 sj |
||
|
||
Gore and Lieberman
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: katlaughing Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:06 AM I know I've posted this somewhere last year, but I think it bears repeating because it is a nonpartisan grup for anyone to join in to really make an effort to bring about change. Please take a look at this website, www.moveon.org Just a simple group of citizens who felt as dismayed as Art did about what went on with Congress and Clinton, from all sides of the political spectrum, THEN it snowballed into an org. for anyone who wanted substantial changes, as I say...here's some info...IMO, it really does represent the powerful and positive use of the Internet by ordinary people for change: What is MoveOn all about? MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn and the Internet will be a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. What does MoveOn do? When there is a disconnect between broad public opinion and legislative action, MoveOn builds electronic advocacy groups. Examples of such issues are impeachment, gun safety, nuclear disarmament, and campaign finance. Once a group is assembled, MoveOn provides information and tools to help each individual have the greatest possible impact. During impeachment, MoveOn's grassroots advocates generated more than 250,000 phone calls and a million emails to Congress. We helped Congress come to understand the depth of public opposition to impeachment. What is "We will remember"? The current Congress actively disregards constituent feedback and recklessly continues it's obsession with partisan warfare. For these politicians, our only alternative is electoral action. It's time for a change in congressional leadership. We need new talent and new vision. We need a focus on issues, not partisanship. Broadening public support for congressional campaigns will be key in making this possible. Through the MoveOn.org "We will remember" campaign, more than 30,000 individuals have pledged their time and money to year 2000 congressional campaigns. MoveOn is already highlighting good candidates who have challenged unresponsive incumbents. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 11:51 PM Art, you're a good man. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Aug 00 - 11:10 PM Doug R, It's not you. The Republicans in general lit my fuse, and I can't forget their vindictiveness during the impeachment. Re-reading my post I see I didn't state my ideas well at all. Other than show my own lack of proofreading skills, no harm was done probably. Still, I don't believe a Republican, any Republican, will get my vote for a long time to come. That said, I do realize get carried away by my own verbosity sometimes. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Lepus Rex Date: 10 Aug 00 - 09:51 PM Banjo Johnny: Nader's not trying to win; the point is to make the Green Party a major party in the USA, and get Green issues out into the 'mainstream'. And whaddya mean people aren't going to vote for him?! :) |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 09:18 PM Scottsdale: Is that original? If so you got to be performing somewhere around here. Where? Art: Who lit your fuse? It's a bit obvious that you are a mite perturbed. If it was me, sorry. Tell me what I did and I'll do atonement of some sort. Hate to see you get so upset. Life's much too short as it is. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: thosp Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:54 PM Scottsdale ---- lolpeace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: CarolC Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:48 PM Guest Scottsdale, I think if you're going to post something like that, you should put your name on it. Respectfully, Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:40 PM Self-fulfilling prophesy: NADER CAN'T WIN. Reason why: Nobody will vote for Nader. Reason why: Nader can't win. == Johnny in OKC |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Lox Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:46 PM Oh yeah, and the sunday sport & news of the world! |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Lox Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:43 PM National enquirer - Shmational enquirer Over here we've got: the sun today the mirror the express the mail the sunday times and at least the enquirer doesn't pretend to be a source of "news"! |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:31 PM Well folks, nobody has the right to ask someone questions about their personal mutually consenting sex life than HUAC had to ask Pete "Were you a Communist?" Nobody has the right to ask me questions about what I do sexually (or what someone does to me sexually)---what my political affiliations are---even what condoms I prefer. If they do, I can choose to lie to them in my answering their totally unacceptable question jus when I started the "condom" thread to show the inanity of frivolous threads. That is my right. I can opt to lie if I deem it necessary to get the a..h...s off my case. I DEMAND that RIGHT whether it's the f.....g law or not. It's simply none of their damn business. Even if I am the president--or just a folksinger. And impeaching the man for telling a lie in that situation---putting anyone through what the Republicans did to President Bill Clinton---just because he lied after they asked a question that stank of the worst kind of hatred---yes, HATRED and vengeance seeking vileness, a querie that reeked of an act akin to Sirhan Bishara Sirhan's shooting and killing of Bobby Kennedy.---After what was done by the Seanate and the House of Representatives Republican members such a short time ago, I, personally, am going to have a difficult time being "for" a Republican candidate for a long while into the forseeable future. Getting a blowjob is nothing like what Nixon and his men did. Are our collective historical memories so short as all that??? It does seem that they are. As I have said before: When your memory goes, forget it! Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST,Scottsdale Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:24 PM TOP TEN WAYS THE WHITE HOUSE WILL CHANGE WITH LIEBERMAN AS V.P. 10) Air Force One to be renamed - "El Al Gore." 9) Tipper to be referred to as "The First Shiksa. 8) Saturday Night State Dinners to be replaced by Sunday Night Chinese. 7) Inauguration to be completed with Breaking of Glass. 6) Problem: Presidential Baldness / Solution: Presidential Yarmulke! 5) Every time "Hail to the Chief" is played, Secret Servicemen Lift Gore in Chair and Dance Around. 4) U.S. Never to pay retail again for Nuclear Warheads. 3) Federal Employees To Have Saturdays off for Shabbat - but will have to actually start working Monday through Friday. 2) Camp David relocated to Boca. 1) In First Major Trade Agreement with India, New Delhi to be renamed Carnegie Delhi. |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:23 PM Wow, lox! Have you never heard of the National Enquirer? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Kim C Date: 10 Aug 00 - 09:57 AM I disagree that voting outside the two main parties constitutes throwing one's vote away. The object is not to vote for who you THINK will win, but who you WANT to win. If everyone voted for the Candidate They Really In Their Wildest Dreams Want to Win, the results could be remarkably different. But people have become so complacent that few are willing to look outside the network TV news for their candidate information. The very first time I was able to vote was 1988, when I was 21. When I got into the booth I remember thinking, wow, I didn't know all these people were running for President. Why didn't I hear about them in the news? All the candidates matter whether anyone wants to admit it or not but since all our media are focused on Donkeys and Elephants, it's up to the individual to do the research. It's impossible to make a good informed choice if you're not armed with information. |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Lox Date: 10 Aug 00 - 09:51 AM Isn't Whiskey the true folk spirit? I agree with Catspaw on the issue of priorities, but I would suggest that it is an almost direct result of the Profumo affair (Remember Christine Keeler), The press discovered that people were more interested in the personalities involved and in getting a thrill from hearing about their .. (dare I say it)... SEX-LIVES!!!!!!! than in knowing about the political implications. At least with watergate the press showed intelligence by exposing political subterfuge on quite a sinister level. Since Profumo, the owners of the media have been dumbing down information so as to make as much money as possible. Advertisers in Newspapers are now gettig an editorial say as well, so we are less likely to see stories about corporate crimes, and it isn't good PR to have your ad next to a story about aids. It makes a lot more sense to have it beside pictures of glamorous models. Hence less stories about "nasty" things, more trite columnists, more cartoons, and more Lifestyle Shite, because the advertisers want it like that. Pubic hairs in coca-cola tins appeal to peoples fetish driven imaginations. If this were not true, people would buy publications with a bit more serious content. It drives me mad to see people allowing themselves to remain uninformed, and it drives me mad to see the media making a profit by exploiting apathy. Nothing annoys me more than apathy masquerading as "a political viewpoint". Wars, crime, technological advancement, health, education, environmental degradation, 30% of Miami under the UN poverty line, and still all we here on the news is "Well, I wanna know if the president f***ed somebody, and I wanna know the details about the jism on her dress". Thank F**K for things like the Mudcat. lox |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: CarolC Date: 10 Aug 00 - 02:24 AM I'm coming somewhat late to this debate, but I have to say that I get an uncomfortable shiver down the back of my neck when I read phrases such as Mr. Bauman's. What is the "true folk spirit"? If people try to impose their own definition of what it means to be something onto others, I personally think we're getting into the realm of the "thought police". Anyway, that's one of the reasons I don't like listening to discussions between members of the religious right. I'm uncomfortable with listening to people trying to out-do each other with their riteousness. I have as little interest in folkier-than-thou discussions as I do in holier-than-thou discussions. Flip sides of the same coin. Respectfully, Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:51 AM What is this business about "the folk spirit", and what does it have to do with one side or the other? There were Folks on both sides of the Civil War, and we still sing their songs. If there is a folk spirit, let's not try to claim it as the property of one political party or another. == Johnny who happens to be a Democrat |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: katlaughing Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:24 AM It is so gawddamed awful Spaw, that the only state-wide newspaper has an article per week, on the front page, of how the young people are leaving in droves from no opportunities and only low-paying service jobs, juxtaposed with yet another article on how well the oil & mineral revenues are doing, but the schools, which they fund, are out of money & going down the tubes; along with one real gem last week on how Wyoming exports so many of its politicians..the young ones, esp., who may actually have had some good ideas but just couldn't break into the shit-stompers ole boy's club. Sorry for the rant, but it has been an activist week for me and I've had more than my fill of hearing about last-century (and, I ain't talking 20th!)-mired attitudes and harmful machinations and the apathetic or blithely ignorant citizens who embrace them because, golly, gee-whiz, they've never been outta the state and have no idea there might be a better way! Ooooo, definitely time for us to get the hell outta Dodge, ain't it? Sorry phoaks, thread creep, rant, and all... kat |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:14 AM So you're saying its not a fun place then huh kat? I mean like I may have gotten you wrong when you sugarcoat things like that.......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: katlaughing Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:09 AM Dick Cheney has used Wyoming most blatantly and Wyomingites, in general are just idiotic or blind enough to be proud of him. He grew up here(I haven't found anything which says he was born here), his parents remained here, BUT he left as soon as he came of age and never returned for any length of time. For a long time he worked for Gerald Ford, when he was a congressman from Michigan; then served Ford when he was president. Cheney came back to Wyoming long enough to get elected to Congress, then went on to be secretary of defense, then moved directly to Texas. A lot of oilmen and livestock companies own land in Wyoming and live elsewhere...they are carpetbaggers and deserve nothing but contempt, IMO, for the way they, and their in-state cronies, including the governor, have continued to turn Wyoming into a Third World state, not only economically, but environmentally and socially, also. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: tradsteve Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:08 AM I wasn't going to vote for Gore before, but now that Lieberman is on the ticket I will. He seems like a good honest, straight forward guy, which almost cancels gore's slimeyness out. But anything to stop Bush. "20 gallons of dumb in a 10 gallon hat." |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST,Mickey191 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:36 AM Gore and Lieberman - S - I have the same antipathy for Bush, that I had for R.M.Nixon.He has the most disingenuous smile I've ever seen.Did he ever sell used cars? Let's hope he'll be doing that soon. |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: JamesJim Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:31 AM Of course you are right, Doug. EVERYONE should vote, no matter who and why we decide to vote for a particular party/person. We live in a great country and have a great privilige. But my friend, there is humour to be found in everything and it's a good thing to look for as we make our way through life. Why not? My only true point! Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:24 AM Well, JamesJim, I suppose you may be right. Those of us that share views other than our Liberal friends perhaps should just pack up our tents and steal away into the night. It's a lost cause, right? Tell you why I disagree. There are folks here at the Mudcat that feel so strongly about the need to elect Ralph Nader that they are willing to cast their vote for him. Common sense and ALL the polls would tell you that they are wasting their vote. I disagree, and I mean that wholeheartedly. I admire those people, because they are voting for what they think would be the best thing for their country (and that is no BS!). I don't agree with them, but they have the courage of their convictions, and they are willing to lay one of our most valued rights on the line. The right to vote. I am too. It's that simple. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:21 AM Sandy, that is exactly the point regarding Thomas. The reality was that the opposition to him was on the wrong issues. Bork was shot down on issues of importance. Thomas made the court because the opposition was based on what DIDN'T matter. Just plain dumb. We seem to be so focused on everyone's personal lives that the actual record regarding public service and accomplishments are overlooked. Joe Biden was a decent possible choice a few years ago, but because he plagiarized something in college, he went down the tubes. No one cheated in college or high school huh? My fear has become that we will NEVER again get the best possible people. Who can stand up to that scrutiny? But if we only have the people we have, then at least let's attack them on things that matter and not "Coke cans and Cigars." You never really win that way. For all of those folks who were overjoyed they "nailed" Clinton.....did you really? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: JamesJim Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:09 AM Give it up, Doug. I am totally in agreement with you, but you may as well be talking to your computer. I'm sure that many of the good folks on the left feel the same. We will not convince each other by stating our suspicions, doubts and supposed facts. Instead, why not spend our time on writing a clever folk song like Art Thieme. A dose of humour/levity is always appreciated. I agree that "Gore and Lieberman" sounds like the name of a great law firm, or perhaps they could be accountants. And surely we can do something with the initials of the Republican candidates = BC. (Of course, GL could stand for "Good Liberals," or if you chose to take the name of the Lord in vain,.......) Oh well, I know there are so many good things we could do with this stuff - except take it so seriously. I'm sure I've mellowed in my old age, but I've seen too much of this stuff in my lifetime. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:08 AM Yep, Harold W., he was born (I think) and raised (I know) in Wyoming. He represented that state in the U. S. Congress for many years prior to joining the Bush administration in a cabinet position. No conspiracy to be found there, I'm afraid. Also, if he didn't own property or have a residence of some sort in Wyoming, he couldn't have done it. Of course we know, as in the case of Hillery, one can always buy property in a state we have never resided in, in order to establish residence and fulfill the requirements for running for national office. Spaw: as is the case, in my opinion, in most instances; yes, you're right. Had Clinton fessed up, it would have been over in a couple of weeks. And Troll, if I'm not alone, why don't you let your presense be known. I could use the help (not that it actually makes any difference). Are we taling a "closet" Republican here? :>) DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Sandy Paton Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:58 PM Sexual hanky-panky matters very little to me. Clarence Thomas was about as ill-prepared and poorly qualified for a place on the court as George W. is for the presidency. If you don't care for the candidates offered by the parties that have a chance of actually winning a national election, where were you during the primaries? If you're an unaffiliated voter (most of whom proudly declare they are "independent"), then you have no right to complain. Get in there and work to nominate a candidate you can enthusiastically support. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Harold W Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:40 PM Speaking of Vice Presidential candidates, the 12th Admendemnt of the Constitution makes a provision that the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state. It seems to me that Dick Cheney (sp?) is flaunting that admendment by changing his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming. Any thoughts on this? Harold W |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: ol'troll Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:28 PM Doug. You are not alone. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: BK Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:14 PM Cynical? How can I be anything else?? & yes, the president is important in the peversion - or maybe, if we're lucky, enhancement - of the supreme court but I agree that the congress is also important, & cannot find ant reason not to believe that w/the current campaign finance non-system, there is any overweaning theme except utter & absolute corruption. They gotta do it to survice, so it corrupts them. Putrid, rotten to the core.. Do any of you read sci-fi? Get the Jan/2000 issue of Analog (science fiction AND science fact) & read abt how un-elected (but VERY political) officials & congress secretly dismembered part of (and are still dismembering parts of) the constitutional device of the U.S.Patent office & effectivly sold the lot of us down the river. The article is called "Patent Wars" by John D. Trudel. pp 52-61. It has references, URL's.. the whole bit. These efforts will ensure some of us who live long enough - & succeeding genewrations (the common folks, mind you, not the fat cats) will live in a 3rd world nation w/incredibly few, & low-paying jobs. Cheers, BK |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:54 PM Funny Doug...I was watching too and had the same thought. No, I respect your opinions Doug because you do think things through and although we may disagree, at least you're not flying blindly along...nor am I. And as far as agreement goes........Yeah, I always wondered how things would have gone if Clinton had just come forward with the whole thing when it first came up. He has a strange charisma and the general public is prone to forgive even the worst of the worst at times (no offense, but take a look at Ollie) and admitting the whole thing would have defused the situation. The Starr group didn't find diddly squat that amounted to a damn anyway and the whole lying thing just "enhanced" the process.
CLINTON: "Okay, I had an affair and got a BJ from an intern. Hilary will probably divorce me and that's MY problem. Now what else have you got?" Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:19 PM Sorry, I'm listening to Forrest Sawyer interview Ralph Nader as I write this and couldn't resist commenting; Nader refers to Senator Lieberman as a Republicat. I thought that was a bit funny. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:16 PM Spaw: I suppose a case can be made for "selective" or "acceptable" lying. One was successfully made, I suppose, because the President wasn't convicted by the Senate. If money is the issue (and I agree the amount spent was ridiculous), all of that money could have been saved had the President simply told the truth. Es so? And it is worth remembering also that the Attorney General's appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the Clintons was not based on sexual charges. The investigation of the President's behaviour in the Oval Office never could have taken place had the three judge panel, or the Attorney General, not approved of it. I know you were kidding about the "far right," I don't consider myself in that category at all, though many here on the Mudcat do, I'm sure. I am pro choice, for example. I know of no far righter in either party that shares my opinion on that. I just regret that the whole question of abortion has become a political one. Surely there are enough issues that separate the two parties without abortion becoming the pivotal one. Many feel, I guess, that there is not. I apologize for the Thread creep, but did want to reply to your message, Spaw, and thought others might want to comment on mine. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST,John Bauman Date: 09 Aug 00 - 08:27 PM No Lepus, Just not being a cliche' John |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Bill Hahn//\\ Date: 09 Aug 00 - 07:17 PM Before I get to the point of the rather bizarre thing I heard on the radio today I would like to refer to Art Thieme's very cleverly written song. Cynical it may be, but I must differ in the opinion of LBJ. Putting VietNam aside (that discussion can go on forever about his inheritance---and I disagreed with him) his pro active involvement in things dealing with the elderly, the races, and Medicare is a legacy we should appreciate. I was listening for a while to the local Pacifica station here today---WBAI. Probably stands for We Believe All Inanities. The female host---with a truly irritating voice--gave her opionion of Al Gore's choice Mr. Lieberman---her opinion----racist. It just proved to her that now more people are included as white just to keep the blacks and hispanics out---we now consider Jews in the White category. Talk of bizarre interpretations!! I would love to see less talk of his religion and more about what he stands for. Let us face it---we always talk of the President's attendance at church services, prayer breakfasts, etc; So, Mr Lieberman's attendance and beliefs are similar. But---bottom line---who cares. What about the old American thought for politicos---what will you do for me---and what have you done for me lately? As to the letter W. Morality is not his strong suite either. Well, maybe after age 45 and a chance to run for office. Better he forgets bringing it up. Besides---daddy frightens me. Bill H |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 06:14 PM Well Doug, you're right (far right...sorry, bad joke(:<)), but he was lying under oath about oral sex. He wasn't lying about breakins, firebombings, arms for money, or the like. I just can't take the whole thing seriously. But I respect your opinion and lying I suppose is lying. I sure would like to have all the millions and millions back we spent in taxpayer dollars to hang him for lying about getting his hat blown. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 00 - 05:36 PM Art, I'm confident you are a nice person, and thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. "You're wrong" is a strong statement, (and obviously I don't agree) but I respect your right to think it. And Spaw, your're right oral sex isn't an impeachable offence. Our Commander in Chief Lying under oath, however, should be. At leaswt that is my minority opinion. Best, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Amergin Date: 09 Aug 00 - 04:00 PM "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" Only if folks continue thinking that way.... |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Lepus Rex Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:12 PM "Free thinking" meaning "Thinking like John Bauman"? ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: GUEST,John Bauman Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:09 PM Where is the folk-singer cynicism?!! I never cease to be amazed that somehow or the other the "folk" sub-culture is now merely a reflection of the mainstream thought. I could see folk subculture tying itself to libertarianism because it historically presaged coming trends--BUT LIBERALISM?!! We ARE a socialist society and our two party system is the PASS AROUND THE TREASURY TO INSURE OUR CONTINUED POWER PARTY, and the SOCIALISM MANAGEMENT PARTY. To think that folk culture is still mired in an obsolete model of hoping that we BECOME socialist to "protect the worker" or whatever the motive may be seems such a waste of the best minds of the culture. If we are honest, I believe we would have to admit that the only other system that has a fighting chance of engendering any public interest is a reversion to monarchy. We have been completely sold over to the belief that government is the sole distributor of all the wants, needs, hopes, and dreams of the populace. It doesn't even take a TRAINED cynic to see the absurdity of choosing Lieberman to separate gore from clinton ethically. Lieberman's belief system is obviously empty enough to allow him to believe that what Clinton did was evil (Lying to the public and using his position of power and his charges to propagate those lies and undermine our system of information disemination) and yet take no ACTION on that belief. The true folk spirit doesn't take a side politically. It takes a side ethically and morally. The true folk spirit doesn't write propaganda, it strives for truth about the human condition. That's what make it ART and not propaganda. For example, the reason that Dylan's "Times They Are A Changin'" stands as art is that it works as well as the theme to a Bobby Kennedy civil rights drive as it would have for a Gingerich Contract for America drive. You guys regularly exhibit wonderful wit, wisdom, caring, and creditable emotion. But free thinking? I'm not sure this is the "FOLK" I knew. John |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:54 PM Spaw, I fear you're right; seems to be what elections are mostly about these days. |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:46 PM WS, your point about the method and the end result are well taken by me. I weary of how we trounce figures in the public eye for their personal lives in general. I'd much prefer to deal with Thomas and his lack of experience and legal viewpoints than whose pubic hair was on a coke can. Ever since Watergate we have this overwhelming need to dig into the personal lives of pols. Watergate was a crime. And, to quote Bill Maher, a blowjob is not a crime...or even if it is in some states, its not an impeachable offense. Watergate gave us a new breed of journalist which tried to emulate the in depth probing of their predecessors, but would go to any lengths to get a story. I certainly detested Bork's viewpoints, but his knowledge of Constitutional law was beyond question. We fought the viewpoint, but if he had won out, things would be different a bit, but at least I'd have the feeling I was listening to the opinion of an educated and knowledgable man. If we had fought Thomas on the same grounds, he would have been turned down......and I'm left with a man whose opinions I do not respect; not because of any moral issue, but simply on grounds of knowledge. I'm waiting now to hear all of the dirt that will be dug out on Lieberman and Cheney. Be assured that their political views will take a backseat to the first hint of some indiscretion. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:26 PM Sandy, the point I was making is that a LOT of the President's actions outlast him (or, eventually, her) by decades. It's an important job, for many reasons, not just the occasional Supreme Court nomination. Folks who use that as their sole criterion on election day are short-sighted, in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of either Bork (was "Borg" an intentional misspelling?) or Thomas. But I also am not fond of the way in which people tried to derail Thomas's nomination. Perhaps YOU (DougR's point is well taken) "won" with Bork because the objections to his nomination were essentially honest -- it was his ideology that people found objectionable, and that turned out to be the basis of the Senate's decision not to consent to his nomination. In Thomas's case, people objected to his ideology (and, to a lesser extent, his relatively modest legal accomplishments), but they tried to derail the nomination with a smear on the man's character -- whether or not you believed Anita Hill, she never had a case that would be considered adequately supported by people who hadn't already made up their minds. It was a dishonest smear campaign, which reflected negatively on the people who mounted it. Whether or not I think Thomas was the best person for the job, I'm glad he ultimately survived the process and got the job, if only because I really detest the way people tried to block it. |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Art Thieme Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:39 PM Doug, You're probably a nice guy even though you're wrong. Some of my best friends are wrong--- Art |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:15 PM Sandy: True, the Senate's lack of approval of Bork is viewed by Liberals as a victory, and the appointment of Thomas as a defeat. That is not the view of 100% of the people in this forum, however. The use of the word, "we", as you use it in your posting is a bit strong. Had you used the word majority, which I'm sure reflects the feelings of the majority in the Mudcat, then I'm sure you would have been correct. My opinion only, of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Art Thieme Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:07 PM Mark, Thanks. I'm still hopin' I'll be around when you drive through. Lemme know. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Art Thieme Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:05 PM My 4th verse above needs a second line: Here's an idea for one:
So here's what to do to get a good guy to be your prez, Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Gore and Lieberman From: Mark Clark Date: 09 Aug 00 - 12:54 PM Art, that's wonderful! Why don't you run for president? I'd go ring doorbells for you anytime. - Mark |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: BUDDHIST TALKIN BLUES FOR THE NEW MILLENI From: Art Thieme Date: 09 Aug 00 - 12:46 PM A new song that just erupted from the depths of my whatever: The Buddhist Talkin' Blues For The New Millenium by Art Thieme -- August 9, 2000 -- 11:45 in the morning.
If you wanna vote for Bush and don't really want to do it,
Remember back in '63,
You think ya got a good one in and a bad one out,
So here's what to do for a good guy to be your prez,
Now some folks say while they analyze our Eagle,
'Cause a vote ain't much but it's all we've got,
We could turn into animals like old Ted Kazinsky,
So what's the answer to my diatribe? (END OF MY "BUDDHIST TALKIN BLUES FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM"-----by Art Thieme----August 9th, 2000 -- 11:30 in the morning. Central daylight time.) |
| Share Thread: |