how much tear gas they have stored in Denver, Colorado.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM

McCain has a good chance against Hillary. She has shot herself in the foot uncounted times.

One of the ones McCain will enjoy most--and it would play like gangbusters--is the contrast between her priorities and his--as demonstrated in her advocacy of the Woodstock museum. His pitch-perfect response: "I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time". A sardonic understated national hero. Versus a garden-variety seamy politician (Hillary).

And those who think she's been "vetted" so much nothing new can come out don't reckon with her helpful spouse--who still is getting involved in problems. A gem recently noted was his deal with an industrialist to get a mining interest in a former USSR republic. Accomplished, according to the NYT, by whitewashing the wretched human rights and fair-election record of said leader. A record which, among other people, Bill's wife had been criticizing.

Don't worry, there will be plenty more on Team Clinton yet to come out.



Against Obama?--the "Moslem connection" allegation is rather pathetic. And Obama really does represent a new approach--which may even possibly involve actually working with the people from the other party. Appealing on a non-partisan and non-racial basis.

No accident that Susan Eisenhower, some other Republicans--especially any anti-war people--and lots of independents--are in his corner.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:01 PM

And, as I've said, he can unite the Democrats. Hillary never can--her campaign has seen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:07 PM

I don't mean to confuse the issue. The Clinton affair referred to was with an outside industrialist to get a mining deal in a former part of the USSR. It being necessary to get on the good side of the unofficial dictator of that country, this was accomplished by whitewashing the record of the leader of said country.

All in a day's work for Bill these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM

Well, I don't know about stock piling the tear gas. I was visiting around over at the conference at the U of MN this weekend--it was an activist organizing conference for the anti-war folks coming to to St Paul to the storm the castle while the Repubs are in town for their convention.

Lots of energy and excitement, but also lots of trepidation at the same time.

We'll be storming the castle with bells on, of course. Hard to know how many will show up. Meetings with the City of St Paul are ongoing, trying to figure out a way to do legitimate in their faces protests instead of those god awful censorship pens they've been putting everyone in since the Dem convention of 2000.

LOTS of indie/non-affiliated to a political party activists ruminating, gossiping, etc over what a great year it is for an independent (rather than a third party) candidate to get into the horse race.

We'll see how she rolls.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:26 AM

McCain is NOT liberal when it comes to a woman's right to choose. He holds more than ONE conservative viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:10 AM

Many conservatives are aware of the Supreme Court appointments. In the long run, it may be the only reason that they do vote for McCain. My brother falls into that camp. When I saw him this winter I said, "so, y'know, how's that Bush thing workin' out for you guys?". I had told him two Christmases ago – as I was the lone old-school conservative in a room of 20 family members … the only one against the war. And I told my brother then that Bush would TOTALLY eviscerate the Republican party. He said, "yeah….Maybe".

But my brother still gives credit to Bush for the Supreme Court nominees. My brother and I agreed that that was one of the only two "conservative" things Bush did in his entire presidency – the other being tax cuts that raised revenue and would have more significantly decreased the budget deficit IF the Republicans had not spent more money than any congress in history – or had Bush had the balls to use the veto pen…

…but, y'see, that was Rove's great strategy to keep Bush in office – minimize the Democrat party by being so accommodating to a traditionally Democrat spending agenda that there would be no issues with which to undo Bush. But for the unpopular war, it worked. There were no issues that Bush proved to be to the right of the Dems re: spending. The short-sightedness of this Rove strategy was in the miscalculation that the truly conservative base would take being bitch-slapped where PRINCIPAL is concerned – look the other way, and continue to vote Republican. We won't. I didn't. I didn't vote Republican in any national office in 2004 or 06.

But, back to the Supreme Court nomination…. My memory is not that short. I remember that we (conservatives) had to SHAME Bush out of his first choice (Harriet Miers) – a non- "strict constructionist" – in order to get him to appoint who is quite possibly the most brilliant lawyer to be appointed in decades. It wasn't Bush's idea. And it wasn't Democrats who made him change his mind.

Anyway, the reason that matters is this… If Bush's first choice was an unprincipled political payback appointment – how much MORE LIKELY is McCain's to be similarly leftward? The likelihood of McCain appointing a John Roberts type judge is somewhere between the likelihood of Brittney Spears recovering her sanity, and me winning American Idol. In other words, not bloody.

We are going to lose the Supreme Court. Sad, because I think that signals some really, really bad shit. But I'd lay some serious money on that bet.

In my lifetime I have seen conservatives – really ideologue type conservatives – bandy about the idea of a third party. I've even had several of my mother's politically active friends (did I ever mention that my mother was the Indianapolis chair for the Goldwater '64 campaign?) go third party for a while – they really disliked Bush senior (how soon we forget who first used the term "voodoo economics"). But only now am I really seeing more mainstream conservatives talking seriously about it.

Every time third parties have been tried in recent years (with the obvious exception of Nader) it was with this mistaken notion that America wanted to "quit all this partisan bickering and just get along!". But they always reflected the left's agenda more than the right's – even though the perception was the opposite (Anderson, Perot).

The whole "Non-partisan/bi-partisan" myth is just a fraud. Its appeal is in the one-sided measuring stick that a good politician is one who "gets something done in Washington". "Can't we work together to get something DONE?!" is the mantra.   Every election cycle the candidates are paraded before the media, and what are they asked? "what did you get done?", "What are you hoping to get done?".

Well, hell's bells. Exactly how, in principle, can a conservative answer that? If the right answer is already pre-determined – that growth of government (characterized as "getting things done") is the mark of accomplishment – then how does the conservative hope to come across well when he says (proudly) "I did nothing, and if re-elected, I plan to do more of the same!".

Well, the obvious answer is that he tells the truth – he tell them that he plans to close down government redundancy, work on efficiently running the good programs that are already in place, and work on the "cutting spending" portion of the "raise revenues by cutting taxes and cut spending" equation. That's what worked in '94 and '96.

Oh yeah. Within a decade they proved they didn't mean it. I guess it's back to "What do you plan to DO?" then, idn't it?

The Republicans who were elected as conservatives (but ended up not fulfilling that promise) were incapable of seeing a way to both keep their power AND answer the tough questions about growing government (they lost the whole damn thing on a semantic argument – "Budget cuts" – and they NEVER recovered. Of course there were no "cuts". Not even with inflation taken into consideration. But only a few of them were capable of answering the question "WHY ARE YOU CUTTING THE BUDGET AND STARVING LITTLE CHILDREN?" They HONESTLY couldn't figure out a way to say "Asked and answered. There are no CUTS" because, I believe, they were incredulous that, though truth was on their side, they continued to be challenged with the same mistaken, semantic debate. And they weren't used to the new 24 hour news cycle amplifying that irrational challenge.).

Anyway, so they thought that they could exchange meaningfully addressing fiscal responsibility with instead addressing the war….and that backfired on them. And they lost BIG in 2006. BIG.

Non-partisan/bi-partisan is solely applied to Republicans. Solely. Just try to find ANY instance where demands of bi-partisanship are made to Democrats. You won't. It's comical. The same people who demanded that Bush act in cooperation with Democrats in congress – even BEFORE those Democrats won a majority – based on the principle that since Bush did not win a majority in the popular vote, he should then let the Democrats in congress have more power – remember? …"Power sharing"? …would have been aghast at such a proposal made of a Clinton presidency. In fact, they were apoplectic that Clinton (in good bipartisans fashion) gave in to many of the Gingerich proposals.

It is clear. There are two kinds of people who want "non-partisan/bipartisanship" -- Liberals ... and people who are just tired of following the wrangling of politics because it has taken up a ubiquitous place in our day to day lives. You can't go ANYWHERE without political info-tainment. Americans who are saying they want politicians to stop being partisan are just sticking their collective fingers in their ears and saying, "la-la-la-la-la-la!!" They are Rodney King pleading, "can we all just get along?".

Or is the demand for non-partisanship/bipartisanship a collective call for a one-party system? I don't think so.



In reality, I think that what America wants is a principled partisanship – one that batters the other side with its well-reasoned, well-educated point of view…and is smart enough to know the answers to the stupid questions. And they need is statesmen who can state their case with logic – not demagogues armed with their particular branch of the media interpreting for them all the hot-button topics that they KNOW will empower them.



It's so simple. I wonder why nobody ever thought of this before. Like putting fruit in jello. What a concept.

...and, yeah, if it's "non-partisanship/bipartisanship that the ultimate goal, I'll ask you as I asked my brother...

Given the Democrats vote in favor of entering the Iraq war...

...so how's that bipartisanship workin' out for you guys?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:11 AM

I thought McCain's ancestors came from Scotland not Ireland, and that he wouldn't be likely to see himself, or be seen by others, as particularly Irish American.

Obama seems to have at least as good grounds for claiming to be Irish anyway - Obama's heritage traced to Ireland, with an ancestor called Falmouth Kearney who went over in 1850.

Anyway, don't all Americans have Irish ancestors, at least on St Patrick's Day - or when running for election?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:33 AM

Ah, the end game? Anybody? Instead bitching about the past, and insisting the Democrats are anti-war (they aren't). Rationalizing voting for your guy?

How about the future? If you think your vote for (fill in the blank) matters so much, where do you envision your candidate taking us a president? Where do you envision our nation being by 2012?

Anybody?

Because if you can't envision where you want our nation to go, and match your vision to a candidate, then there's yer trouble, right there.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:58 AM

Another interesting point about Obama vs Hillary. Obama has released his tax returns. When asked to do the same, Hillary's campaign said Hillary will be glad to do the same--after she wins the nomination. That is, when it's too late for anything but buyer's remorse.

Wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

For anyone who thinks that race and/or gender would automatically mean anything other than the status quo, I have two words... Condoliza Rice.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:27 PM

It doesn't really matter what the bipartisanship leads to – it's about feeling good.

This is an unusually unthoughtful remark. Feeling good typically indicates an awarensess of positive dynamics evolving in a situation. Some people, of course, feel good for very shallow reasons, like whether or not they have a beer in their hand. But in the context of this remark, I think it should be emphasized that if you believe your thinking is being vindicated by events you feel good. If you believe a negative trend is being reversed, you feel good. If you believe that something important is being accomplished, or that dumbassery is being reversed, or that someone trustworthy is being sent to lead the band, you feel good.

WHy shouldn't that be a factor in how you vote or what you support? WHy would you support people or actions that made you feel depressed, guilty, fractured or ashamed?

I suppose a lot of Republicans are very uncomfortable with this line of reason because if they opened up to it, in light of their contributions tot he debacles of 2000-2008 they would feel ashamed and that is nopt a comfortable feeling at all.

Many of them are making up for that by jumping ship and putting thier support behind Barack Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:55 PM

True. Chongo jumped ship way back in the 1920's, and he is putting his support behind Obama now that Bobert dropped out of the race. And that, even despite the fact that generations of Chongo's ancestors had significant and often violent disagreements with Black Africans over certain issues of territory and diet. I think that says a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM

Ford with a hand grenade - he'd drop it and blow his own foot off, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:49 PM

Now, don't forget, FOrd was a football player. He'd go for a Hail Mary and take out a few of his own side.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: number 6
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:50 PM

"f McCain is elected, I will laugh hysterically, knowing that I have now seen what will probably prove to be the ultimate American folly...and achieved in my own lifetime! I may even go out with Chongo and get stinking drunk....and I NEVER do that. Never."

LH ... I think I might join you and Chongo on that one.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:04 AM

This really did start out as one of our best political threads on the Presidential race.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:21 AM

Okay, I've made no bones about my support of Obama but...

...maybe a McCain presidency is what we need...

(That, Boberdz, is heresy!!!)

No, hear me out...

Goerge Bush and his radical Rebublicans have really made a mess of thing and the clean up ain't gonna be much fun... Should the Dems do very well in the Congressional races they will be able to pass legislation without constant threats of Repub parlimentary obstructionism...

If Obama is president he will sign this legislation and face a barrage of 527 negative attacks from folks who stand to loose something...

However, if McCain signs then the 527 roar won't be as loud...

And no matter who gets elected one thing for sure is that cutting earmarks won't fix the budget... Those tax cuts for the rich are going to come into play, no matter...

So I can live with McWar... He may huff and puff about not surrendering to terrorist but when it's his responsibility to write that $12B dollar check every month he'll have to figure out some way to retelll the story...

But, with that said, I'd still rather have Obama... 527's and all...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:01 PM

I can understand why someone might vote for McCain. He does seem to have some respect for human decency, and maybe even a sense of social justice. He wins hands down compared with a George W. Bush who is only in the game for himself, and maybe an old college buddy or two. It's actually painful to watch McCain trying to appeal or assuage Republican conservatives. He's not very convincing but he knows he's gotta try. They won't be impressed but they'll vote for him, holding their nose. That's fine with me. I don't think Obama or Clinton will need their votes to win next November.

The moderate Republicans and Independents are in play, and a majority of them will vote for the Democratic candidate in reaction to the excesses, or neglect, of the Bush Administration.

I'm prepared to cover all bets!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

Hey I really have a crystal ball and it says

We will we will Barak you.


of course the CIA drug cartel says a 62 cent bullet will solve all the populist problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:17 PM

Indianapolis News

By Ed Darneer and Rick Farquette | Star/News correspondents
April 29, 2008



MUNCIE, IN.—Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, and Democrat candidate, Barack Obama emerged from Ball State University's Art and Communications Center claiming to have just signed an agreement to run as a team in November, should Mr. Obama's campaign be unfairly cut short by Democrat superdelegate pre-convention action.

McCain began the press conference with a statement saying that he wouldn't stand by and watch such unfairness happen when it was within his power as leader of the Republican Party to do something about it.

"We stand for nothing if not inclusiveness. And bipartisanship – we stand for that too. And I believe that we stand second to none on compromise. I'm proud of my Party's ability to soften the edges of meaning where principle is concerned. And I, more than any other Republican, know how to reach across the aisle and work with my fellow Senators", McCain said.

McCain went on to further explain that because the tenuous and perhaps volatile nature of American race relations played at least a small part in his decision to make this history-making offer to Mr. Obama, he was sensitive as to how it might look if he were to offer Mr. Obama the bottom of the ticket. McCain said that that would essentially be adding insult to the injury Mr. Obama would have already received at the hands of his own Democrat Party. So as part of this agreement, McCain will be surrendering the top of the ticket to his current other-party rival.

"Besides", McCain continued, "The gesture is, admittedly, largely symbolic since running for president as a Republican in 2008 isn't worth a bran shit in a cedar outhouse".

Mr. Obama's statement began by thanking Mr. McCain. He then went on to explain that he still plans to win the Democratic primary fair and square. "But" Mr. Obama continued, "It's always a good strategy to have a backup plan."

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:03 PM

Well done, John. And I'm pretty sure it's after 1 April now. Though that does sound as if it could have been lifted from the Onion.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:57 PM

Most people think the issues are war, race and gender but it is NOT.

In the end...
99% of all issues that have predictable positions on the left right and center ALL have to do with the new income redistribution.

Virtually all the projects think tanks are hired to spin have to do with income redistribution.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:09 PM

It occurs to me that all three of the 2008 presidential candidates have an asterisk attached to their names.

* Barack Obama is the first African-American to have gotten this far in the race and may become the first African-American president.

* Hillary Clinton is the firt woman to have gotten this far in the race and may become the first woman president.

* John McCain is the oldest man to have gotten this far in the race and may become the oldest American president.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:21 PM

My concern is that there may be a lot of "well-intentioned" Dems (AKA superdelgates) flocking to Obama for one of the same reasons Dubya looked so good to the Repubs: "He'll need us, and he's new enough in town that we'll be able to run him our way."

Oh I know Obama doesn't WANT that to occur and will do all he can to prevent it, but how much energy will get tied up dealing with identifying it and dealing with it?

Don't shoot me-- its not an attack-- just a worry.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:26 PM

Donuel:
/soapbox ON
All social inventions entail income redistribution, which is short hand for modulating the topography of wealth across demographics. You have to, if course, give due consideration to how income gets made in the first place, which leads you to the broader issue of how wealth gets created. In any complex society, the ingredients are raw resources (energy, water, minerals, ingredients, etc.), social inventions, and technology.

These three spheres are interdependent and a crisis in one can precipitate a crisis in the other two. The bedrock of civilization is water, energy and viable social frameworks in which to bring about technology. The relative success of the United States in building a prosperous, mobile, innovative nation came from the core asserts -- lots of natural resources, and the kind of basic social engineering (the Bill of Rights and the Constitution) that supported initiative and innovation.

Extremism is toxic to social inventions. That includes extremism of greed, whether exercised by power-centers of commerce, government, or dynasties. The normal benefit of leadership and innovation (the reasonable reward of successful risk-taking) turns into a more hideous distortion, abuse of power and offenses against the commons.

Because we are migrating away from the nationalist model into a global, flatter-earth age, due to the acceleration of transport, communication, information exchange and populations, we are encountering a whole new array of lumps and bumps in the "optimum blend" of freedoms, resources, social stability and exchange which makes the picture look more confusing as regions lose or gain various market shares. THe commons is re-defined and the old bridges get strained or collapse, putting traditional social inventions (for example, "households" and "tribes") at risk asnd bringing in new, unproven, and sometimes dodgy ones ("international corporations", "contractors", "holding companies").

But the fundamentals are the same throughout.

It seems to me, briefly, if these intersecting domains were better understood, the flaws in various offensive schemes would become more obvious and the reasons why they are flaws more easily understood.

/soapbox OFF

A

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:12 PM

"Since nearly 1 in 4 Americans claim Irish ancestry, this is a huge plus for McCain."

Then it's an equal plus for O'Bama.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 May 08 - 03:09 PM

Thanks, Ron. The idea just struck me funny.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 May 08 - 09:33 PM

John-

Humor is not a bad concept.

It's a pity that Obama and Clinton appear to have lost theirs.

Charley Noble, who is not running for President

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:14 PM

Chongo has not lost his. Vote for Chongo and put a REAL chimp in the White House this time!

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:35 PM

John--

So you are Ed Darneer and/or Rick Farquette? It's really an excellent one.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:39 PM

Susan-

Don't underestimate Obama. He's not about to let anybody "run him". He thinks for himself, a pleasant change from the current leadership, which doesn't seem to believe in thinking at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:47 PM

They believe in manipulating thinking...with certain objectives in mind.

Remember, it's the "haves" and the "have-mores", with emphasis on the latter. Serving the have-mores is the primary agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 08 - 07:15 AM

yeah, I'm Darneer Farquette.

Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 10:50 AM

Who or what is Darneer Farqutte, John?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:18 AM

Darneer Farquette

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:01 PM

LOL! Thanks for the rectification of my misunderapprehensingness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:03 PM

There you go wordifying again.

Subject: RE: BS: The End Game
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:42 PM

Just wordifying? The Gettysburg Address? The Bill of Rights? Just wordifying??

Oh, John, wordifications count.


A