BS: Defeat Bush and then what?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:26 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:14 PM

so we should try to make it even worse?

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: 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:38 PM

I do not agree with your statement- The polerization existed before the Bush Administration, and will likely continue afterwards.

Bruce G.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

BB--

Nobody that I know of disputes the idea that the Iraq war may have been necessary at some point. Our only disagreement is timing, as I've said many times before, if you'd bother to read instead of shooting from the lip constantly.

"W"s daddy assembled a real coalition before going to war. "W" set a wretched precedent for the world with his unilateral pre-emptive war against Iraq. Don't give me your garbage about the UK supporting him. It should be obvious even to you that is not so. If the Tories didn't have such a pathetic candidate, Blair might well be out on his ear.

I suppose you think it will be great if India or Pakistan, North or South Korea follow 'W"s lead? You may have read the recent statement by the Russian general saying they will attack pre-emptively "anywhere in the world" if they think it justified. When asked for reason, guess who they will cite. That's where "W," with his drunken cowboy school of foreign policy, is taking us.
Hope you like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:54 PM

Bruce G,

I didn't expect you would. Nor I with yours, as you have no doubt surmised.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM

I have to add that the kind of shallow, carefree defense of a decision to go to war -- an action ruining thousands of lives -- is pretty pathetic and indefensible. But it is nowhere near as bad as the slaphappy, superficial and irresponsible decision itself. The kind of stupidity which is inherent in the process BB describes above is indefensible in public office and goes well past the pale into criminality.

What crime? Murder, premeditated. The Bush machine decided after 9-11 to use it as an opportunity to take down Saddam Hussein. They did everything they could to make a rationale up that the nation would swallow. But ther eis no such rationale and the whole thing stinks like anschluss or other illegal acts of violence thinly disguised as statesmanship.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:20 PM

GUEST:

I truly appreciate what you say about the separation of powers. But, as I'm sure you know, you ARE being very simplistic about these things. In fact, either intentionally or not, you are lecturing us on how the government SHOULD work on paper, but you either don't know or choose to ignore how it ACTUALLY works IN PRACTICE.

For example, while only Congress has the authority to declare war, you know perfectly well that they did not do so in Korea or Vietnam. It is the executive branch that has the power to move troops around the world, and it turns out that when push comes to shove they can do it without Congress's approval. This can be seen as a flaw in the system of checks and balances that you and I both admire, but it is a real one.

What this means is that Bush could have attacked Iraq without Congress's approval--but it would have been much riskier politically. The reduced risk comes largely because, having gotten congress's approval, he has allies like you on the left AND others on the right saying that Kerry is equally responsible. If you want to point a finger at people who are complicit in the invasion of Iraq, then, you'll have to point one at yourself, because getting Congress's approval was done precisely in order to mobilize people like you to run interference for Bush in this election.

Also, while Congress does indeed approve the budgets and the tax code, those are generally prepared and lobbied for by the executive branch. Remember the government closures when Clinton and Congress could not agree? Why would that happen if Congress could simply pass whatever budget it wanted? It can't, because the president has the VETO, and he uses it to threaten and cajole congress. Don't like my plan to shift the tax burden onto wealthier people? Fine, what pet project of yours should I veto?

This is not, of course, how most of these conversations go. This is simply the subtext. The actual negotiations, more often than not, are civil. And get this: Kerry has better relationships with many legislators, even Republican legislators, than Bush does. The senate in particular is a club and he is a leading member. He knows its rules and unstated codes MUCH better than Bush. I think he'll have the opportunity to change a lot, including more progressive taxation.

Here are some other things I think he will do:

Prevent oil drilling in many wilderness areas including ANWR

Enter into serious international environmental talks

Change the disastrous Medicare prescription entitlement to allow importation from Canada and other measures good for us and less so for drug companies

Sit down with European leaders and get them to share the burden of security in Iraq.

Allow stem-cell research to continue.

Not waste time supporting things like Gay Marriage amendments.

Listen to diplomatic, military and scientific experts before he commits to policy ideas (which to me is one of the biggest issues).

As I said, enact more progressive taxation--meaning the wealthiest Americans are taxed more and the lower middle class less.

I also, by the way, expect healthy support for the arts and humanities, which many folk music enthusiasts should care about, although in truth Bush has not been so bad for folk arts.

Those are just a few things.

Finally, GUEST, let me say that I appreciate this thread. It IS important to articulate goals in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:00 PM

Nerd said it very well.

I'd just like to add that "Anyone but Bush" is really just a slogan, a figure of speech. I don't think any of us ant-Bushies would vote for Ashcroft, or Zell Miller, or Pat Buchanan.

Although Buchanan does sound better than Bush, something I would never have expected to say.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM

I am not being simplistic at all. I am merely pointing out that no change will come at the top. Change will only come when citizen activists make change at the grassroots level, by electing new people to the US Congress.

We are in the throes of a constitutional crisis related to the Separation of Powers that started under Nixon's imperial presidency. Since that time, the system of Checks and Balances has gone out of whack. The executive branch has amassed way too much power and influence (largely thanks to the overthrow of the constitution by big money interests), and the legislative branch has surrendered way too much power to the executive branch.

The only thing that will bring the US political system back into balance is for citizen activists to organize and run themselves (and each other) for Congress. Only when that happens will the balance of power be restored to the legislative branch.

Right now, the focus should be on Congressional races, not the presidential race. It is our only hope of salvaging the democratic institutions in the US. We are already on the verge of living in a military dictatorship. John Kerry voted in favor of every measure the Bush administration put forward to amass extrajudicial powers, and he voted to support an invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to US or any other nation's security, in violation of international treaties and laws.

John Kerry is not the man for the job. This will become eerily clear to all of you planning to vote for him soon enough.

The US presidency is a lost cause for the US. Our only hope is to take back Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:19 PM

http://www.conspiracyarchive,com/ Live and learn
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:56 PM

I really don't think the Yale Skull and Bones conspiracy theorists are right, Georgiansilver. However, it is plain as day that the executive branch of the US government is totally out of control, and leading the nation down the road to an authoritarian dictatorship. Only one branch of government can possibly restore the balance, and that is the legislative branch.

Think locally, act locally, and do your best to ignore the corrupt big money politics of the presidency, regardless of who the man turns out to be. Turn off the tvs, radios, and stop reading the predictable punditry of the nobless oblige. Get out into the grassroots, and run for/elect third party candidates all across the land and send them to Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

it's not kerry i fear...it's mrs.$$$$billionaire kerry(tereasa)...

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:24 PM

Regardless of what a Kerry administration would do differently re Iraq and Afghanistan, the main reason to elect a Democrat President this year is to RESTORE THE BALANCE OF POWER.

As long as the Republicans control both Congress and the White House, with the Federal Courts stacked with justices who side with their agendas, the only way there would be bipartisanship would be if the President were truly "a uniter, not a divider," someone who actually wanted to "work across the aisle." The Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld administration is the most divisive administration I've ever witnessed, and in a second term, when they're not up for re-election, I shudder to think how much worse they'd be.

I believe that the defense of our Bill Of Rights, our precious liberties, depends on either the defeat of Dubya or the Democrats & Independents taking back the US Senate and probably the House, too.   

Kerry will probably be "less effective" than Bush, just because he is not likely to have both houses of Congress on his side and he already has the SCOTUS stacked against him.   But I believe that's more the way our government was designed to work -- slowly and deliberately.

I can't imagine the Kerry administration being anywhere near as secretive and corrupt as the Bush-Cheney administration has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:01 PM

See, this is why you annoy a lot of us, GUEST. In your opening post, you say

"I'm really curious to hear what people...think will resolved or fixed by John Kerry."

But you're not curious. You don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks unless they agree with you. You ignore every single thing we point out. You ignored all of my points about the way the government operates with a dismissive "I'm not being simplistic at all."

But you are being simplistic. You're pretending that our government operates as a civics textbook. It doesn't.

I described how the president applies pressure to get policies enacted by congress. You ignored it. I mentioned several things Kerry will do better than Bush. You ignored that too.

Anything we say, you answer "Kerry's not the answer. Something else is the answer."

That's fine. We still have to vote for somebody for president. I'm voting for Kerry.

You also made a very interesting logical error showing that your thinking is extremely muddled.

(1) You pointed out that since Nixon's administration, the legislature has lost power while the executive has gained power.   The exact quote:
"The executive branch has amassed way too much power and influence (largely thanks to the overthrow of the constitution by big money interests), and the legislative branch has surrendered way too much power to the executive branch."

(2) Yet both before and after this statement, you say that the President is powerless to enact real change, which only comes from Congress.

You use both of these mutually exclusive propositions to argue for the same conclusion: we should ignore the presidential race because our only hope is to elect better people to Congress.

But if Congress is now drained of its power, how exactly will that help?

Here's my proposition: wouldn't it be better to elect as President someone more progressive than Bush, who respects Congress, being a member of it, while AT THE SAME TIME working to elect progressive members to Congress?

Could you handle that "both...and" proposition in place of your "either...or" proposition, GUEST?

Or will you jerk your knee yet again, crying "Kerry's not the answer!"

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:02 PM

Electing Kerry will not restore the balance of power. Truly, no offense intended, but that is just silly. The Democratic and Republican party leaderships have been equally corrupted by big money. The system isn't salvageable, as the McCain-Feingold Act proved all too well.

The problem of an imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branches is not one that can be fixed by any president or presidential candidate. They are already wholly corrupted when they reach that level of power. The presidency is corrupted. People need to just get the email on that one.

The citizenry can't take back the government, simply by believing that their guy ain't been bought, and that voting for their Democrat or their Republican will fix the imbalance. Every viable presidential candidate has bought and paid their way into the conventions, and into the Oval Office if they win. Citizen Kerry is no exception, he is the epitome of the rule. The US presidency is a rich white man's game.

The legislative branch is an entirely different story, however. Viable third parties can be built at the local and national levels that can successfully elect representatives and senators to Congress by running effective and savvy grassroots campaigns. They can then challenge the executive branch, and restore the legitimate constitutional powers of the legislative branch that has been completely corrupted by the two party, winner-take-all system.

I believe Clinton desperately tried to be a uniter, but the Republicans were and still are not interested in bipartisanship. In a winner take all system driven by big money interests, it is nigh on impossible to have bipartisanship at any level of government. The problem isn't just at the national level, but at the state and local levels in far too many states.

Kerry will not only be less effective, you need to understand that the Kerry agenda does not include what the Anybody But Bush camp seems to think it includes, like bringing the troops home, overturning the Patriot Act, reversing the 2 1/2 decade long assault on New Deal social services, reforming the tax code to start collecting a fair share from the wealthy, overturning the regressive trade laws that are destroying the planet, the standard of living in the US, exploiting the third world, exacerbating human rights catastrophes, and propping up nasty oligarchs and dictators all over the globe.

Wishful thinking and voting won't make any of that so. We have to fight, and not just at the ballot box. These problems the Anybody But Bush camp keeps attributing to Bush and the Republicans, but the Kerry and the Democrats, who are just as complicit, can't be solved at the ballot box.

Kerry's administration could be pure as the driven snow, open and transparent, the epitome of the very best of nobless oblige, and it won't matter one iota, because the corruption at that level is everywhere. They can't root it out without Congress. No president, including John Kerry will willingly give up the imperial powers of the presidency because it is the right thing to do. Those powers will have to be forcibly taken away, by the legislative branch using the judicial branch to check the powers of the executive branch. It will be messy, bloody, hand to hand combat.

Which brings me back to the REAL solutions I keep talking about...

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:25 PM

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 07:12 PM

Should this unlikely scenario come to pass, I would suggest we all invest in bomb shelters, quit flying commercially, never enter a Wal-Mart or shopping center, and stock up on food and water.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:37 AM

So, courageous "Guest" (Ghost)---you think it's just fine for the house to burn down. Too bad about the people inside.   You and Lenin--to make an omlet you have to break some eggs, right?   (pick your metaphor). The country ( and by extension the world) hasn't suffered long enough to be worthy of your wisdom. Do us a favor and go back to your Civics 101 text.

Obviously, as Neustadt said, the president's main power is the power to persuade. Some do it better than others. Clinton was superb. And neither you nor anybody else can predict what Kerry as president will do. As you in your infinite wisdom should know, what somebody says or doesn't say on the campaign trail is no indication of what they will do as president.

The only thing that is reasonably clear is that if Bush gets in again, we can expect more of the same. If that doesn't bother you that says all we need to know about you. And the only way to get him out is to vote for Kerry. I'm dreadfully sorry the country has not lived up to your standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:48 AM

A President has more than the power to persuade; through the use of the armed forces he has the power to kill. Make no mistake about it, our revered Resident has elected to exercise that power against others regardless of their degree and kind of guilt. HE has elected to use it knowing it would disrupt or destroy the lives of the innocent.

When you do that in civilian life they charge you with crimes such as murder and assault.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:50 AM

Kerry will not stop the bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan. That sounds like more of the same to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 09:57 AM

He will stop them a damn sight sooner than Bush would have.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:46 AM

Prove it Amos. Oh wait, you can't. You are just making such ridiculous claims to assuage your guilty conscience for selling your soul out to vote for Kerry, like all the rest of the Kerry apologists around here.

Throw your principles and values out the window every four years, just so you can make a politically expedient, socially acceptable easy vote for the lesser of two evil candidates on "your side". You wouldn't want to trouble your conscience with the facts anymore than DougR does, right?

Vote for Kerry, because it's easy. Vote for Kerry, because you don't have to think to do it. Vote for Kerry, because you don't even need to find out where he stands on the issues, like perpetual war, like the Bush pre-emptive first strike doctrine, which Kerry also supports.

No, it's easy to cover your eyes and your ears and vote for Kerry. Just like it was easy for Germans to vote for Hitler.

Vote for the authoritarian candidates. They are what's for dinner in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:25 AM

! I don't understand how you can survey the erosion of civil rights, personal freedoms and the expansion of authoritarian controls under Bush and dare to imply that a vote for Kerry is comparable to a vote for Hitler. In fact, I would have to say that such a proposition, unless you can explain it rationally, is pretty close to rabid, despite all the loaded and colorful language it is propped up with. I understand you are frustrated by that's no grounds for swinging wildly like that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 11:46 AM

Troll food! lol

I think it doesen't matter who's in the WH because we are at war with Islam. For those who don't share that assesment you should read what they say in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in the rest of Islam about us.

But Kerry is no better than Bush when it comes to perks of the job - and here I must express my disgust with the 'tar heel' person alledging that Mrs Kerry is on the make here. How exactly do you think she COULD do that?

So I think G W Bush is going to win by a large majority, since Kerry is so busy helping the Republicans by windbagging everywhere he goes!

Subject: RE: BS: Defeat Bush and then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:17 PM

It's real simple. If you like what Bush has done and seems likely to do, vote for him. Otherwise, vote for Kerry. Either way, stop wasting time--I'm going to a folk festival now.